UK General Election Day and Results: 'Parliament is Well Hung.' - Polidicks

There are times I wish Corbyn would just say: "If we were nuked, I would use nuclear weapons in return". It would stop all the questions on nukes - but Corbyn can't honestly say that because it is not what he believes.

[QUOTE=Mythman;52305310]There are times I wish Corbyn would just say: "If we were nuked, I would use nuclear weapons in return". It would stop all the questions on nukes - but Corbyn can't honestly say that because it is not what he believes.[/QUOTE] It's not like in such an event Britain's nukes wouldn't just be a drop in the ocean anyway.

[QUOTE=Mythman;52305310]There are times I wish Corbyn would just say: "If we were nuked, I would use nuclear weapons in return". It would stop all the questions on nukes - but Corbyn can't honestly say that because it is not what he believes.[/QUOTE] Sometimes I wish it too, but you also have to respect him for holding his principles. It means you can trust in what he says. Honestly though, I am horrified by how blood thirsty this country is. With Brexit and now this, I am beginning to seriously consider leaving to go somewhere more principled. I had an image of what this country is and what it's values are and it's fading. Part of this comes from growing up in a Christian family, learning values that I thought they believed in, only to find their real belief systems are very much like this Question Time audience.

[QUOTE=Cyberdan;52305267]I completely understand why we need the nuclear deterrent but actually using it isn't really an important question because that would only happen if nukes are on the way: in that case we're all dead anyway[/QUOTE] That's not the point. A deterrent's ability to actually deter rests on its credibility, and its credibility is gone at the point at which a Prime Minister openly states he wouldn't use it.

[QUOTE=Shadow801;52305371]Sometimes I wish it too, but you also have to respect him for holding his principles. It means you can trust in what he says. [/QUOTE] I can certainly respect Jeremy Corbyn and I believe he is principled & truthful - but that is part of the problem. When he has said in the past that he wouldn't use nuclear weapons, the voters believe him. The debate today reinforced that and it will remain a sore point for Labour. Unfortunately, the newspapers and tv questions in the next few crucial days will be focused on these issues. If Corbyn could have been more pragmatic and said "I would nuke back as an absolute last resort" or even truthfully said "Labour party policy is to nuke in retaliation", the coverage would be about the nurse & disabled lady attacking Theresa May.

The whole situation of discussing nukes is a loaded question, not saying that it's a bad question to be answered but almost anyway that you try to answer that question it's either "Yes, we will send a nuke and kill tens of thousands of their lives and ruin their country" or "No, we will all die by the tens of thousands and re-build our ruins". Like seriously, two ruined countries and their citizens all because we decided that nukes we're a good thing. That's my opinion of the thing though, I'd expect whoever is the leader and given that we still have nuclear weapons to our disposal that if we had to use them, then we would expect them to be used because they're very expensive weapons to maintain too.

Isn't the issue more that we are voting for someone who will uphold our wishes as a nation rather than their own wishes though? Otherwise how can we criticise any party on their policies?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52303818]Half of households in the UK receive more in benefits than they paid in taxes.[/QUOTE] "i don't know how income-bracket taxes work!!!", the post. [editline]2nd June 2017[/editline] i wonder why people on benefits (usually on or below the poverty line) don't pay much tax :thinking:

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305509]Isn't the issue more that we are voting for someone who will uphold our wishes as a nation rather than their own wishes though? Otherwise how can we criticise any party on their policies?[/QUOTE] Well that is what one would hope with any candidate in any election, as to whether they would do that is another matter.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305513]"i don't know how income-bracket taxes work!!!", the post. [editline]2nd June 2017[/editline] i wonder why people on benefits (usually on or below the poverty line) don't pay much tax :thinking:[/QUOTE] half of the population!! :thinking: half the population are being propped up by the other half!!

The fact the question-askers focused on nukes must have been a really shit point for Corbyn. Literally one of his few huge weaknesses and one that people feel disproportionately compassionate about given how little it matters. I wish that hadn't come up.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305540]half of the population!! :thinking:[/QUOTE] This :thinking: emoticon is getting annoying. Especially when one side uses it when they don't know shit.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305540]half of the population!! :thinking:[/QUOTE] source pls

[QUOTE=Jon27;52305555]The fact the question-askers focused on nukes must have been a really shit point for Corbyn. Literally one of his few huge weaknesses and one that people feel disproportionately compassionate about given how little it matters. I wish that hadn't come up.[/QUOTE] have you got a link to say how little it matters to the public and not yourself? [editline]2nd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=lxmach1;52305561]source pls[/QUOTE] keep up pal, the link is in my post if you would have read it!

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305540]half of the population!! :thinking: half the population are being propped up by the other half!![/QUOTE] taxes are cumulative. just because individual families do not pay as much tax as they receive in benefits does not mean that we are not making enough tax as a whole. apply some fucking thought to the garbage you spout, or don't bother spouting it at all.

[QUOTE=Uber22;52305558]This :thinking: emoticon is getting annoying. Especially when one side uses it when they don't know shit.[/QUOTE] lol, It's not my statistic, it's the ONS.GOV.UK statistic. how annoying is that! [editline]2nd June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305573]taxes are cumulative. just because individual families do not pay as much tax as they receive in benefits does not mean that we are not making enough tax as a whole. apply some fucking thought to the garbage you spout, or don't bother spouting it at all.[/QUOTE] I posted an ONS.GOV.UK statistic, live with the facts before spouting.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305582]lol, It's not my statistic, it's the ONS.GOV.UK statistic. how annoying is that![/QUOTE] lol from your own source [quote]Overall, in the financial year ending (fye) 2016 (April 2015 to March 2016), there were 50.5% of all households receiving more in benefits (including in-kind benefits such as education) than they paid in taxes (direct and indirect) (Figure 8). This equates to 13.7 million households and continues the downward trend seen since fye 2011 (53.5%) but remains above the proportions seen before the economic downturn. [/quote] [quote]Looking at this figure separately for non-retired households and retired households, the trend seen for non-retired households mirrors that for all households, except that lower percentages of non-retired households receive more in benefits than they pay in taxes, 37.2% in fye 2016. [/quote] [quote][B]In contrast, in fye 2016, of all retired households 88.0% received more in benefits than they paid in taxes, reflecting the classification of the State Pension as a cash benefit in this analysis. A retired household is defined as a household where the income of retired household members accounts for the majority of the total household gross income. This figure is lower than its fye 2010 peak of 92.4% and the lowest since fye 2001.[/B][/quote] huh!!! so it's majority old people!!! lazy, barebone bastards!!!! we should stop propping them up!!!! should just die in the street if they cant afford to work... you know fuck-all about the shite you post, don't you? you just look for the buzzword bits and post it mindlessly.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305567]have you got a link to say how little it matters to the public and not yourself? [editline]2nd June 2017[/editline] keep up pal, the link is in my post if you would have read it![/QUOTE] It is counting state pension as a benefit, of course the number is going to be high. In non-retired households the number is 37% which just happens to be close to the percentage of households below the poverty line.

just down from that highlighted bit too, bohemian. [quote][B]5. Households with main earner between 25 and 64 paid more in taxes than they received in benefits [/B]The effects of taxes and benefits are felt differently by households in different age groups (Figure 9). On average, in the financial year ending (fye) 2016 (April 2015 to March 2016), households with a household head aged between 25 and 64 paid more in taxes (direct and indirect) than they received in benefits (including in-kind benefits), whilst the reverse was true for those aged 65 and over, with those in their late 40s on average paying the most in taxes (£18,300). Households where the main earner was in their early 40s, whilst also paying a lot in taxes (£17,800 on average), also received the highest average amount in benefits of those below State Pension age (£15,400), due mainly to the benefit in kind received from state-provided education (£6,900). For households with where the main earner is aged 65 and over, the State Pension and Pension Credit was the largest component of the benefits received, followed by the benefit derived from the National Health Service, which becomes increasingly important as age increases. Those households with heads under the age of 25 were the other age group who, on average, received more in benefits than they paid in taxes.[/quote] you don't know [I]jack[/I], mate.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305594]lol from your own source huh!!! so it's majority old people!!! lazy, barebone bastards!!!! we should stop propping them up!!!! should just die in the street if they cant afford to work... you know fuck-all about the shite you post, don't you? you just look for the buzzword bits and post it mindlessly.[/QUOTE] uh? where did I say at any point we should stop these benefits, who is talking shite exactly??

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305610]uh? where did I say at any point we should stop these benefits, who is talking shite exactly??[/QUOTE] you certainly implied it with your "half of the population is being propped up by the other half". b/c unlike you i think in logical steps. youre saying that it's a negative thing, and.. you know, that generally implies stopping negative things.. not only that but now youre trying to misdirect because your own source called you wrong. nah, mate. nah. don't try that. admit you fucked up.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305605]just down from that highlighted bit too, bohemian. you don't know [I]jack[/I], mate.[/QUOTE] if you go back to my post you will see that I merely gave you a statement of fact with a link? what don't I know?

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305610]uh? where did I say at any point we should stop these benefits, who is talking shite exactly??[/QUOTE] You. You're talking a fat loaf like you always do. You even post shit that proves you wrong because you just skim it

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305617]you certainly implied it with your "half of the population is being propped up by the other half". b/c unlike you i think in logical steps. youre saying that it's a negative thing, and.. you know, that generally implies stopping negative things.. not only that but now youre trying to misdirect because your own source called you wrong. nah, mate. nah. don't try that. admit you fucked up.[/QUOTE] it is a fact that the half the population receive more benefits than they pay in, who the fuck is making up the deficit, stop being stupid, you are embarrassing yourself.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305620]if you go back to my post you will see that I merely gave you a statement of fact with a link? what don't I know?[/QUOTE] you stated that half of the population was being propped up by the other half with heavy implication (like typical right wing rhetoric) that it's all just lazy idleboned basteds. you wouldn't come out and frankly say this because it paints [i]you[/i] as a bit of a basted for saying it, but really let's be frank you knew exactly what you were implying and exactly what you meant. what other meaning could you have by posting a source, screaming that half the population props up the other half, and then proceeding to be sarky with people who take issue with the tories' "solutions" to this nonexistent problem??? were you really just posting an article with an intent to discourse about its content? b/c all you did was post an article, rephrase it in buzzwords, and ignored its content and how its content proves conservative rhetoric (lazy young people who don't want to work) wrong.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;52305621]You. You're talking a fat loaf like you always do. You even post shit that proves you wrong because you just skim it[/QUOTE] typical of you to ignore more facts, stop being so emotive, it's silly.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305629]it is a fact that the half the population receive more benefits than they pay in, who the fuck is making up the deficit, stop being stupid, you are embarrassing yourself.[/QUOTE] [quote][b]5. Households with main earner between 25 and 64 paid more in taxes than they received in benefits[/b][/quote] Taxes are [b]cumulative[/b] and not individual. just because half is not paying [b]AS MUCH[/b] (READ: [b]THEY STILL PAY [i]SOME TAX[/i][/b], JUST NOT AS MUCH AS THE REST.) tax does not mean the deficit is not being made up fucking apply some logic. i dropped out of high school and i know this shit. fuck me.

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305631]you stated that half of the population was being propped up by the other half with heavy implication (like typical right wing rhetoric) that it's all just lazy idleboned basteds. you wouldn't come out and frankly say this because it paints [i]you[/i] as a bit of a basted for saying it, but really let's be frank you knew exactly what you were implying and exactly what you meant. what other meaning could you have by posting a source, screaming that half the population props up the other half, and then proceeding to be sarky with people who take issue with the tories' "solutions" to this nonexistent problem??? were you really just posting an article with an intent to discourse about its content? b/c all you did was post an article, rephrase it in buzzwords, and ignored its content and how its content proves conservative rhetoric (lazy young people who don't want to work) wrong.[/QUOTE] I posted some facts that might make you realise that the govt aren't a gravy train with endless funds to prop up the needy but you are too accusational to understand, or too dumb maybe.

[QUOTE=UK Bohemian;52305655]I posted some facts that might make you realise that the govt aren't a gravy train with endless funds to prop up the needy but you are too accusational to understand, or too dumb maybe.[/QUOTE] You don't even seem to understand the facts you posted that's the hilarious thing

[QUOTE=Pissfuck;52305644]Taxes are [b]cumulative[/b] and not individual. just because half is not paying [b]AS MUCH[/b] (READ: [b]THEY STILL PAY [i]SOME TAX[/i][/b], JUST NOT AS MUCH AS THE REST.) tax does not mean the deficit is not being made up fucking apply some logic. i dropped out of high school and i know this shit. fuck me.[/QUOTE] lol, no wonder you dropped out. [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitposting again" - Reagy))[/highlight]