> since it was only a Philadelphia election

Right, and neither ISIS nor al-Qaeda are the result of an Islam-wide election, so anything that uses the actions of those groups as an excuse is as wrong as blaming the entire US for the actions of Philadelphia.

> I'd say the same thing about [anyone] if they showed a propensity or tendency to want to kill Americans

Muslims do not want to kill Americans.

"not letting radicals in the U.S. "

Too late. Most of the Republican Party and all of the NRA are gun-waving radicals and seditionists.

Don't forget the KKK. They're some sick bastards and institutionalised.

What would you know of it? Drink your tea.

Yeah, right. But no.  (fail)

Quote: 

Radical Muslims do. Until we know the difference, none shall pass. Ni!

I'd consider school shootings as a form of terrorism, plenty of that going on.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/a-trigger-warning-i-can-support-the-one-involving-middle-aged-white-guys/article28077650/

I am always amazed at how interested people from other countries are in US elections - and with really strong opinions about it.  Here, we really don't pay any attention to who is running for office in other countries, and there is a reason for it:
- The relationship between the US and Other Countries is much deeper than the relatively short time a politician is in office. 

To our friends in the UK, don't get excited about who is the US President today, or tomorrow.  There is only so much that any of them can do before their bank masters tell them what they should be doing.  Elections are just a way to help people vent and feel like they have a useful opinion in how their government actually works.

 

BTW, the US is not an official two party system, there are many smaller parties.  Most of these suffer under the heavy hands of the two larger parties though, as there are many laws which make it very difficult to run for office in a third party.  Where I live in CA, the "ranked choice" primary system has completely wiped out the third parties, and nearly wiped out the republican party in some regions.

Bernie Sanders, who is a contender in the Dem party, was one of the few Independents in office, and that was really a very special situation.  As you have seen, he realized that he had no chance to become President as an Independent, so he is running as a Dem.

Similar to Trump, Sander's popularity is in part because he was not the candidate that the main party wanted.  Prior to Trump entering the race, Bush was assumed to be the likely Rep nominee, and even strong Rep voters were cringing at the idea of another Bush in office.

Also similar to Trump, Sanders at least talks to the idea of rights of the individual vs most of the others.  The only other candidate that does this is Rand Paul (my preferred option) but Trumps marketing is stronger.

Perhaps you don't understand the impact that your foreign (and domestic, the US military is used to both subsidise US firms and rig world market prices for certain goods/resources) policy decisions have on the rest of the world, then.

Yes, I am well aware of the impact, its just that exactly who is President will not change it all that much.

As a practical matter, the UK bank system has more influence on the world than who is the US President.

If it were me, I would be more concerned with who is PM of Isreal, as they are the tail wagging the dog.

Just to be clear, the US is fundamentally capable of operating in near isolation.  While it is not operated this way, it is feasible.  There are two approaches that could be taken, and it is a point of internal discussions all of the time:
- Stop importing goods and let the rest of the world just have fun on their own - yes this is a real concept in the US
- Try to help out counties that have less opportunity, by purchasing goods from them, even to our own detriment.  This is what we are doing today.

I realize that very wealthy and powerful people push their ideas out to the world and really force some things on others, and Americans have really mixed opinions about this.

As a practical matter, the average American has zero influence on this, nor benefits from it.  If anything, our foreign policy and trade (really just purchases of goods from others ) costs us a lot of money and good will.

Every crime is not terrorism.  Classifying it as such just weakens its real impact and how to correctly deal with it.


 

I'm fairly sure those kids and teachers who come face to face with an armed nutter feel something approaching fucking terrified.

So what do you consider to be the difference?

Most every victim of a crime feels terrified.  Imagine if your wife, daughter, sister or friend were raped - that is a pretty terrifying experience.  If you have ever been the first person that a woman stumbles to after that experience, I can tell you first hand they have been through a lot.

Is it a really bad crime - yes.
Does your mind wander into revenge mode - yes
Is it terrorism - no
Is it a so called "hate crime" - no

For the most part, the very few school shootings that have occurred have been crimes of revenge against bullying.  No one wants to say that out loud, but it is true.  Unfortunately, there were innocent victims involved as well, which speaks to the larger reason that bullying needs to be controlled much more closely in middle and high schools.

Were these killings a really bad crime - yes
Is it terrorism - no

Terrorism is part of a larger war effort between two groups, typically governments or some type of at least semi-defined organization.  An attack is meant to cause not only the immediate damage, but longer term damage to the economy.

In some ways, you could label things as:
- If the "good guys" bomb someone, that is called "helping to bring peace, freedom, and democracy to a region
- If the "bad buys - whoever was bombed by the good guys" bomb someone, especially in a first world city, that is called terrorism.

Prosecutors and newspapers are always looking for a slick label to slap on people and events.  I am not condoning any of this behavior, I am just saying that if people start thinking that being robbed is equivalent to a war, then we end up putting a hair trigger on calling out the military.  It is a big step to call in a military solution, as their job is to not mess around.



 

Well that clarifies it, you're definitely not aware of the impact.

It's a shame, because I'm already pretty certain you're going to ignore what I've written - not going to give any of it any real thought because you're convinced you have it right and wont accept you've been conditioned as much as the people that listen to CNN, Fox, NBC, etc.

Still I'm a stubborn optimist, so what the hell...

 

>the [132 in the past decade] school shootings have been crimes of revenge against bullying. No one wants to say that out loud, but it is true

Yeah, a bit like when the bigger countrystudent beats you up and takes your oillunch over and over, and with your slightly odd friend whispering in your ear, you decide you've had enough and go batshit crazy.

If others get caught up in your retaliation, well, they never stopped the bully, never showed compassion or helped you up, they're obviously just as guilty.

(Of course, it's not really like that at all.)

> An attack is meant to cause not only the immediate damage, but longer term damage to the economy.

You know this because you've planned all the attacks? Or have had signed confessions from the perpetrators? Maybe you've written a thesis on the subject and have a whole swathe of research which enables you to discover this perfect truth?

> Terrorism is part of a larger war effort between two groups ...

Terrorism is a buzz word these days. Your attempted definition is no more or less valid than the other.

Stop worrying about that. If you care to, investigate and examine what's behind the word. See if you can figure out which bits of what you think you know are wrong and work out how to fix that, whilst accepting that some of those solutions will be mistakes that too need fixing.

Or, you know, just ignore me. I clearly know fuck all about anything and am not worth listening to.

I think Harry has a point though. My understanding of terrorism is that it's meant to intimidate a population into change - very few of the US school shootings seem motivated like that. They've had plenty of mass shootings in other places that are, still.

I think you make some well reasoned statements many of which I agree with (particularly regarding the strength of banks). However, Id be interested to hear why you think most schools shootings are for reasons other than revenge (in which I would include feelings of disenfranchisement) against bullying. Why do you feel they occur?   

I think, though the phrasing is awkward, that he is saying the majority of them are indeed for revenge. For some reason also saying "the very few" in there to imply there aren't actually many school shootings at all. Which I suppose is one of those "relative to what?" questions because I'd say there's been loads of them in the last decade.