In the News

[Glaurung]

No, not at all - I don't want anybody dead, politician or not. But I think I would react more strongly to news that Bernie Sanders had died than I would to news that Donald Trump had died.

[Jubal]

With the US presidential candidates, and possibly US high grade politicians generally, there may be more expectation of risk - that Jo Cox was an activist backbencher doing local constituency work I think makes it almost more shocking, because it's much closer to home for all political activists in the broadly left/liberal spectrum. Indeed I think it hit me so badly because she was not so dissimilar to myself - someone with very similar political concerns who went to the same college as me and was murdered for it. Which I guess is the aim, to prevent people with our sorts of views wanting to speak out.

I think for either Sanders or Trump my base reaction would be "oh crikey, what now" whereas losing Jo Cox also has a strong and very different undertone of "this person actually was quite similar to me, saying similar things to me; is this a position I could end up in one day". I guess there is also the partisan element where when you lose someone from a movement there's more impetus to take up the fight where they can't any more and achieve the things they didn't get the chance to - that's obviously not something I'd feel for a right winger, though I'd still be horrified that they'd died and want to see the killer face justice (and I would want to look carefully at whether the political situation made a difference, if someone had been shouting "kill the bourgeoisie" a lot then that might be a good time to look at whether there were violence issues on the far left say).

[Jubal]

And apparently the universe doesn't know when I'm talking in hypotheticals any more. Holy hell.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-36582770

A British man is arrested trying to shoot Donald Trump. Precise motive, political background, etc of this would-be assassin/terrorist/murderer as yet unclear.

[comrade_general]

What the hell? No one here cares who gets elected in your country it should be vice versa.

[Jubal]

America be like:
"Hey y'all we're #1 superpower, biggest economy, biggest army, and leaders of the free world motherportugalers"

Then America be like:
"Why do you all care who runs America and its foreign policy?"

[comrade_general]

Maybe Libertarian America be like that yeah.

In any case one person doesn't run this country and we're no threat to the good people of Britain.

[Jubal]

Yeah, but the President has a large amount of say in foreign policy (and in a presidential year the main race can affect the house/senate races too), and while you're not going to invade us things like your trade relations and treaties really do affect the rest of the world. If it costs more to export to the US because President Trump or President Sanders put up tariffs, that hurts businesses in the UK. Alternatively, if our trading regulations are lowered because a President Clinton managed to push through a trade deal that means we now use US standards for some products, then that could make it harder to keep our public services in state hands and might mean lower testing standards on various products.

There's a certain level of being powerful beyond which you can't help affecting people. America's big enough now that when you guys spit it rains someplace else. The rest of the world would love to not give a damn who runs the US, but that's not a luxury we have.

[Pentagathus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36563337

"Also rejected were:
A bill to ban suspects on terrorism watch lists from buying guns
A bill (backed by the NRA) that would allow the US attorney general to delay a gun purchase by a known or suspected terrorist, but prosecutors would need to convince a judge of the would-be-buyer's connection to terrorism within three days
A bill that would alert the FBI to terrorism suspects who have purchased a gun, without blocking the purchase outright"

portugaling what? All of these bills sound like basic common sense regulations. If someone's too dangerous to be allowed on a plane surely they're too dangerous to be buying guns.

[comrade_general]

Good job Congress on upholding the constitution. Before long we'd all end up on these "watch lists" as this would give too much power to those at the top. I mean seriously, there are over 100 million Americans who own over 300 million guns, if guns were really a problem you'd know it. A few nutcases does not make it justifiable to take away constitutional rights in the name of "security".

Oh and before anyone says I'm just screaming 2nd amendment In actually referring to due process of law.

[Pentagathus]

Well the second bill in that list would actually require a judge to agree with the suspects links to terrorism which seems like an entirely reasonable checkpoint. And the third doesn't even block terror suspects from buying a gun.
Restricting someone's ability to fly is a much greater restriction of their rights than stopping them from buying a gun for many people.

[comrade_general]

Jub you're basing all that on things that haven't happened and probably won't happen but wouldn't affect you personally in any way even if they did.

[Glaurung]

CG: the specific examples that Jubal mentions might or might not happen. However, I believe it's still true that the choice of US President can have a significant effect on the UK, and the rest of the world. If Gore had been President, instead of Bush, we might well not have had the "War on Terror", or at least had it organised very differently. We would probably not have had the Second Gulf War; we might well now not be fighting a war against IS in Syria and Iraq. So Jubal's point holds: if you guys spit, we get rained on. America might or might not be "great", but it still has a big impact.

[comrade_general]

There's a lot of ifs and maybes in there, G. Fact is Gore wasn't president and so what happened happened. Making an argument based on a hypothetically ideal situation doesn't really hold up. I guess I didn't realize you guys fought in any of those conflicts. Or did you stay in the UK living basically the same as always? Because those things happened and I really can't say my life changed in the slightest. In fact the only time a president changed my life was when Obama charged me an extra $200 on my taxes because I refused to get his mandatory life insurance.

[Glaurung]

Never mind, CG. I don't have the energy to argue this any longer. I'm going to get some sleep, if I can, and then do what I can tomorrow to try to prevent my country jumping off a cliff.

[comrade_general]

My original point was that a British person trying to assassinate a US presidential candidate (when we're not at war with each other) is kind of ridiculous. If he'd been targeting Clinton you'd probably agree with me. I'd still feel the same. I don't want her dead I want her in prison.