UK Trident vote today

[Giancarlo]

yes, it can be read in different ways. however, the fact that podemos is much larger than the PSOE, and is gaining in members, whereas the PSOE is losing them, and the fact that candidates it backs run several major cities, including madrid and barcelona, suggest that they are likely to do better in the future. the underlying situation, i.e. the lost decade or more - we'll see - and the continuing high unemployment is likely to aid non-mainstream parties. the fact that the mainstream parties appear to have no real solutions to these problems will help the non-mainstream ones still further.

Now since you love being a wikipedia drunkard... here is wikipedia for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2016

Podemos lost -3.3% of the vote in contrast to the prior election. This isn't some small drop. It's actually quite significant in terms of electoral influences, and it's expected to decline even further. The fact is Podemos grossly underperformed in the 2016 Election and were expected to take second place. They did not. Exit polling stated they did. But they failed even after moderating as a party. They are NOT far left wing. They are center-left.

PSOE has more votes in the last election. Almost 400,000 more votes than Podemos in the last election.

The PP gained 4.3% of votes in contrast to the prior election, with nearly 2.9 million more than Podemos. This is a significant margin. People are flocking back to the two centrist establishment parties.

These are FACTS. Go ahead and try disputing it with your more of your supported bull****. BTW, we are also forgetting about center-right Ciudadanos which essentially aligns itself with the PP, which has a pretty big chunk of votes too for a fourth party.

[Giancarlo]

well, of course the relationship between local and central government is important. spain is quite decentralised. local politics gives new parties a chance at power, to test out radical policies and see what works and what doesn't; it also allows them to gain experience, and to build up a base that can be used to help the party at other levels.

what i mean is that most people with fond memories of franco support PP, and that leaves little space for parties further to the right.

likewise, i'm saying that the PSOE has a photogenic leader at present but that he hasn't helped it much.

He has steadied the ship. Pedro Sanchez is better than any of the crap you have in your country and the PSOE will rise in the future because they are truly rebuilding the party.

By the way, the so called "radical parties" were not successful in the last election. You're stupid, reactionary and childish.

You sit here and try to claim you know more about my own country than I do. If you ask any Spaniard asides from me, they'll tell you the establishment won in the last election and seems to be resurgent.

[Giancarlo]

So after I just handed your ass to you once again, where did I lie?

[notyoueither]

it is certainly not western policy to use nuclear weapons should the baltic states be attacked. that is why conventional forces exist.

and while i think that boris johnson will not make a great foreign secretary, i doubt that he is going to go on many 'adventures', never mind start world war three. or perhaps that's not what you mean. it can be quite hard to understand your posts due to all the blather; but then you clearly don't understand mine, so i suppose fair's fair.

Aww, Muffin. I'm merely trying to clear up your misunderstanding of history and NATO policy. No need to be a complete dolt about it.

What you seem to lack is an understanding that MAD assumes that any conventional conflict in Europe will lead to nukes and escalation. That's because one side or the other usually comes out the loser in conventional warfare, you see. Then, wait for it, the loser reaches for tactical nuclear weapons. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's when things go very bad, very quickly. So, no, nukes do not get rolled out over the Baltic States, per se, they get rolled out as a consequence of a conventional war in Europe. At least that's the understanding of all the adults in the room. There, clear now, dear?

And I meant Putin when I said Boris, but thanks for proving how much of a sack of **** you are in discussions to leap to the ridiculous conclusion that I meant the mop haired one.

is russia really the danger now?

I'd say that a Russia that attacks a NATO member is a danger.

[C0ckney]

YOu're a horrible poster and I've asked numerous times for you to prove where I said anything about the votes being related between IU and Podemos. You cannot prove I did so you are now lying. If lying was a banable offense, you would have been out of here pages ago. You have not once backed up anything you have said. Not once. I've provided several articles in this site, and your argument is based purely on your word.

look, i know english that isn't your first language - although one would expect someone who has lived in an english speaking country for 10 years+ to have better grasp of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions, make fewer mistakes, etc. - but this really shouldn't be beyond you. you said that podemos were similar to IU; i pointed out that they were not and gave reasons, including the difference in votes. it was i who made the point about votes. ¿Comprendes, imbécil?

Now since you love being a wikipedia drunkard... here is wikipedia for you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_general_election,_2016

Podemos lost -3.3% of the vote in contrast to the prior election. This isn't some small drop. It's actually quite significant in terms of electoral influences, and it's expected to decline even further. The fact is Podemos grossly underperformed in the 2016 Election and were expected to take second place. They did not. Exit polling stated they did. But they failed even after moderating as a party. They are NOT far left wing. They are center-left.

PSOE has more votes in the last election. Almost 400,000 more votes than Podemos in the last election.

The PP gained 4.3% of votes in contrast to the prior election, with nearly 2.9 million more than Podemos. This is a significant margin. People are flocking back to the two centrist establishment parties.

These are FACTS. Go ahead and try disputing it with your more of your supported bull****. BTW, we are also forgetting about center-right Ciudadanos which essentially aligns itself with the PP, which has a pretty big chunk of votes too for a fourth party.

well done, you have managed to do some research and confirmed the facts that i was referring to all along. if you click on the parties on the wikipage you will find that i was right about the membership figures too. next time you want to confirm well known facts that i refer to, just do a search rather than demand that i use google for you.

as for the interpretation, that is a matter of opinion about which people can disagree. now that you have acquainted yourself with the results, you can see what i base my opinion on. if you want to remind yourself of what that is and finally respond to some of the points i made, then feel free to go through my posts in this thread. when doing so, you will also see that i referred to ciudadanos, albeit indirectly, in post #152.

He has steadied the ship. Pedro Sanchez is better than any of the crap you have in your country and the PSOE will rise in the future because they are truly rebuilding the party.

By the way, the so called "radical parties" were not successful in the last election. You're stupid, reactionary and childish.

You sit here and try to claim you know more about my own country than I do. If you ask any Spaniard asides from me, they'll tell you the establishment won in the last election and seems to be resurgent.

i have spanish friends, and there is a diversity of opinion among them about the political situation there. this is entirely unsurprising because such things are matters of opinion. i have presented mine. you have a different opinion to me, and that's fine, but for some reason you cannot handle anyone looking at the same facts and coming to a different conclusion; nor can you debate in a decent and honest manner. very little has changed in that respect since you joined this forum.

[C0ckney]

Aww, Muffin. I'm merely trying to clear up your misunderstanding of history and NATO policy. No need to be a complete dolt about it.

What you seem to lack is an understanding that MAD assumes that any conventional conflict in Europe will lead to nukes and escalation. That's because one side or the other usually comes out the loser in conventional warfare, you see. Then, wait for it, the loser reaches for tactical nuclear weapons. Sorry to burst your bubble, but that's when things go very bad, very quickly. So, no, nukes do not get rolled out over the Baltic States, per se, they get rolled out as a consequence of a conventional war in Europe. At least that's the understanding of all the adults in the room. There, clear now, dear?

no, this is what you said:

That's funny, because my views ('we' will use nukes to defend NATO and each and every member) has been policy since about 1950.

i really don't understand why people keep trying to lie about what is written on the internet. we can all read it for goodness sake.

if what you say is true, that any conflict in europe would inevitably lead to nuclear war, then why did anyone bother with conventional forces at all? but while you ponder that one, it is time that i told you something, as you appear to have become befuddled: the cold war is over. let me repeat: the cold war is over. you can come out of your bunker now. the cold war is over, and the thinking that obtained during the same is obsolete. the russians are not coming nor are there any reds under the bed.

And I meant Putin when I said Boris, but thanks for proving how much of a sack of **** you are in discussions to leap to the ridiculous conclusion that I meant the mop haired one.

and so we come full circle to the question that no one has yet been able to answer: why is putin going to invade?

[C0ckney]

to put it another way, why should we spend billions of pounds to counter a threat that may have existed 30 years ago but no longer does?

[Aeson]

The threat of war has existed throughout history, obviously wars still happen, and it's extremely unlikely wars are not going to happen in the future. Nuclear weapons go a long way to ensure that those who have nuclear weapons don't have to worry about significant war on their own soil.

[C0ckney]

well, by that logic every country should have nuclear weapons.

[notyoueither]

no, this is what you said:

i really don't understand why people keep trying to lie about what is written on the internet. we can all read it for goodness sake.

Stop being a raging twot! I spelled it out for you! Conventional leads to nuclear in Europe! That is and was the fvcking thinking for half a century you blinding idiot! And it kept the fvcking peace!

if what you say is true, that any conflict in europe would inevitably lead to nuclear war, then why did anyone bother with conventional forces at all? but while you ponder that one, it is time that i told you something, as you appear to have become befuddled: the cold war is over. let me repeat: the cold war is over. you can come out of your bunker now. the cold war is over, and the thinking that obtained during the same is obsolete. the russians are not coming nor are there any reds under the bed.

The cold war may very well be over, but in case you haven't noticed there's an heir to the Soviet nuclear arsenal and he's been displaying a worrying habit of acting like the next Russian Czar. Why is it you rabid lefties from old conveniently forget everything that the Soviets and now the Russians did and are doing? It's going on in this bloody minute, you simpering apologist for any empire other than Britain's.

As for why we had large conventional forces, that would be another discussion entirely, and a nice attempt to obfuscate. The fact remains that nuclear weapons have been the guarantor of peace in Europe for over half a century. Why is that you don't like peace so much? I'm fvcking delirious with joy they didn't shove a rifle in my hands and send me over there to fix yet more of your fvckups!

and so we come full circle to the question that no one has yet been able to answer: why is putin going to invade?

Don't know, you raging moron! Why did he invade the last couple of countries he has? Fvck man, he's invaded as many European countries as Khrushchev, but you're very relaxed about it. Why is that? Do you welcome the master who is not a Yank or a capitalist?

[notyoueither]

Don't know, you raging moron! Why did he invade the last couple of countries he has? Fvck man, he's invaded as many European countries as Khrushchev, but you're very relaxed about it. Why is that? Do you welcome the master who is not a Yank or a capitalist?

Or maybe 'they' went to Eton and that sticks in your craw?

[Aeson]

well, by that logic every country should have nuclear weapons.

No. By that logic every country will want to have nuclear weapons.

If we can talk "should" with disregard for reality ... no one (individual or group) should have weapons, and everyone should live in peace and harmony with each other and the environment. It's of course not going to happen anytime soon because there are too many people who don't think that should even be "should", or would take advantage of such a situation to oppress vast swaths of humanity.

[Giancarlo]

look, i know english that isn't your first language - although one would expect someone who has lived in an english speaking country for 10 years+ to have better grasp of vocabulary and idiomatic expressions, make fewer mistakes, etc. - but this really shouldn't be beyond you. you said that podemos were similar to IU; i pointed out that they were not and gave reasons, including the difference in votes. it was i who made the point about votes. ¿Comprendes, imbécil? ]

Listen douchebag, you have made incredible mistakes and your grammar is disgusting. For someone who is from the UK and whose language was English, you can't even form a complete sentence. Are you on an iPad or Touchscreen device? Your sentences are not complete. They are considered sentence fragments. Your grammar is absolutely some of the worst I've seen and your spelling is horrid. You are just stupid. You cannot read and you are still not reading. I pointed clearly how they were similar. It doesn't have to do with votes. I never compared to the amount of votes either received in any election. This is where you are just too ignorant.

well done, you have managed to do some research and confirmed the facts that i was referring to all along. if you click on the parties on the wikipage you will find that i was right about the membership figures too. next time you want to confirm well known facts that i refer to, just do a search rather than demand that i use google for you.

Well done for quoting wikipedia? Listen up, moron... I've posted about four or five different sources in here that do reference my points. They do not back your points. Membership figures don't mean **** when the party is losing ground and LOSING significant percentages when it comes to votes. The PSOE received more than 400,000 more votes than Podemos, yet has fewer members? Something tells me Podemos is a bloated political party that is representing a shrinking constituent base. My points are proven. You haven't even backed yourself up once because you're too damn lazy.

as for the interpretation, that is a matter of opinion about which people can disagree. now that you have acquainted yourself with the results, you can see what i base my opinion on. if you want to remind yourself of what that is and finally respond to some of the points i made, then feel free to go through my posts in this thread. when doing so, you will also see that i referred to ciudadanos, albeit indirectly, in post #152.

Your opinion is a pile of bull**** and is grossly inaccurate of reality. Go take your immaturity somewhere else. I'm guessing you're probably in your late teens and you are excited by reactionary stupid politics. It probably turns you on in a sexual way too.

i have spanish friends, and there is a diversity of opinion among them about the political situation there. this is entirely unsurprising because such things are matters of opinion. i have presented mine. you have a different opinion to me, and that's fine, but for some reason you cannot handle anyone looking at the same facts and coming to a different conclusion; nor can you debate in a decent and honest manner. very little has changed in that respect since you joined this forum.

I don't care if you have Spanish friends. I also don't give a damn if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio has gay friends. Anybody who says "well I have friends that are [fill in the blank]" are generally not to be trusted, especially if they follow up the remark with some incredibly ignorant idiotic remark. For example, "Well I have gay friends... but I think gay people are still going to hell".

What facts? You have NOT posted any facts. You have NOT backed up yourself up a single time. I really do think you are on a tablet and are too lazy to look up sources. You tell people to google it.

I have debated in a very nice manner and have provided evidence (several times throughout). What have you done to contribute to this debate? I've asked NUMEROUS TIMES for evidence and you have provided ABSOLUTELY ZERO.

Thanks for proving you know absolutely NOTHING about Spain.

[Giancarlo]

Stop being a raging twot!

You ask way too much. Why should you expect that out of him?

His posts qualify for an award. This one:



Cockney is a lazy ass who can't be bothered to back up any of his points. He's turned on by radical politics and has his head deeply implanted up his own ass. It wouldn't surprise me if he supported the BNP.

[Bereta_Eder]

I think the question about what has kept the peace in europe is important. but i don't think it is the balance of terror (MAD). if anything after the fall of the USSR it seemed that we had entered the imbalance of terror but that's another matter.

also the world is not europe. there are a bazilion of other countries where war is ravaging.

but what has kept the peace in europe?

the idea or rather the will that european nations form a sort of collective and don't attack eachother.
this is as practical as it is theoretical.
you believe this? you have a stable democracy etc? you can enter the EU, and you can enter NATO just because you're useful or whatever.

Now it was this belief that has kept the peace. not the nuclear weapons.
what would happen if one after one countries start leaving the atlantic structures?
hell the UK was the first to do so.

what happens if this framework of western institutions, thanked for keeping the peace, actually become transformed to a prison of continued democratic degradation, impoverishment, an area where only a certain societal model of analgetic self centerness is allowed.

yeah you need an enemy to keep them in line. if someone is stealing your bread and you want to react and you're told "don't move! look at the armed bear there! it's going to eat you (or an armed sultan or whatever)"

there is a fine balance to be kept here. you don't want to steal too much, because the bear scare will not work. Actually people might start thinking, well the bear is not so bad. or just be indifferent. or simply unafraid.

the baltics went through a crushing program of austerity. inhuman, unbelievable. they did so because they wanted to be safe. has that led them to be safe? do they feel safe after agreeing to the most absurd economic policies?
are they away from the bear?

the bear is inside and that's what you first have to deal with.

even the most ferocious honorless enemy doesn't go against something that's pure


ok this is all written in jest a bit because it's friday