AliSaket

Add to that ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan who has already been sanctioned by the US back in February for the crime of issuing an arrest warrant for a war criminal.

I've waited 239 races and this is what I get?

I'm sorry you feel that way and I find myself having the same thoughts from time to time. I have to concede though, that the US is in fact the center of modern Neoliberalism and legal bribery.

Yet... You know who the lobbyists and donors don't bother talking to? Bernie Sanders (and Ron Paul when he was still in office). Why? Because they know that they have core principles. Then the question becomes: How do we organize (meaning financial resources, outreach, strategy, know-how, recruitment, analysis, policy creation, media and many more) to get more of these people into office? And how can we put pressure on elected officials to enact "our" policies?

Agenda 2025, or the decades long judicial take-over did not come from Trump, but from such organizations like the Heritage Foundation. Which of course are funded by billionaires like Peter Thiel. These people and organizations have huge advantages over the rest, that is clear. But they need more than just money to be able to put public pressure on elected officials, to the point where 25% of voters are ride-or-die with that program and a further 25% are at least ok with it or were duped.

And yes, I am well aware it is an uphill fight. But please: Don't let bad experiences doom you to inaction. Especially when this very moment, with the daily over-reach of the republican regime, there is real potential to galvanize an effective resistance.

Although I understand your point and would want to add that something like the Citizens United decision further diminishes power of the people without immense funds, I would like to point out, that participating in a democratic process doesn't merely mean drawing a cross onto a piece of paper every 2 or 4 years. Much more is possible and in fact necessary.

As an example and can be witnessed right now, there is a severe lack of organizing of pro democratic forces. Which is also the result of a decades-long campaign by the capital-interest-serving political establishment to delegitimize or outright destroy such movements and organizations, from worker's unions to independant media to the "Bernie Bros".

Make no mistake though. They did this, because they know, that this type of collective political actions bare real power. It is upon each one of us wanting to defend democracy, basic rights and the rule of law to do our part to take back that power. Voting is but a small part of that, if you don't have the people you need actually running, because they can't afford to and you cannot seriously pressure those elected like the donor-class does.

Well there's also a different mindset behind voting, if you can directly weigh in on important issues every few months. It's not like in other countries where direct ballot measures are much more rare. But yes, I wished more people would try to participate in a responsible manner.

Fully agree with Nina Turner. If you don't wanna do politics, you blindly leave major decisions over your life to others, who - as we can see world-wide - don't necessarily have your interest at heart. Democracy, human rights, freedom or any other such ideas require a populace to vigilantly fight for them and not let those with opposed agendas undermine them.

But that analogy afterwards is simply dishonest on many levels.

Firstly, if you are talking about "harm reduction" or the "lesser of two evils", ice cream is hardly a fair representation of the lesser evil.

Secondly this mixes in non-political people, who do not participate in the democratic process with moral objectors and the duped.

Thirdly: It diverts equal blame (literally in the response) to those groups and to the voters, who actually want the bigger evil or the powerful actors enacting it. This presupposes some moral value on active vs. passive behavior, which can be argued.

And lastly: Even if we find a fitting ice-cream substitute like throwing one of the passengers under the still moving bus, or - how another user suggested - braking before driving off the same cliff: The two who voted for that lesser evil also fight the four voters who are against evil harder, than they are fighting the ones who want the bigger evil. Why? Because they'd rather still drive off the cliff than not. And then they turn around and dishonestly shame the anti-driving-off the-cliff crowd for wanting to speed up instead. That is not a very good strategy.

Are they the same? No. But please keep your arguments honest, or you might get the exact opposite reaction from people, than you are hoping.

From Mirriam Webster:

terror, noun, plural: terrors

(...)

2. violence or the threat of violence used as a weapon of intimidation or coercion

a regime that rules by terror

especially : violent or destructive acts (such as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands

an act of terror

the war on terror

-> sometimes used before another noun

a terror attack

Several senators commented on the incident, questioning Alderan's intentions, since they still don't seem to want to return to the negotiating table.

Stupid reason for a ban, but I assume revolutionary means that it came to exist out of the islamic revolution in 1979 and is independent from the US empire as opposed to the former one under Reza Pahlavi which came to being out of a CIA/MI6 coup in 1953 and was a puppet regime to the West. Not really an inaccurate description.

Die Hauptschwäche dieser Staffel ist m.M.n, dass die Autoren vor lauter Antagonisten vergessen haben, einen Protagonisten vorzusehen.

Interesting. May I ask where the data is from? From the picture there seem to be more demographics available.

Let's reverse roles for a second. You're the employer. What reasons would there be, for you to advertise an opening? Could your primary motivation possibly be paying people money? (Rhetorical question) Considering you already have a team, what kind of person do you want to fill the position? What profile should they have? And how would their motivation reflect on their expected performance?

P.S. I'm not saying, not to talk about money, but there's a time for talking about that vs. finding out, whether you're a fit. And answering a question about your main motivation on why you want to be part of their team with money, doesn't reflect well on you or any expectations of you.