UKMT General Elextravaganza 2017: Lord Buckethead would have won

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT General Elextravaganza 2017: Lord Buckethead would have won

«‹›695 »

What is the best flav... you all know what this question is: This poll is closed.
Labour	907	49.92%
Theresa May Team (Conservative)	48	2.64%
Liberal Democrats	31	1.71%
UKIP	13	0.72%
Plaid Cymru	25	1.38%
Green	22	1.21%
Scottish Socialist Party	12	0.66%
Scottish Conservative Party	1	0.06%
Scottish National Party	59	3.25%
Some Kind of Irish Unionist	4	0.22%
Alliance / Irish Nonsectarian	3	0.17%
Some Kind of Irish Nationalist	36	1.98%
Misc. Far Left Trots	35	1.93%
Misc. Far Right Fash	8	0.44%
Monster Raving Loony	49	2.70%
Space Navies Party	39	2.15%
Independent / Single Issue	2	0.11%
Can't Vote	188	10.35%
Won't Vote	8	0.44%
Spoiled Ballot	15	0.83%
Pissflaps	312	17.17%
Total:	1817 votes

[Edit Poll (moderators only)]

Kokoro Wish: Jul 23, 2007; Post? What post? Oh wow.
I had nothing to do with THAT.

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Wasn't there a fanciful plan during the cold war to have nuclear missiles capable of doing this? ICBM interception wasn't really possible with conventional missiles but with a nuke you just need to detonate it near enough the incoming warhead to knock it off course, render it incapable of detonating or just destroy outright.

I might have imagined that though. "Fanciful cold war nuke ideas" were ten a penny back then, and all equally laughable.

What's everyone's favorite pie-in-the-sky nuke idea? I quite like the "let's put nuclear land mines in east Europe" one

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 07:36

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Strom Cuzewon posted:

"Strong and stable" does sound like the slogan on a packet of viagra.

If your Tory government lasts for more than 5 years please consult a doctor (if you can find one lol)

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:22

HJB: Feb 16, 2011; I can't get enough of are Dan

He stirs...

(the look is the best look)

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:24

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Jose posted:

i liked the bloke who was of the belief that if corbyn launched nukes it would stop the ones already on their way to us

For the third time:

The point is that a deterrent fails if the other party knows you won't use it in any circumstance.

How is this a difficult concept to understand ?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:25

Sanitary Naptime: May 29, 2006; MIWK!

Pissflaps posted:

For the third time:

The point is that a deterrent fails if the other party knows you won't use it in any circumstance.

How is this a difficult concept to understand ?

But the other party doesn't know, he's not said that he will or won't use it, which is just as effective.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:26

Pretty good: Apr 16, 2007

Pissflaps posted:

For the third time:

The point is that a deterrent fails if the other party knows you won't use it in any circumstance.

How is this a difficult concept to understand ?

It's cool how a hypothetical belligerent foreign power would be simultaneously willing to launch a nuclear strike and necessarily 100% trusting of a foreign head of state's public policy on nuclear retaliation

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:27

tithin: Nov 14, 2003; [Grandmaster Tactician]

Sanitary Naptime posted:

But the other party doesn't know, he's not said that he will or won't use it, which is just as effective.

Remember who you're arguing with, Simba.

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:27

Sanitary Naptime: May 29, 2006; MIWK!

tithin posted:

Remember who you're arguing with, Simba.

I can't resist the flaps.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:29

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

HAT FETISH posted:

It's cool how a hypothetical belligerent foreign power would be simultaneously willing to launch a nuclear strike and necessarily 100% trusting of a foreign head of state's public policy on nuclear retaliation

Sanitary Naptime posted:

But the other party doesn't know, he's not said that he will or won't use it, which is just as effective.

It's better that a foreign belligerent knows you will than has cause to gamble that you might not.

Given Corbyn's past on the subject, in the absence of clarification one would assume he would not retaliate - it's the position Corbyn supporters themselves share with him, surely?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:31

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Who even wants to nuke us, and why would they risk it?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:33

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Namtab posted:

Who even wants to nuke us, and why would they risk it?

Those are questions you should be asking when considering whether to have a deterrent at all, by when it should be used. Renewing Trident is in the manifesto.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:34

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Pissflaps posted:

Those are questions you should be asking when considering whether to have a deterrent at all, by when it should be used. Renewing Trident is in the manifesto.

Well if it's in the manifesto then I guess well still have a deterrent. Bearing in mind there are options for the captains beyond immediate retaliation or do not use the nukes.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:36

Pretty good: Apr 16, 2007

Pissflaps posted:

It's better that a foreign belligerent knows you will than has cause to gamble that you might not.

Given Corbyn's past on the subject, in the absence of clarification one would assume he would not retaliate - it's the position Corbyn supporters themselves share with him, surely?

Again: It's cool how a hypothetical belligerent foreign power would necessarily be 100% trusting of a foreign head of state's public policy on nuclear retaliation. The mere possession of nuclear offensive capability is the deterrent; anti-nuke rhetoric makes for good optics at home, but on the international stage, it must always be treated as a potential smokescreen.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:37

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

*in my Theresa may voice* I love nukes *sweats hornily* I would wipe out all life on earth in a heartbeat with our strong, stable nukes.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:39

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Namtab posted:

Well if it's in the manifesto then I guess well still have a deterrent. Bearing in mind there are options for the captains beyond immediate retaliation or do not use the nukes.

It's not a deterrent if the prime minister isn't prepared to authorise their use. I understand the options are there for the prime minister to choose from, and confirmed in the letters of last resort.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:40

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Question: why hasn't Germany or Brazil or Iceland been nuked yet? They don't have nukes, so I don't understand why nobody has nuked them safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't retaliate.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:41

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

HAT FETISH posted:

Again: It's cool how a hypothetical belligerent foreign power would necessarily be 100% trusting of a foreign head of state's public policy on nuclear retaliation. The mere possession of nuclear offensive capability is the deterrent; anti-nuke rhetoric makes for good optics at home, but on the international stage, it must always be treated as a potential smokescreen.

I've already answered this.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:41

Gyro Zeppeli: Jul 19, 2012; sure hope no-one throws me off a bridge

I'm glad we have nukes because I live about 20 miles from Coulport. So if the nukes do start flying, I'm mercifully gone ASAP. Enjoy your radioactive wasteland while I'm nothing but a scorched shadow.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:41

Sanitary Naptime: May 29, 2006; MIWK!

Pissflaps posted:

It's better that a foreign belligerent knows you will than has cause to gamble that you might not.

Given Corbyn's past on the subject, in the absence of clarification one would assume he would not retaliate - it's the position Corbyn supporters themselves share with him, surely?

Is the chance that he wouldn't retaliate a risk worth taking for the hypothetical foreign belligerent? It's a gamble where the negative outcome being a possibility massively outweighs the benefits of the positive.

He had a really hard line to take between lusting for megadeath and being branded a liar, or saying he wouldn't use it and being accused of being hopeless at national security, and he took the best possible route through it. Granted it didn't come across as well as it maybe could have, but the deterrent still stands as such, and he can't be branded a liar over the issue.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:42

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Question: why hasn't Germany or Brazil or Iceland been nuked yet? They don't have nukes, so I don't understand why nobody has nuked them safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't retaliate.

Germany and Iceland are in NATO.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:42

Hoops: Aug 19, 2005; A Black Mark For Retarded Posting

Where do you think a nuclear deterrent conversation is going to get you? What's your goal from this posting endeavour?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:43

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Pissflaps posted:

Germany and Iceland are in NATO.

Oh right. Are we in NATO? Maybe we don't a leader willing to launch nukes if we're in NATO.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:43

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

Oh right. Are we in NATO? Maybe we don't a leader willing to launch nukes if we're in NATO.

You're asking me if the UK is in NATO?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:44

Sanitary Naptime: May 29, 2006; MIWK!

Gyro Zeppeli posted:

I'm glad we have nukes because I live about 20 miles from Coulport. So if the nukes do start flying, I'm mercifully gone ASAP. Enjoy your radioactive wasteland while I'm nothing but a scorched shadow.

I'm 22 miles away, does this also fall under the blissfully quick circle?

Paisley already looks post apocalyptic anyway so if it's not instantaneous I probably won't notice until the radiation sickness sets in.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:44

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Pissflaps posted:

You're asking me if the UK is in NATO?

It was a rhetorical question. Of course we're in NATO, and by your admission nobody would nuke us because we're in NATO, so our deterrent works even if we don't have nukes or we have a leader not willing to use them.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:45

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Pissflaps posted:

It's not a deterrent if the prime minister isn't prepared to authorise their use. I understand the options are there for the prime minister to choose from, and confirmed in the letters of last resort.

But nobody except the pm knows what's in the letters, he could just say "give control to the yanks", who we know would do the nukes. It's still no safer for foreign states to nuke us in this hypothetical and unrealistic doomsday scenario.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:47

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

It was a rhetorical question. Of course we're in NATO, and by your admission nobody would nuke us because we're in NATO, so our deterrent works even if we don't have nukes or we have a leader not willing to use them.

If every NATO member adopted that attitude then there wouldnt be a NATO.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:48

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

just thought i'd share some awful, infuriating liberalism from this side of the atlantic

quote:

For Britain�s Labour Party, a Mild Defeat May Be Worst of All

By STEVEN ERLANGERJUNE 3, 2017

BIRMINGHAM, England � Birmingham Northfield, a modest residential area on the southwest border of England�s second-largest city, has backed the Labour candidate for Parliament the last 25 years. But in conversations along its main shopping street, a mixture of discount stores like Pound Store Plus and a Women�s Aid shop, it is not hard to detect the guilty temptation of voting Conservative as the June 8 election approaches � and the main problem bedeviling Labour.

�I�ve always been Labour, but people have lost trust in the current leader, Jeremy Corbyn, and I don�t know if he�s got the personality and strength to be a leader,� Dipak Desai, a teacher, said, echoing the sentiments of many others.

Districts like Northfield will help define not just the outcome of this strange British election, but the future of the Labour Party and its hard-left direction under Mr. Corbyn.

At the start of this snap election campaign, there were widespread predictions of a Conservative landslide behind Prime Minister Theresa May, and a correspondingly historic defeat for a Labour Party already split by deep, ideological divisions.
Continue reading the main story

But Mrs. May has run a rough, uncertain campaign, while Mr. Corbyn, beginning with low expectations, has had a good one. Although some Labour moderates privately hoped that a cataclysmic defeat would sweep him away, now it looks as if the party will do well enough to maintain its uneasy status quo, and Mr. Corbyn and his proto-Marxist program will survive.

For Corbynistas, as his staunch supporters are known, a vaguely successful, better-than-expected outcome is fine enough. But for Labour�s less ideological, more politically ambitious lawmakers, it would be nothing short of disaster, leaving them �to the thought of a decade out of power, of a whole career at Westminster without power,� said Tim Bale, a professor of politics at Queen Mary University of London.

�You would normally think that Labour, like the Tories, would want to win the next election,� said Tony Travers, a professor of government at the London School of Economics. �But Labour under its current leadership doesn�t see that as the overwhelming purpose. Rather, it is to keep the machine in the hands of Jeremy Corbyn or someone like him.�

Labour is suffering from a deep division between well-educated, globalized urbanites like Mr. Corbyn and its traditional white working-class constituents. Those voters supported Britain�s withdrawal from the European Union, known as �Brexit,� and could be tempted for the first time in generations to support a Tory on Thursday.

On a tactical level, there is also a split between a leadership that wants to build a left-wing social movement and those, including most of its elected legislators, who want to move to the center to try to win an election.

All these political stresses and strains are on display in Northfield. The area is about 86 percent white and mixed between urban and suburban. A third of its population lives in what are classified as �deprived� neighborhoods, and a third of its children live in poverty.

About 9 percent of the population is between 18 and 24, a group that tends to support Labour but typically has a low voter turnout. But about 15 percent are 65 or older, a population that votes in higher numbers and tends to favor the Tories.

The representative for Northfield, Richard Burden, who is no fan of Mr. Corbyn�s, won the seat in 1992 with a margin of just 630 votes. He beat back a major Conservative push in the last general election, just two years ago.

His main opposition is the Conservative candidate, Meg Powell-Chandler, a former adviser to former Prime Minister David Cameron, and the Tories smell victory. Last year, 62 percent of the district�s voters in the Brexit referendum chose to leave, including large numbers of Labour voters.

On paper, Northfield seems ripe for Conservative plucking. In 2015, Mr. Burden won with an advantage of only 2,509 votes over the Conservatives, while the candidate of the nationalist, anti-immigrant U.K. Independence Party got 7,106 votes.

In this election, UKIP is not running a candidate, Mrs. May is promising Brexit and most UKIP voters do not identify politically or culturally with Mr. Corbyn.

But Mrs. May has proved to be an inept retail politician, establishing little emotional rapport with voters and being mocked as �weak and wobbly� instead of the �strong and stable� image she has sought to project.

According to a variety of polls, Mr. Corbyn is attracting growing support by promoting a set of left-wing policies that promise more state money for nearly every social problem, from health to education. The policies include offering free tuition and renationalizing the railroads and water systems, while taxing corporations and the comparatively wealthy.

Mr. Burden is sounding a bit more confident. He is emphasizing local issues on the doorstep, he said, and �the importance of having a strong local voice to speak for the area, whoever is in Downing Street.�

He added that �people are understanding that Theresa May is not so strong and stable, and her policies on education and social care have caused outrage among some traditional Tory voters, and people are hearing what Jeremy Corbyn is saying, not just what people say about him.�

If the current polls that show Labour gaining hold up � which, in recent years, has not been a sure thing � Mr. Corbyn may well avoid the sort of electoral disaster that befell his predecessor, Ed Miliband, who resigned immediately after the resounding Labour defeat in 2015. That should be enough to keep him � and his policies � ruling Labour.

�There will be an attempt to keep Corbyn on board as leader,� said Steven Fielding, a professor of political history at the University of Nottingham. �Even more widely, there will be an attempt to keep the program he�s associated with.�

Labour is likely to lose, Mr. Fielding said. �But it all depends on how bad it is, and I don�t think it will be bad enough,� he continued. �There will be too many loopholes, so people can say, �O.K., Jeremy wasn�t popular, but the policies are fine.��

Part of Mr. Corbyn�s recovery in the polls comes from people who are opposed to �the system� and from younger voters. But many younger voters, like Catherine Pritchard, 22, do not vote, considering it �too confusing,� as she said, or useless. �They all lie,� she said of politicians.

Mr. Corbyn is doing a good job of holding on to voters who dislike him but like the Labour Party, and who are having doubts about Mrs. May. But that does nothing to resolve the underlying issues eroding the party, Mr. Bale said.

�Labour�s working class base is crumbling underneath it,� he said. �It�s shrinking anyway as the economy becomes more services and more middle class. And even in that shrinking part, views on immigration, law and order and education values are very different� from its better educated urbanite supporters.

There is �a deep structural problem for social democrats,� said Matthew Goodwin, a professor of politics at the University of Kent. The left, he said, �is now a movement that relies on a coalition of voters who think very differently about new identity issues of immigration, ethnic change and Europe.�

Professor Goodwin cited �a new urban middle class, broadly liberal and at ease with globalization and Europe and low-skilled service and manual workers anxious about ethnic change, opposed to transnational identities and with a premium on the nation state.�

The problem for Labour, he said, is that �these groups are essentially incompatible and their views can�t be reconciled.�

�Can Labour cobble these two groups together and find a more coherent agenda that allows them to win elections?� Professor Goodwin asked. �So far, they�re not pushing themselves out of their comfort zone.�

But in Northfield, for now, Brexit and Mr. Corbyn are much on people�s minds, which favors the Conservatives.

�When I was growing up, Birmingham was Labour,� said Gail Williams, 50. �But it�s shifting to the Tories.�

Ms. Williams, who voted for Brexit, said that though Mrs. May wasn�t perfect, �she�s taking the country in the right way, and I think she�ll take us to the Brexit we voted for.�

�I�ve been Labour all my life,� she said. �But I don�t like where it�s going, and I don�t trust Jeremy Corbyn to lead the country.�

HARD LEFT!!!! PROTO-MARXIST!!!! CORBYNISTAS!!!!

:qq:

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:48

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Hoops posted:

Where do you think a nuclear deterrent conversation is going to get you? What's your goal from this posting endeavour?

Seducing pissflaps, personally

Pissflaps posted:

If every NATO member adopted that attitude then there would be a NATO.

I'm glad

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:49

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Namtab posted:

But nobody except the pm knows what's in the letters, he could just say "give control to the yanks", who we know would do the nukes. It's still no safer for foreign states to nuke us in this hypothetical and unrealistic doomsday scenario.

Do you think the chances of Corbyn authorising a retaliatory strike are more or less than his predecessors ?

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:49

namesake: Jun 19, 2006; "When I was a girl, around 12 or 13, I had a fantasy that I'd grow up to marry Captain Scarlet, but he'd be busy fighting the Mysterons so I'd cuckold him with the sexiest people I could think of - Nigel Mansell, Pat Sharp and Mr. Blobby."

Ardent Communist posted:

drat it. I thought that's what it was, but then I figured that since there's no land border with the rest of em, it must have been scotland. My bad, thanks for the education. Is it particularly offensive? I kind of like it as an expression, but being in canada I don't really come across many proud irishmen. Maybe my loss.

lol no one cares about its historical use, you just seemed to think it was something to get offended over!

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

What's everyone's favorite pie-in-the-sky nuke idea? I quite like the "let's put nuclear land mines in east Europe" one

The spaceship which accelerated by exploding nuclear devices behind it or using nukes for macro landscaping.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:50

Microplastics: Jul 6, 2007; It's what's for dinner.

Pissflaps posted:

If every NATO member adopted that attitude then there would be a NATO.

But Corbyn isn't running for prime minister of every NATO member.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:50

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Pissflaps posted:

If every NATO member adopted that attitude then there would be a NATO.

Who do you think is going to threaten the UK such that nuclear weapons would be a necessary deterrent? The Argentine junta? Seems to me like the megalomanic delusions of a long-fallen empire

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:50

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

JeremoudCorbynejad posted:

But Corbyn isn't running for prime minister of every NATO member.

I don't follow your point.

Also I meant to say wouldn't, not would.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:51

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

icantfindaname posted:

Who do you think is going to threaten the UK such that nuclear weapons would be a necessary deterrent? Seems to me like the megalomanic delusions of a long-fallen empire

Again, that's a question when debating their renewal, not use. The renewal question is settled.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:51

Namtab: Feb 22, 2010

Pissflaps posted:

Do you think the chances of Corbyn authorising a retaliatory strike are more or less than his predecessors ?

I don't know, given that we don't know what decision any of his predecessors made. Maybe nobody wanted a retaliatory strike. Plus you seem to be framing this as a retaliation vs non retaliation argument, where in fact there are more options.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:54

Sanitary Naptime: May 29, 2006; MIWK!

Come on Pissy, you know we've done all this before, nothing has changed.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:54

Pretty good: Apr 16, 2007

Pissflaps posted:

I've already answered this.

I didn't ask you a question you prat.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:55

Pissflaps: Oct 20, 2002; by VideoGames

Namtab posted:

I don't know, given that we don't know what decision any of his predecessors made. Maybe nobody wanted a retaliatory strike.

So we've got dozens of the usual suspect Corbynites defending his position by explaining that they wouldn't want a retaliatory strike because it's pointless anyway.

But you want me to believe his position on authorising such a strike is as ambiguous as anybody else's?

Horseshit.

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:55

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 14, 2024 07:36

josh04: Oct 19, 2008; "THE FLASH IS THE REASON
TO RACE TO THE THEATRES"
_{This title contains sponsored content.}

HJB posted:

He stirs...

(the look is the best look)

# ? Jun 3, 2017 10:56

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > UKMT General Elextravaganza 2017: Lord Buckethead would have won

«‹›695 »