US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8851

On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
Can the issue be solved in a non-violent, minimizing polarization, unifying manner? Absolutely!

The most meaningful foreign-policy address delivered by a prominent American political figure in this moment of global turmoil and possibility was not, as should be quite clear by now, Donald Trump’s “Rocket Man” rant at the United Nations.

Rather, it was the speech that Senator Bernie Sanders gave Thursday at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. The long-planned address by the 2016 presidential contender was not presented as a formal response to Trump. And yet, as Sanders outlined a vision for foreign policy that was more nuanced, more complex, and more genuinely internationalist than that of the president, he provided the most necessary and valuable counter to Trump.

Sanders also countered the narrow framework of the contemporary debate about foreign policy that gave rise to the nationalist presidency of a billionaire populist who thinks there is a country in Africa called “Nambia.”

“When we talk about foreign policy it is clear that there are some who believe that the United States would be best served by withdrawing from the global community. I disagree. As the wealthiest and most powerful nation on earth, we have got to help lead the struggle to defend and expand a rules-based international order in which law, not might, makes right,” Sanders declared in a critical section of his address. He explained that

We must offer people a vision that one day, maybe not in our lifetimes, but one day in the future, human beings on this planet will live in a world where international conflicts will be resolved peacefully, not by mass murder.

How tragic it is that today, while hundreds of millions of people live in abysmal poverty, the arms merchants of the world grow increasingly rich as governments spend trillions of dollars on weapons of destruction.

I am not naive or unmindful of history. Many of the conflicts that plague our world are longstanding and complex. But we must never lose our vision of a world in which, to quote the Prophet Isaiah, “they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

While Trump got high marks from his apologists, and even from some of his critics, for delivering a crudely dismissive response to diplomacy and international cooperation in his remarks at the United Nations, Sanders embraced the faith of the American visionaries who helped shape the post–World War II institutions that sought to avoid the next wars.

One of the most important organizations for promoting a vision of a different world is the United Nations. Former first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, who helped create the UN, called it “our greatest hope for future peace. Alone we cannot keep the peace of the world, but in cooperation with others we have to achieve this much longed-for security.” It has become fashionable to bash the UN. And yes, the UN needs to be reformed. It can be ineffective, bureaucratic, too slow or unwilling to act, even in the face of massive atrocities, as we are seeing in Syria right now. But to see only its weaknesses is to overlook the enormously important work the UN does in promoting global health, aiding refugees, monitoring elections, and doing international peacekeeping missions, among other things. All of these activities contribute to reduced conflict, to wars that don’t have to be ended because they never start. At the end of the day, it is obvious that it makes far more sense to have a forum in which countries can debate their concerns, work out compromises and agreements. Dialogue and debate are far preferable to bombs, poison gas, and war.

The speech that Sanders delivered at Westminster College touched on many issues of the moment—President Trump’s “incredibly foolish and short-sighted” abandonment of the Paris agreement and efforts to address climate change, the failure of “free trade” schemes such as NAFTA and the danger of flawed proposals such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership deal, and his fury over United States “support for Saudi Arabia’s destructive intervention in Yemen, which has killed many thousands of civilians and created a humanitarian crisis in one of the region’s poorest countries.” He decried “a rise in authoritarianism and right-wing extremism–both domestic and foreign—which further weakens this order by exploiting and amplifying resentments, stoking intolerance and fanning ethnic and racial hatreds among those in our societies who are struggling.”

“We saw this anti-democratic effort take place in the 2016 election right here in the United States, where we now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: the integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy,” Sanders continued, saying:

I found it incredible, by the way, that when the president of the United States spoke before the United Nations on Monday, he did not even mention that outrage.

Well, I will. Today I say to Mr. Putin: We will not allow you to undermine American democracy or democracies around the world. In fact, our goal is to not only strengthen American democracy, but to work in solidarity with supporters of democracy around the globe, including in Russia. In the struggle of democracy versus authoritarianism, we intend to win.

But the speech that Sanders gave was much more than a response to the headlines and challenges of the moment. It was a deeply thoughtful and deeply historic address, which recognized the significance of the fact that he was appearing on the stage where in 1946 former British prime minister Winston Churchill outlined a post–World War II vision of how to shield future generations from “the two giant marauders, war and tyranny.”

What distinguished this address by the senator — who was criticized for not speaking enough foreign policy during his 2016 campaign — was the reminder it provided that, over almost four decades in elective office, Sanders has always been deeply engaged with global issues.

On September 27 2017 06:28 Mohdoo wrote:


In what kind of timeframe? What progress would you say has been made in the past 10 years? What would you say is an acceptable amount of time for blacks to be disproportionately killed by police? How many people die before the issue needs to be escalated?

On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:


If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.

Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise.

On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:


If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.

Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise.

On September 27 2017 06:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
I wonder if some people have ever worked in an office environment before. If you want to collaborate with anyone on a project, being an asshole is not the way to successfully complete the project.

On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:


Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work.

On September 27 2017 06:34 RealityIsKing wrote:


If those are true, then the BLM needs focus their location of protest at police stations and not go out and breaking down local communities and shutting down major traffic intersection.

Again, talking about efficiency and making a bad name for yourself PR-wise.

On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:


Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work.

On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:


Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work.

On September 27 2017 06:50 RealityIsKing wrote:
So are you guys okay with any group of people disrupting the flow of the society for any issues they themselves think that are important?

On September 27 2017 06:50 Plansix wrote:

I hear this guy once marched across a bridge is Selma a few times. And then to Washington and gave a speech.



It is the only way change happens. From labor strikes to civil rights to gay rights.

On September 27 2017 06:52 RealityIsKing wrote:


Ok got it, at least there is no bias here.

On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:


This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.

To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness.

Attacking the structures that keep that in place is a direct threat to those who benefit from it. That's why it's always going to upset them no matter how you do it.



If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.

If you get pissed off enough to want to RUN OVER another HUMAN BEING because they are blocking traffic (Republicans are trying to make this legal) , imagine how pissed we are about not having our rights?

On September 27 2017 06:39 Jockmcplop wrote:


Shutting down a major traffic intersection is an almost perfect way of protesting. It forces your viewpoint into the public consciousness non violently so that seems fine to me.
I get the feeling you would rather they protesting quietly without disturbing anyone, maybe by writing a letter to the police.
Protest is supposed to be a major disturbance. Otherwise it won't work.

If one is more worried about stopping traffic protests than what they're protesting, that highlights your problem right there.

On September 27 2017 06:54 Simberto wrote:


I am getting this feeling now, too. There just does not seem to be any protest that is in any way acceptable.

I personally can barely imagine a tamer protest than taking a knee. This has literally no impact on any other people. And apparently that is still too much. Taking a knee is completely nonviolent, does not disturb anything, the only effect it does have is that people have to look at a guy on a knee instead of standing. If this is not acceptable, it seems very clear that the problem is not the way of the protest, but the actual subject. Which is weird, because apparently being a Nazi is an acceptable ground to protest, but being black and not content with the civil rights situation is not.

On September 27 2017 06:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
This argument is old and tired. If they protest the police stations then it's "they have to stay at the station and can't police crime" or some other bullshit. It's never the right place or the right time to attack the white supremacy deep in this country's soul.

To a degree I get it. White mediocrity succeeded in America in no small part thanks to the exclusion and oppression of other non-white people. From corporations, to unions, to the NFL/NBA/MLB mediocre white people were catapulted to the top in the forced absence and/or on the backs of of better suited non-white peers, simply for their whiteness.

On September 27 2017 07:02 Danglars wrote:

You're still confusing what you have the right to do, and what forms of protest advance or hurt the cause. When a lawyer represents a client clearly guilty of the murder, we don't say he's pro-murder or is apathetic about murderers. But when it's neonazis marching in the streets, suddenly free speech and free assembly go out the window. It's a clear poisoning of the debate.

On September 27 2017 06:59 m4ini wrote:


I always find this part mindbogglingly idiotic.

Yeah. I will see your viewpoint, and on top of that, i will not give the slightest of shits because i'm pissed off since you potentially make me miss an important meeting/job interview/doctors appointment/prevent me from picking up my kids from school.

It's like arguing that to get the attention of a police officer, instead of calling him over you should throw sticks at him. Yeah, you will get his attention, but not the way you intended to - and certainly not the reaction you apparently expected either.

Interrupting the lives of people who have nothing to do with whatever you're protesting will not help your cause, it will in fact hurt it. The people in traffic will get pissed off, and your opposition to whatever you're advocating will have a field day pointing out what a menace you are to the public.



No, it really isn't. It's not like everyone lives a perfect white persons life, people have their own problems too. But it's a very suiting way for you to argue, "if you get angry because people fuck up your day, YOU are the problem". Fuck off.

On September 27 2017 07:04 JimmyJRaynor wrote:

why do non-white people continue to flock to the USA if things are so bad?
i have a close friend and colleague who is iranian. he went from Baghdad to Toronto. His first decent job offer in New York state and he is gone. Guy was making $10,000 USD a month in Toronto... and he couldn't leave fast enough.
or is Iranian considered white? are jews white? my gf has 4 great parents who are white and 4 who are non-white. is she white? is white just a social construct?

On September 27 2017 07:12 NewSunshine wrote:

Nope, it's just hypocritical for you to defend the rights of Nazis to speak on one hand, and on the other cry out that NFL players taking a knee is disrespectful to the country, and that they should just play the game.