Suppose it depends on the definition of politics you take. A common one is "the activities associated with the governance of a country or area, especially the debate between parties having power". Narrow for sure and there are others, but sums up what I think politics means. To me some of the other stuff is more current affairs or world events. But I can be very literal!
But terrorism is an action undertaken to try and change the governance of a country and any response taken to it is an act made through the governance of a country. I think it fits.
And, to be even more pedantic, you originally talked about democracy/debate/the will of the people - that would imply there's no politics in China, or Saudi Arabia, or any number of non-democratic states.
Turning away from dictionary definitions, I do think there's a difference between terrorism and horrific single acts of violence. I think that some of what we're seeing now are one-offs perhaps by people inspired by ISIS or other groups, but not affiliated to them nor acting under their instructions. Fine margins.
I do take some comfort from the calibre of our security services, but if someone's really determined, there's always a way especially if they're willing to sacrifice their own lives. We live in troubled times - I exercise my birthright to moan like hell about England, but so much of the rest of the world is so über troubled that it doesn't take long for me to count my blessings.
That is a fair point, but when we have people inspired by ISIS with ISIS claiming responsibility and heaping praise on them, it is a very fine margin indeed. It is not something I feel comfortable making a judgement on - I'm not read up enough on what's going on - but I think there is a good argument to be made that these are terrorist attacks.
2/3 of the people that Bernie pulls that Clinton is unable to come in the form of moderates and Republicans. It's not necessarily an issue with the left, it's that Bernie has appeal to people who are not consistent Democrat voters.
Maybe I'm misled by the media on this, which does love its left-on-left narratives, but the people who went to the conference, the guys screaming about how they won't support a warmonger? My guess is they're from the people he attracts on the left.
It seems odd that Bernie, on the left of his party, can appeal to moderates and even Republicans. But I also understand it. I do not support the Liberal Democrats because I am a centrist, I am just utterly fed up with partisanship politics. I am fed up with how self-serving both the Labour and Tory parties are. They draw their own boundaries, their ideals are malleable by the year and month, they insist on FPTP to the detriment of political discourse and only because it provides themselves with majorities.
Mary Beard explains my sentiment quite well:
And when you hear of the DNC undermining Sanders' campaign - which IMO is exceedingly corrupt and undemocratic - there is a temptation to "punish" the party. I can understand the sentiment all too well: punishing the Democrat Party and conceding an election could bring about the soul-searching in the Democrat Party that I would like to see. Conversely, to not punish the Democrat Party is to condone their actions. It's very tempting to accept four years out of government and to re-run the Sanders campaign in 2020. The only reason I wouldn't do any of this is the intolerable idea of Trump as President.
Back to the UK, I think Labour has the same problem. Even if I align with its views (at least right now), it is a toxic, self-serving party which takes its leftist voters for granted putting itself ahead of the left. The best thing that could happen to Labour would be for it to realise its electoral shortcomings, make an electoral pact with the entire left/centre-left to bring in PR, and then split afterwards.
On the one hand, I agree with a lot of this post.
On the other, I regard it as being full of the sentiment that is doing its bit wrecking politics in general and on the left in particular. And, no matter how sound the principles that lead to a decision, if the decision is to stand in the circular firing squad, then the decision needs urgent re-examining. There is nothing noble or good about the circular firing squad; there is virtually no excuse for going there; it is almost always a betrayal of others. And I think we may have had this argument before in various forms and right now, I am incapable of making it again in greater detail politely.
However, a few points in general -
Punishing the Democrats is effectively condoning the Republicans as well
The best thing that could happen for the Labour party would be for all involved to build a bridge, get over it and pull in for the big win
It is wise to judge by positives as well as negatives, rather than negatives alone
And semi-pedantically, by the general standard of corrupt and undemocratic found on this planet, it seems hyperbolic to say the DNC's actions register as excessive on the scale. I mean, what word is there left for North Korea?
