Re: Trump II

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,  I just read this article and it appears that Castro made out a lot better than we did.  His reversal of Obama's measures are half hearted, more for show.  Many of them are being left in placed or modified.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/politics/cuba-trump-engagement-restrictions.html?_r=0

Really? 

The article has nothing that supports your statement other then one quote from one Cuban.  A mere paragraph.  No evidence is shown at all. 

However, there is plenty within it that supports my side. 

Article after article is showing more free market activity in Cuba mainly due to American tourism and investment.  People are starting to make money in Cuba from the free market. 

In 54 years, this is the best thing that has happened to undermine communism on the island. 

This last clutch of a policy that has failed over and over again is going to due more harm then good. 

From your article, Senator Jeff Flake, Republican of Arizona, "By denying Americans the freedom to travel to Cuba, we will be denying them (Cuban people) customers, and they will be worse off."   

[JoeKitchen]

The following was extracted from the NY Times article:

"Still, Mr. Trump’s action allowed him to claim credit for taking a tough stand while leaving in place many of the changes made by Mr. Obama, which polls have shown are broadly supported, including by most Republicans.
Under the directive, embassies in Washington and Havana will stay open and cruises and direct flights between the United States and Cuba will be protected under an exception from the prohibition on transactions with military-controlled entities.
Nor does the measure affect the ability of Cuban-Americans to travel freely to the island and send money to relatives there, or a broad array of rules the Obama administration put in place aimed at making it easier for American companies to do business in Cuba."

Also, the one Cuban you motioned is the leader of the major opposition group, not some minor figure:

"But some Cuban dissidents who had backed Mr. Obama’s thaw in the hopes it would lead to greater openness on the island said the opposite had occurred. Among them was José Daniel Ferrer García, head of the Cuban Patriotic Union, the largest opposition group in Cuba, who was among the dissidents Mr. Obama met last year in Cuba.
“We believe that this is the moment for a maximum reversal of some policies that only benefit the Castro regime and does very little or nothing for the oppressed people,” Mr. Ferrer wrote in an open letter to Mr. Trump last week. “It is time to impose strong sanctions on the regime of Raúl Castro.”

In the end, Cuban Americans still have a lot of power here and their voice is more important since it effects them and their compatriots and relatives still living in Cuba. the most.  While the polls may indicate support for loosening, those people aren't Cuban or have as deep a concern for Cuba as Cuban Americans.

Your first paragraph quoted does not support your original statement that Castro was making out a lot more then us.  It merely reflects the political points gained by Trump amongst his base and what policies are remaining in place here, in the USA, nothing more.  It has absolutely no concern with policy being implemented on the island. 

Your second paragraph is the one I was referring to and does not present any evidence what so ever to back up the claim.  It is nothing more then an emotional plea for support of his side. 

Additionally, what would you expect from any opponent in any system of governance?  For them to suddenly agree with whom they are against? 

Last, they very fact that Cuban-Americans are so close to this issue on an emotional level is the exact reason why they should not be making policy on the subject.  Their emotions are greatly clouding their logic.  If I was wrong here, they would be recognizing the great good the influx of dollars is having on the private economy there and implement policy that would choke it off. 

The fact remains, the free market is seeing a renaissance in Cuba for the first time in 54 years.  Choking off American tourist dollars is going to do nothing but decrease the free market share of Cuban GDP, increase communism and give the regime a reason for doing so, just like they have been with the past 54 years of this failed policy. 

If the Cubans, and Americans, really wanted a free Cuba, perhaps they should have voted for Nixon the first time around instead of JFK, who completely botched the Bay of Pigs and any other future relations. 

It's time to move past JFK's failed policy. 

[JoeKitchen]

What changed in Cuban governance since Obama changed the policy?  Nothing.  They're no more freer.

Yes, they are!  They may not be free politically, but economically, they are becoming much more free, which is always the first thing to happen! 

Even in this country, every minority group, except for the Irish and another group, sought economic independence first and then gained political influence second.  The Irish, although did gain political influence initially, spent generations trying to gain economic stability through politics.  It was not until they stopped looking at politics as a way to become economically independent and started to look at other means, that they finally gained economic independence.  The other group (whom I will not identify for a few reasons) is, unfortunately, mirroring most of the mistakes of the Irish. 

Same thing is happening in Cuba.  Economic freedom is starting, and as soon as the private market becomes strong enough, it will have the end result of breaking the regime. 

They are free to start their own businesses and make money outside of the state's economy.  Like I said, as someone who has been there, your vision of what Cuba is, is wrong. 

[JoeKitchen]

What changed in Cuban governance since Obama changed the policy?  Nothing.  They're no more freer.

I think this site contradicts your premise, and it also provide evidence of such. 

https://www.engagecuba.org/cubas-private-sector/

[JoeKitchen]

Many changes made by Castro predates Obama's policy changes.   The Cuban economy is a disaster.  They know they have to change economic policies.  If they want to improve it even more,  let them provide additional freedoms before we give them more carrots.   Also,  let them return Chesimard to us who killed a number of state troopers from New Jersey where live.   Although I'm not Cuban,  I have as axe to grind also.  Castro is protecting her, a murderer.

Don't be foolish Alan. 

Are you seriously suggesting that Raul, the devout communist, the one who convinced Fidel to implement communism and socialize the whole economy, just came up with his reforms on his own?  That he suddenly had a change in heart? 

Also you seriously suggesting that talks between him and Obama did not occur long before the 2014 thawing and that maybe Obama was an influence on Raul's reforms?  And that maybe, due to negotiations, Obama could not claim part of them. 

The Cuban state economy is a disaster, but there is a free market revolution starting.  It's really sad to see so many fanboys ready to piss that away just because Trump says so.  I may have been for Trump over HRC due to fiscal concerns and over regulations, but I will not idly approve of all his policies, especially when they lack all reason and evidence of working. 

I am glad to see republicans voice their opposition to this foolish policy that has a 54 year track record of failure. 

Insofar as Chesimard, you really need to learn to cut your losses at a certain point.  Move on, get over it, and you're a New Yorker that now lives in NJ. 

And by the way, you have provided nothing but ideas that, on top of this, have 54 years of proof against them working.  My side of the argument has proof of our ideas working and improving the Cuban economy. 

[JoeKitchen]

Yes I'm a New Yorker that moved to NJ 4 years ago.  But as a New Yorker living miles from the killing and with Chesimard very much in  the news at the time, it put all people in the NY Metro area with a lot of hate for her.  She held up banks in the Bronx where I grew up.  She and her Black Liberation Party terrorist cohorts held up banks in Queens where I lived for over 40 years.  She also attacked NYPD police with a hand grenade two miles from my home in Queens, NYC.  You're very nonchalant about it which isn't right.   

I have no idea what you mean when you say cut my loses.  What does that even mean?  I'm not losing anything when the President is tough on the Communist Cuban regime that protected Chesimard.  So you're saying screw the families of the cops, who cares that this women killed them that she escaped from jail 35 years ago?    She has a $1 million reward on her head from the FBI.  She was sentenced to life in prison and escaped to Cuba where Fidel gave her political asylum. If Raul wants us to help economically, let them return her. 
https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/wanted_terrorists/joanne-deborah-chesimard

In so many words, yes, that is exactly what I am saying to your Red Herring of an argument on not opening diplomatic relations with Cuba. 

It happened in 1977, another era, and I could care less about some trivial event, albeit a tragedy, that happened 40 years ago.

What I care about is allowing free markets to do their job, which they are doing in Cuba. 

The one thing that has finally happened in 54 years that is undermining the regime you want to nix because of someone whom you don't know was murdered two generations ago. 

It's time to cut our losses here.  Meaning we've lost this to Cuba, repeatably.  It is time to realize this and move on. 

[JoeKitchen]

Joe, she's still alive.  She's been living high off the hog down there for 35 years with Castro using her as a foil, rubbing our noses in it for all that time.  All you seem to be concerned with is getting Americans on cruise ship to Havana so they can enjoy vacationing in the Caribbean.   I wonder why you're so strong on this?  Is there some business or monetary thing going on that you would benefit from closer ties? Why are you so concerned with free markets?

Because it is stupid policy.  Because allowing old wounds to prevent better relations makes no sense.  Because allowing Americans to visit may spark even more freedoms.  Because having good relations with a country so close is a good thing. 

[JoeKitchen]

So let Raul show he's serious about change.  Let him return Chesimard and allow some personal freedoms at the same time Trump can change and allow more openings.  You just don't give things away and hope the other side responds.  There has to be good faith on both sides.  When you sell your services., do you just give in to the other sides demands?  Or do you negotiate, in good faith, a little give and take, and make a deal BOTH sides can live with.

Well here is the thing, we did get something in return. 

Raul's policy changes in 2012 were most surely influenced by outside sources, especially considering he is a lifelong communist, and, since it can be rightly assumed talks between Obama and Raul began long before 2014, that source might have been Obama.

Not to mention, you are in the small minority (<25%) of people who actually want and think we can get something out of this. 

Let bygones be bygones.  We should move on and continue normalizing our relationship. 

By the way, do you think Americans should not be allowed to visit say Saudi Arabia?  Or North Korea?  Both have much worse track record with human rights. 

Even though I think it is foolish to visit North Korea, I would not restrict it. 

[JoeKitchen]

There's a scene in The Godfather, where Generalissimo and President Batista, who was overthrown by Castro in real life, accepted a huge payments from the Corleone family of the Godfather to do gambling business in Cuba.  So now American companies will be making deals with Cuban companies to do business but with the military of Castro's government.  The true owners might appear to be non-military on the surface.  But you know it will be Castro and his cronies who actually control and own the front companies.  Trump is allowing that to continue.  Airlines and cruise ship will continue their operations.  So you really got what you want despite Trump's "tough" stand.

So in 57 years we've gone from Batista to Castro.  Nothing's changed.

Mixing Hollywood with real life now?  You did read the recent articles on how the latest Churchill movie gets all the important parts wrong, so sorry if I can't help but question this. 

A lot has changed in 57 years; the Cubans are getting their economic freedom back.  Political change will come as this flourishes. 

I think you are also over looking that Castro retires in February. 

[JoeKitchen]

What area you questioning?  It's been estimated that the Castro family and cronies have enriched themselves with 800-900 billion dollars over the years.   I believe Castro's son in law will take over after Raul.   Like I said,  it's like North Korea but warmer.

You have no idea what you are talking about.  Your statement about Cuba being like North Korea but warmer shows your utter lack of knowledge on the subject.  Not to mention your arrogance is amazing since you have been to neither and I have been to one of them. 

In all your retorts, you have only provided the reasoning behind the embargo, that you approve of, is because we have axes to grind. 

I on the other hand recognize your policy has a 54 year track record of pure and utter failure and that it's time to try something else.  I also recognize that Cuba is beginning to go through a capitalist revolution and that now would be the time to get on board.   

[JoeKitchen]

Well,  my wife and I have seen most of the other islands in the Caribbean.   I suggested a cruise as she really loves those.   But she said that she wasn't giving any money to those Communists.   I guess we'll have to take another cruise too conservative Canada.

You don't what you are missing. 

I found Cuba to be, by far, the safest country I have visited in the Caribbean.  I would say Havana is just as, if not more, safe than Hamilton, Bermuda.  It's much more safe then NYC, especially outside of Manhattan, and Philadelphia.  I not once felt threatened, and I was walking around with a $45K camera morning, noon, evening and night. 

Go down in January, get yourself a Cohiba Robusto, a double of Havana Club Anejo 7 Anos with ice and enjoy the nice dry 80 degree weather. 

[Littlefield]

http://68.media.tumblr.com/22b4e98c2ba2276c0e9751cdee79d7d6/tumblr_oofisnOCyU1thd7hoo1_400.gif

Funny Lol. Maxine is going nuts about Trump.

[JoeKitchen]

The Onion's take:

 

Those are great. 

I am enjoying this piece on CNN about Nancy Pelosi right now. 

It's almost like some Dems are finally realizing fighting against Trump non-stop, pushing witch hunts and not having a clear message, none the less, is toxic for their party. 

[Peter McLennan]

Wait, can it power automated machine gun nests?

Still thinking like a Russian?

[JoeKitchen]

If Mueller goes on a witch hunt and  investigates more than obstruction and Russian collusion or if anything leaks from his staff about his investigations such as Trump tax records, Trump will try to fire him, and rightly so.

I find this whole situation to be rather amusing, the irony is just so thick. 

First, it is pretty much agreed on both sides that Trump did not collude with the Russians.  So the fact that the Dems are now pushing obstruction of justice into the collusion probe bags the question, how could Trump obstruct an investigation that had no merits to begin with?  If the collusion investigation was not going to go anywhere, how could one obstruct that? 

Furthermore, considering no one now thinks he colluded, it can be assumed Trump is innocent of this charge.  If he is innocent, he would have known he was innocent, so why would he even bother to try and obstruct.  It makes no sense. 

Of course some here will say a lot about Trump makes no sense and that he did it just to do it.  That argument could be valid, but if Trump is truly innocent of collusion, it is not one the overall electorate will not buy into.  It will be very much like Benghazi.  Did Hillary make decisions that likely made a bad situation worse, yes, but, was she guilty of anything, no.  So the public did not care. 

However, the real funny thing about all of this is that the Dems and Pelosi are doubling down on obstruction, even after being walloped in the recent special elections.  The Dems nationwide have become branded as the party of witch hunters, which certainly played a big roll in causing Ossoff to loose. 

Even after a small, but notable, group of Dems called for Pelosi to step down and new leadership to take over (even Schumer is in the crosshairs), directly due to the recent losses and lack of any positive branding, I still see no evidence of anyone in a leadership position in the party trying to develop an actual message other then, "resist, resist, resist, obstruction, obstruction, obstruction, impeach, impeach, impeach!" 

Now I certainly don't agree with Trump on everything, but one thing I have to is, "it would be a very, very sad day for Republicans" if Nancy Pelosi steps down.   

[JoeKitchen]

Joe,

Nobody knows, but I think it is unlikely that he do that willingly. However, he does keep piling on strange behavior in relation to Russian connections and a somewhat questionable choice of advisors (e.g. Manafort). Maybe Trump is just a fool who keeps digging when in a hole ...

As far as I've understood, the collusion that is being investigated is that between members of the campaign staff and Russia, not necessarily or exclusively Trump himself.

That's the trouble with such investigations, dig deep enough and (initially innocent) things start surfacing that fit a suspect situation. Add to that Trump's behavior, e.g. obstructing justice (possibly just out of stupidity), and a new (more serious?) investigation is born.

Cheers,
Bart

I would not necessarily call him a fool, but inexperienced.  If he did obstruct out of stupidity (inexperience), I doubt it will get very far and he will more then likely be given a pass by the overall public. 

Aside from Trump, I can't help but notice the Democratic party is imploding right now, primarily due to a lack of any clear positive messaging, and that the leaders really don't seem to care. 

2018 could be brutal for the Dems if this keeps up.   

[JoeKitchen]

Joe:  I think the obstruction charge has to do with Flynn, not Russian collusion, that Trump tried to get Comey to stop any investigation of Flynn and "let him go".  That's what the whole testimony was about with Comey's notes in the middle of the night.  But your point is the same.  Trump "hoped" that Comey would just move on regarding Flynn which is a hard thing to pin obstruction of justice on. So there's no "there" there.

Trump did ask Comey and other officials to publicly announce that he was not being investigated when they told him he wasn't.  He wanted the cloud over him to be removed so he could go on governing and dealing with the Russians as he saw fit and not constrained by the "cloud".  But again, there's no obstruction in that case either as asking someone to public acknowledge what they are not doing anyway is not obstruction.

Yes, the whole Flynn thing, forgot about that. 

To be honest, I'm not really paying attention to it anymore.  It clearly looks like a witch hunt and the Dems are just being so negative for the sake of being negative. 

Unfortunately for them, people don't get excited and vote on negatives.  Sure, maybe the bases do, but they are a small part of the overall electorate. 

[JoeKitchen]

Someone who seems incapable of learning from his mistakes and keeps repeating them is a fool, IMHO of course.

Cheers,
Bart

I was speaking directly to unknowingly obstructing, which I would say only seemed to have happen before this mess and not since, if it actually happened at all. 

[JoeKitchen]

Actually, he is...even the name Pocahontas generally refers to a historical myth with racist overtones...in case you are unfamiliar with the REAL "Pocahontas" whose birth name was actually Matoaka, here's a story about the historical sad reality...and if you know the real story of Pocahontas you would understand why native Americans find the use of the name to describe Warren as racist...and so should you. (I'll be you don't real the whole story :~)

The True Story of Pocahontas: Historical Myths Versus Sad Reality

Well, thanks you for going off the deep end on that one.  By the way, great straw man argument. 

Too bad no matter how great it is though, it is still a fallacy.  The feelings of the Native Americans on using Pocahontas have absolutely no baring on how Warren exploited those same Native Americans, regardless of those two may be related.  (AKA a straw man.)

Personally do I think the POTUS should be throwing around insults, no.  However, Warren really did bring it on herself. 

She falsely identified as a Native American for personal gain.  Then, when she was called out on it, doubled down at first, insisting that her father was 1/16 Native American (or some insignificant fraction) but could not provide any verifiable proof that this was the cause.  Additionally, the tribe (I can't remember which one) she claimed to have heritage in denied any knowledge of this being the case. 

After this, she simply ignored the issue, hoping it would go away. 

Although I would prefer a less crass way of Trump pointing this out, and thus lowering her creditability, I do not condemn him for it.  She does not deserve to be taken nearly as seriously as other politicians due to this, and other things. 

[JoeKitchen]

And you know this how?

The funny thing is that Scott Brown tried that same line on her back in the 2012 Senate race and was awarded "Two Pinocchios" for the claim...Scott lost BTW.


Did Elizabeth Warren check the Native American box when she ‘applied’ to Harvard and Penn?

Trump is using the Pocahontas tag as a way of belittling Warren. It's simply base, mean hearted nastiness with racist and sexist overtones–something Trump does all the time and seems to get away with. But it's something that the President of the United States of America should have the class to avoid...

But Warren appears to have been well-qualified for the teaching positions and excelled once she was hired...

So you're telling me that the main reason a conservative republican lost to Warren in the liberal NE was because he questioned her heritage and whether or not she was lying?   

She claimed to be Native American on several talk shows, well actually she claims her mother was part Cherokee and Delaware, so unless she was adopted, she is implying that she is also Native American.  (Sorry, I got the wrong parent in my post.) 

However, neither the Cherokee nor the Delaware can verify this since they have no records of her Mother having heritage within those tribes. 

Now, can you definitively say that she is lying, no, but it is nearly impossible to prove a negative.  However, the facts are clearly not on her side and more then likely she fabricated this. 

Furthermore, stating that she was qualified after receiving the position is once again a straw man.  It does not matter how qualified she was, that still has no baring how she misrepresented her ethnicity for personal gain.  (I know you did not say this, you were just forwarding the message.  Maybe you can write the author and let him know that that statement was a straw man.)