The Phony In Chief

HFNY · March 2016

Obama is as phony as a 3-dollar bill:

https://washingtonpost.com/opinions/castros-welcome-obama-to-cuba-with-a-slap-in-the-face/2016/03/21/c9d8d2c0-ef6b-11e5-a61f-e9c95c06edca_story.html

UWhuskytskeet · March 2016

Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

Tequilla · March 2016

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

I don't disagree that it's probably time to work with versus against Cuba to get the needed changes in place for the people.

But there's one thing to working to improve relations and whatnot and then sitting there and bowing down and giving away your position of power like Obama has done.

greenblood · March 2016

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?

HFNY · March 2016

What's to say that flooding Cuba with $$$$$ isn't going to empower the Communist Cuban leadership from staying in power?

And did you read the article...the jailing of protesters and even of the dissident Cuban-American who had met with the Feds before returning to Cuba?

Hillary will probably be President and doubt she'd visit Cuba like that unless it was on her terms. Obama is concerned about his legacy but fortunately we'll have a new President (only Republican who has a shot of beating her in the general election is Kasich) who will bring some balls and stipulations to the table.

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

RaceBannon · March 2016

Obama is the guy that you send a car for on poker night to make sure he is at the game

HFNY · March 2016

Bingo.

But Obama doesn't have much time left to shape his "legacy" so he's in a hurry. If that means giving up the USA's position of power, he's ok with it because it's all about him.

Tequilla said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
I don't disagree that it's probably time to work with versus against Cuba to get the needed changes in place for the people.

But there's one thing to working to improve relations and whatnot and then sitting there and bowing down and giving away your position of power like Obama has done.

UWhuskytskeet · March 2016

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?

What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.

PostGameOrangeSlices · March 2016

HFNY said:
What's to say that flooding Cuba with $$$$$ isn't going to empower the Communist Cuban leadership from staying in power?

And did you read the article...the jailing of protesters and even of the dissident Cuban-American who had met with the Feds before returning to Cuba?

Hillary will probably be President and doubt she'd visit Cuba like that unless it was on her terms. Obama is concerned about his legacy but fortunately we'll have a new President (only Republican who has a shot of beating her in the general election is Kasich) who will bring some balls and stipulations to the table.

LOL

greenblood · March 2016

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.

Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.

We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?

HFNY · March 2016

Huh?

Clinton is going to beat Sanders, enough said on that.

So in the general election, according to the Real Clear Politics' average of various survey results, Kasich would beat Hildabeast by 5 points. No other Republican in the race is ahead of Hildabeast in the General Election polls.

PostGameOrangeSlices said:

HFNY said:
What's to say that flooding Cuba with $$$$$ isn't going to empower the Communist Cuban leadership from staying in power?

And did you read the article...the jailing of protesters and even of the dissident Cuban-American who had met with the Feds before returning to Cuba?

Hillary will probably be President and doubt she'd visit Cuba like that unless it was on her terms. Obama is concerned about his legacy but fortunately we'll have a new President (only Republican who has a shot of beating her in the general election is Kasich) who will bring some balls and stipulations to the table.

LOL

Kaepsknee · March 2016

HFNY said:
What's to say that flooding Cuba with $$$$$ isn't going to empower the Communist Cuban leadership from staying in power?

And did you read the article...the jailing of protesters and even of the dissident Cuban-American who had met with the Feds before returning to Cuba?

Hillary will probably be President and doubt she'd visit Cuba like that unless it was on her terms. Obama is concerned about his legacy but fortunately we'll have a new President (only Republican who has a shot of beating her in the general election is Kasich) who will bring some balls and stipulations to the table.

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

Ummmm..... Communism is dead. Like everywhere. It's been replaced by tyranny and oligarchy. Has been for at least 20 years now. Cuba isn't and hasn't been a threat since the '60's. If they allowed for free investment and travel, the "Communists" would not control the country. And it would be the new hot tourist spot within 5 years.

HFNY · March 2016

Whatever you want to call them, you aren't being intellectually honest if you can't concede that engagement on their terms (as @greenblood pointed out) could easily benefit the tyrants in charge of Cuba.

There are significant downsides to this lame-duck President not negotiating from a position of strength.

salemcoog said:

HFNY said:
What's to say that flooding Cuba with $$$$$ isn't going to empower the Communist Cuban leadership from staying in power?

And did you read the article...the jailing of protesters and even of the dissident Cuban-American who had met with the Feds before returning to Cuba?

Hillary will probably be President and doubt she'd visit Cuba like that unless it was on her terms. Obama is concerned about his legacy but fortunately we'll have a new President (only Republican who has a shot of beating her in the general election is Kasich) who will bring some balls and stipulations to the table.

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.

Ummmm..... Communism is dead. Like everywhere. It's been replaced by tyranny and oligarchy. Has been for at least 20 years now. Cuba isn't and hasn't been a threat since the '60's. If they allowed for free investment and travel, the "Communists" would not control the country. And it would be the new hot tourist spot within 5 years.

GreenRiverGatorz · March 2016

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.

We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?

The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?

dnc · March 2016

I think I'm okay with opening up relations with Cuba. The embargo clearly failed.

I'm not okay with making a celebration and party out of it to turn it into one big photo op. I'm with Dan Le Batard on this one (#ThingsIveNeverSaidBefore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZEKYJyco4

RaceBannon · March 2016

I don't have a problem with opening up to Cuba. It's already shown benefits at my cigar store. I'ts having such a feckless piece of shit do it without getting anything for the Cuban people or us in return.

The people who are still watched and imprisoned for thought crimes aren't going to suddenly change in that 1956 Ford for a new Prius anytime soon just because Obama went to a baseball game.

The point of the embargo was to change behavior. It didn't. But they really want the embargo lifted and we did it for free.

We make stupid deals. Our leaders are idiots. Sound familiar?

GreenRiverGatorz · March 2016

dnc said:
I think I'm okay with opening up relations with Cuba. The embargo clearly failed.

I'm not okay with making a celebration and party out of it to turn it into one big photo op. I'm with Dan Le Batard on this one (#ThingsIveNeverSaidBefore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZEKYJyco4

Am I missing something though? The lifting of embargoes has always led to less suffering for the citizens, even with the inevitability of the dictators taking a bulk of the increased trade dollars for themselves (see the most recent example of Iran). Basic economics tells us that the lifted embargo will create jobs that were previously nonexistent, give the Cubans a lot more purchasing power, and increase the variety of goods available in the country. The Castros and the ruling elite will of course benefit the most from this, but I don't see how it's possible for them to make it a net negative for the Cuban population as a whole even if they tried to do so.

greenblood · March 2016

GreenRiverGatorz said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.

We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?

They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.

While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.

But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.

GreenRiverGatorz · March 2016

greenblood said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.

We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.

While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.

But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.

There is absolutely nothing to substantiate the idea that opening Cuba up for trade poses any kind of threat to our national security.

dnc · March 2016

GreenRiverGatorz said:

dnc said:
I think I'm okay with opening up relations with Cuba. The embargo clearly failed.

I'm not okay with making a celebration and party out of it to turn it into one big photo op. I'm with Dan Le Batard on this one (#ThingsIveNeverSaidBefore).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdZEKYJyco4
Am I missing something though? The lifting of embargoes has always led to less suffering for the citizens, even with the inevitability of the dictators taking a bulk of the increased trade dollars for themselves (see the most recent example of Iran). Basic economics tells us that the lifted embargo will create jobs that were previously nonexistent, give the Cubans a lot more purchasing power, and increase the variety of goods available in the country. The Castros and the ruling elite will of course benefit the most from this, but I don't see how it's possible for them to make it a net negative for the Cuban population as a whole even if they tried to do so.

That's why I said I'm okay with opening things up.

Turning it into a big parade with pics in front of Che and beisbol and smiles and hugs and "lets learn from each other" speeches and other bullshit sends the message like we're interested in becoming some kind of allies, which we should not be. We? shouldn't be doing this for the regime, we're doing it for the people. But everything in the media looks like we love us some Castros now. It's sickening.

UWhuskytskeet · March 2016

greenblood said:

GreenRiverGatorz said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:

greenblood said:

UWhuskytskeet said:
Normalizing relations with Cuba will change Cuba faster than ignoring them like we've done for 60 years. The embargo has been completely worthless, there is no way to argue otherwise.

Flooding Cuba with American investments is going to empower Cuban citizens to make any changes they want.
Or provide more funding for Fidel's regime, but what's the difference?
What's special about Cuba over Saudi Arabia, Russia, or any of the other shitty countries that we have relationships with?

China is still generally shitty, but is light years beyond what they were before opening their economy. They hardly even pass as communist at this point.
Cuba doesn't have anything we want. Why would we play ball with a tyrant when we benefit nothing in return.

We tolerate China because they give us cheap stuff and own a good chunk of our economy, we tolerate Saudi Arabia because of oil, and we tolerate Russia, because they have political power. Cuba on the other hand, brings nothing to the table. So why put up with this tyrant dictator and his bullshit?
The Castros aren't a threat to us at any level, in any way. At this point, we've just been allowing the Cuban citizens to be mired in poverty for no reason other than tensions from half a century ago. Have we become so calloused that the lives of 11 million oppressed Cubans should play no role in our foreign policy decisions?
They are no longer a threat because Russia has stopped supporting them. Russia held them as an ally because Cuba gave them an opportunity to set up military bases in their country to set up a presence in the Caribbean. Technological advances made that unnecessary, so Russia also has no need for them.

While Cuba was being funded, they were absolutely a threat. Giving Castro's regime money is like giving them a loaded gun and asking him to shoot us with it.

But no, I think the bleeding heart approach works best.

That literally ended with the fall of the Soviet Union. The embargo has been completely pointless since 1991, it has nothing to do with bleeding hearts, it's just fucking retarded.

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

The Phony In Chief

Comments