Why does obama disappear in text

More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -— for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival. Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -— that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable.

Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. And as nuclear power —- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly —- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.

We have to insist, "Yes, we can. Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.

Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies —- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal. To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold.

And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor. To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U. After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned.

And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step. Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation.

The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections.

We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause. And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation.

That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules.

We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people. But we go forward with no illusions. Some countries will break the rules.

That's why we need a structure in place that ensures when any nation does, they will face consequences. As the vote on the repeal effort neared and Trump grew more animated, however, Obama made a few private, strategic phone calls. The day of the vote came, and Murkowski voted against repeal. Then, past midnight, John McCain stood up and stunned Washington by turning his thumb down. The former president picked up the phone again, this time to thank his old rival for the decisive vote.

All three are directly related to his preference for avoiding the political fray. First, in the immediate aftermath of the economic crash, Republicans won the messaging game, branding Democrats as the party of technocratic elitism and themselves as the economic populists.

We did not begin what I think needs to happen over the long haul, and that is rebuild the Democratic Party at the ground level. He has committed in conversations with party leaders to raising money and campaigning for candidates up and down the ballot.

According to those familiar with the conversations, his reemergence on the campaign trail will come late — perhaps in September — and he has told allies he is very unlikely to wade into competitive primary fights, even when former staffers are running.

More than 60 have declared their candidacies. He often reminds those asking for his help that he believes he needs to create the space for new leaders to emerge. He only agreed to hold three fund-raisers for Democratic groups this summer after fielding months of requests, and aside from one event for Missouri senator Claire McCaskill, he has yet to raise money for any individual candidates or party super-PACs.

Whereas Obama has found significant fund-raising success in Silicon Valley, for example, the rest of the party is still struggling there. Nobody expects him to be out there bashing Trump or being on the campaign trail every day. But to be sucking up resources now is just tone-deaf, and self-serving. After Bill Clinton left office, he clearly enjoyed the power he retained within the party, involving himself in large and small decisions and flexing his influence.

Here, too, Obama has assumed a more passive role, positioning himself as a detached observer who might have some useful advice to bestow. This includes both Sanders and Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren, potential progressive presidential front-runners who have had difficult relationships with Obama. They both criticized his paid-speaking tour early in his post-presidency. When asked about the presidential election, Obama talks about his own experience.

He tells his visitors it took him about a year of campaigning to figure out how to effectively run for president, and he warns them about the toll a presidential race takes on families and personal lives. He directs them to his campaign manager, David Plouffe, for mechanical and operational advice. And he makes it clear that he has no intention of endorsing early in the primary.

Still, even this is complicated territory for the former president, who has at least three close associates considering runs. Holder has also started publicly musing about running. Bush era. Obama has said nothing about his three friends in public, but some of his top allies have sent signals about their own preferences. In May , Jarrett was invited to join Jeb Bush on a panel at a hedge-fund conference in Las Vegas hosted by Robert Wolf, a close Obama friend and former bank executive.

When the time came, Bush named Biden, who was also at the conference. Jarrett surprised the crowd by predicting her party would nominate Patrick. Later that day, Trump would introduce a budget blueprint that included a nearly one-third reduction of State Department spending and a one-quarter cut for the EPA.

At the National Portrait Gallery, Obama stared out at a room full of friends, political allies, and former staffers. Behind him onstage was a pair of portraits of him and Michelle , newly unveiled to wide, if wistful, smiles.

Because the question is, how do we build societal values into AI? Obama: When we had lunch a while back, Joi used the example of self-driving cars. The technology is essentially here. There are gonna be a bunch of choices that you have to make, the classic problem being: If the car is driving, you can swerve to avoid hitting a pedestrian, but then you might hit a wall and kill yourself. The car trolley problem is a MIT Media Lab study in which respondents weighed certain lose-lose situations facing a driverless car.

Ito: When we did the car trolley problem 2 , we found that most people liked the idea that the driver and the passengers could be sacrificed to save many people. They also said they would never buy a self-driving car. Dadich: As we start to get into these ethical questions, what is the role of government? Not always to force the new technology into the square peg that exists but to make sure the regulations reflect a broad base set of values.

Temple Grandin is a professor at Colorado State University who is autistic and often speaks on the subject. She says that Mozart and Einstein and Tesla would all be considered autistic if they were alive today. Ito: Right, on the spectrum. Obama: That goes to the larger issue that we wrestle with all the time around AI. Part of what makes us human are the kinks. But right now, most of the billion-dollar labs are in business.

Our confidence in collective action has been chipped away, partly because of ideology and rhetoric. The analogy that we still use when it comes to a great technology achievement, even 50 years later, is a moon shot. And somebody reminded me that the space program was half a percent of GDP.

And if government is not part of financing it, then all these issues that Joi has raised about the values embedded in these technologies end up being potentially lost or at least not properly debated. Dadich: You bring up a really interesting tension that Joi has written about: the difference between innovation that happens in the margins and the innovation that happens in something like the space program.

How do we make sure the transmission of all these ideas can happen? To give a very concrete example: Part of our project in precision medicine is to gather a big enough database of human genomes from a diverse enough set of Americans. There is a common set of values, a common architecture, to ensure that the research is shared and not monetized by one group.

Nick Bostrom is a renowned philosopher at the University of Oxford who has warned of the potential dangers of AI. Dadich: But there are certainly some risks. While open markets, capitalism have raised standards of living around the globe, globalization combined with rapid progress and technology has also weakened the position of workers and their ability to secure a decent wage.

In advanced economies like my own, unions have been undermined, and many manufacturing jobs have disappeared. Often, those who benefit most from globalization have used their political power to further undermine the position of workers. In developing countries, labor organizations have often been suppressed, and the growth of the middle class has been held back by corruption and underinvestment.

Mercantilist policies pursued by governments with export-driven models threaten to undermine the consensus that underpins global trade. A world in which one percent of humanity controls as much wealth as the other 99 percent will never be stable. I understand that the gaps between rich and poor are not new, but just as the child in a slum today can see the skyscraper nearby, technology now allows any person with a smartphone to see how the most privileged among us live and the contrast between their own lives and others.

So how do we fix this imbalance? We cannot unwind integration any more than we can stuff technology back into a box. Nor can we look to failed models of the past. If we start resorting to trade wars, market distorting subsidies, beggar thy neighbor policies, an overreliance on natural resources instead of innovation — these approaches will make us poorer, collectively, and they are more like to lead to conflict.

And the stark contrast between, say, the success of the Republic of Korea and the wasteland of North Korea shows that central, planned control of the economy is a dead end.

It does not require succumbing to a soulless capitalism that benefits only the few, but rather recognizes that economies are more successful when we close the gap between rich and poor, and growth is broadly based. And that means respecting the rights of workers so they can organize into independent unions and earn a living wage.

It means investing in our people — their skills, their education, their capacity to take an idea and turn it into a business. It means strengthening the safety net that protects our people from hardship and allows them to take more risks — to look for a new job, or start a new venture. American businesses have created now 15 million new jobs. After the recession, the top one percent of Americans were capturing more than 90 percent of income growth.

Last year, poverty in this country fell at the fastest rate in nearly 50 years. And just as we benefit by combatting inequality within our countries, I believe advanced economies still need to do more to close the gap between rich and poor nations around the globe.

This is difficult politically. But I do not believe this is charity. The Paris Agreement gives us a framework to act, but only if we scale up our ambition. And there must be a sense of urgency about bringing the agreement into force, and helping poorer countries leapfrog destructive forms of energy.

So, for the wealthiest countries, a Green Climate Fund should only be the beginning. We need to invest in research and provide market incentives to develop new technologies, and then make these technologies accessible and affordable for poorer countries.

And only then can we continue lifting all people up from poverty without condemning our children to a planet beyond their capacity to repair. So we need new models for the global marketplace, models that are inclusive and sustainable.

And in the same way, we need models of governance that are inclusive and accountable to ordinary people. I recognize not every country in this hall is going to follow the same model of governance. I do not think that America can — or should — impose our system of government on other countries. But there appears to be growing contest between authoritarianism and liberalism right now. And I want everybody to understand, I am not neutral in that contest.

I believe in a liberal political order — an order built not just through elections and representative government, but also through respect for human rights and civil society, and independent judiciaries and the rule of law.

I know that some countries, which now recognize the power of free markets, still reject the model of free societies. It turns out building accountable institutions is hard work — the work of generations. The gains are often fragile. Sometimes we take one step forward and then two steps back. In countries held together by borders drawn by colonial powers, with ethnic enclaves and tribal divisions, politics and elections can sometimes appear to be a zero-sum game.

But I believe this thinking is wrong. I believe the road of true democracy remains the better path. I believe that in the 21st century, economies can only grow to a certain point until they need to open up — because entrepreneurs need to access information in order to invent; young people need a global education in order to thrive; independent media needs to check the abuses of power.

Without this evolution, ultimately expectations of people will not be met; suppression and stagnation will set in. And history shows that strongmen are then left with two paths — permanent crackdown, which sparks strife at home, or scapegoating enemies abroad, which can lead to war.

Our nation began with a promise of freedom that applied only to the few. But because of our democratic Constitution, because of our Bill of Rights, because of our ideals, ordinary people were able to organize, and march, and protest, and ultimately, those ideals won out — opened doors for women and minorities and workers in ways that made our economy more productive and turned our diversity into a strength; that gave innovators the chance to transform every area of human endeavor; that made it possible for someone like me to be elected President of the United States.

So, yes, my views are shaped by the specific experiences of America, but I do not think this story is unique to America. The countries that have succeeded are ones in which people feel they have a stake.