Yes, I understand his argument. It's just partisan and ignorant. It's pretty much the same as "Obama talks to Russia = bad, Trump talks to Russia = awesome. Dictators we prop up because they help our economy = good, dictators we don't prop up = bad." He puts just about exactly the same amount of logical consistency into his argument as most Republicans do, i.e. none.
I'm a hardcore leftie but I honestly don't know if david is too dishonest or too stupid to hold an interview. They guy says we don't have enough leverage to influence chinas human rights, but we can do it with cuba. If david wasn't such a shmuck aiming only to entertain and portray the guy as dumb, he might have explained that we benefit from reduced embargo with cuba (doctors/anticancer meds etc) or that embargo hurts the poor people not the ruling class, or that taking the first step and showing good will can do wonders (cuba made first step to legalize some private business communities/whatever you call them after the obama cuba deal). But instead he's just choosing to be fucking douchebag, and 99% commenters are just sucking it up. Woo hoo, you're so superior guys. this doesn't look much better than the pepe crowd calling us libtards tbh.
It matters and doesn't matter at he same time. More refined oil in the world drives down oil prices around the world. In the end OPEC still loses money.
COMRADE DONALD TRUMP Yes, you truly have said a lot of words, Comrad! Try to put them in the right order, so they make sense, please? You regularly sound like you've had a minor stroke. And your fans like to be like you and talk like you, so the IS is beginning to sound like the ward in a medical facility! 😆
In other words it's not about human rights or democracy or freedom, It's about inherited wealth and power . They love Russia now with the same human rights abuses as in soviet times, as long as rich people have all the power and priveledge and others are kept off the gravy train.
I don't get this and the cognitive dissonance is so obvious. I don't understand why this guy had a hate boner for Cuba, but not for Saudi Arabia or Qatar.
While he doesn't express it well, his main argument is that he doesn't want to have relations with any "dictatorship" but values US economy to a slightly greater degree. The confusing issue is that he denies any economic benefit from ending the embargo on Cuba. He sees no economic benefit, therefore, the dictatorship part of his argument takes priority. He's of course wrong about there not being an economic benefit, but if that is true, his argument is at least understandable. He probably has a few biases influencing that belief of no benefit. 1) Fear of change. The embargo has been there for a while so he doesn't want to take the risk of ending it. Also trade has been going on with China and Saudi for a while and he's afraid of what would happen if we ended those. 2) related to this, US exceptionalism. US is the best ever, therefore it's policies currently are great. Any change to it has a greater chance of making it worse since it's already so awesome.
userasdf Not that historically the US had any qualms with dealing or propping up dictatorships, yet wants to claim to be about "freedom and democracy". Laughable.
@ Thorn the Branch, I don't necessarily think it was David focusing on a moral argument, I think it's Josh who included the moral argument within the context of a "pragmatic" approach. "I do not believe we should makes deals with dictatorships" is a moral statement, not a practical one. The only reason to not deal with a country simply because it is a dictatorship isn't a pragmatic ideal, and I think this is due to the inherent cognitive dissonance bred into the American public. We speak of freedom but know we have to deal with countries that do not want freedom for everyone, to continue to function, pragmatically in the world, we must have this very cognitive dissonance on display here. This is why you see all of these people prop up this country as morally superior, and just cannot see the blatantly obvious hypocrisies.
Yeah. us has always been fine with dictators that they support. just talking in reference to this current argument. neither of these guys explicitly state the moral or practical sides of the argument and therefore it could be possible they're confusing 1 with the other or just ignoring the difference. it's hard to say. you definitely can have moral and practical reasons which are at odds to each other dictating a plan. you just have to decide for yourself which is more important and to what degree.
Seriously, what do you expect? These are people who were "taught the controversy" over evolution. They were home schooled. This is what you get when you banish legitimate criticisms about capitalism from the airwaves and go full triumphalist when the Soviet Union fell. Don't analyse why it fell, just say Reagan did it and never allow nuance to interrupt the flow of your feelings. Then, when proof comes along that capitalism is a scorched Earth system of exploitation, alienation, and one class dominating over the rest, you can say Reagan doesn't work like that and let your feelings of anger flow.
Do you get off on insulting people who disagree with you? Because that seems to be all you got. Insult our intelligence, insult our beliefs, insult our morality all because we disagree with you. It's nice to see that in the year since you made this pretentious & condescending comment, nothing has changed from your side of the aisle. By the way I'm still waiting for you guys to tell me ONE instance where communism or socialism worked without subjugating the people under a tyrannical government which stripped their rights & consolidated power into one all-powerful & corrupt dictator. I won't hold my breath.
Oh wouldn't it be grand if this fine conservative gentleman lived in one of the states he mentioned: LA, CO, where they're going to start drilling AFTER they take away environmental protections... and his water became polluted. That would be monumental. And it wouldn't hurt for him to know that the main reason we're kissing buddies with Saudi Arabia (regardless of the serious human rights violations, which he's all too happy to dismiss), is that they're funding ALL of our interventionist wars in the Middle East so that they can stake claim to all of the oil in the region.
The American Embargo of Cuba has always essentially been the simple statement "we have lost an American haven, a place where we can enjoy pleasures that are illegal in the US, regardless of the impact our pleasures have on the Cuban people. The revolution in Cuba was begun as a populist movement, with the support of a large portion of the native population, and we cannot allow a country to choose a form of government that we have ideological problems with" Understand, I'm not saying that the people of Cuba are in favour of Communism today, clearly there is a large portion of the populace who wish for a government that reacts to their wishes. But, the economic plight of the Cuban people can largely be laid at the feet of the US for denying them opportunities for trade. I am Canadian, and we have had economic and diplomatic relations with Cuba since the '70s (to the displeasure of successive American governments) and the people of Cuba are grateful to have the opportunity to trade with a western government, regardless of the difference in our political ideologies.
Literally the first sentence he says is that it's dangerous for us to be negotiating openly and freely with dictatorships. David, please have him back on the show to ask him what he thinks about Trump blatantly saying he's "fallen in love" with Kim Jong Un, that he trusts him, that they have "good chemistry", that he praises his leadership, and that he wants to openly and freely normalize relations with North Korea.
His standard changes every time he seems to speak. These are the type of people that don't NEED to be included in seeing things to solutions instead of lingering any longer where we are now with these people's feeling and lack of any understanding into consideration.
I was a "Peter Pan" exile kid from Habana lost all my history from 1810 from Spain and parents. US can use the trade and it's time to move on. Human Rights ???? Who casts the 1st. Stone???
Ugghh Saudi Arabia, China, The Emirates, Russia and the list goes on. How the hell will this ass square the U.s. trading with these countries. Why are these people given valuable tv time, really!
"Whats going to happen are we going to normalize relations with North Korea? Drop Sanctions on Iran?" ...... You know watching this in 2018 I nearly did a spit take
Before you blame Obama for "kissing the Saudi Arabians' ring," listen to this: I was working for Hughes Aircraft in the Reagan years. To accommodate the Saudis, the handicapped parking spaces were moved to another location further away from the buildings. Plans were in place to build a prayer room, straddling the fence of the facility, which would allow free access from both inside and outside the gate, so their families could come and go, as well. This didn't happen only because the facility was closed and sold.
We know that increasing ties with a communist country will make communism fall apart. One example is Yugoslavia. When USA increased the relationship with Yugoslavia, exported music, culture and many other goods, Yugoslavia started falling apart and was replaced by mostly democratic countries.
I understand his argument. It's "I don't wanna! I want to keep holding my grudge and you can't make me give it up". The embargo has been a stupid, prideful, spiteful idea for over 50 years. End it.
He is making a good point and everyone here missed the first point he made. "Put pressure on dictatorships where it wont have a significant harm on american interests." Is this cynical? Sure, but not an immoral thing. Cuba has nothing to offer America and so it is easy politically to put pressure on them to not be a dictatorship. Because we live in a democracy with competing interests and a global economy we have physically less power to put pressure on China and Saudi Arabia. We DO put pressure on those countries the way we can (at least the democrats do.)
I want to understand them but they just keep insulting me until we forget what we were talking about. unless that was the plan all along from the right winger? distraction distraction distraction
I was trying to think of a way this fellow (the interviewee) could make a coherent argument. If I were him, I would have said that the United States should put pressure on countries that we CAN influence. China and Saudi Arabia can ruin our economy very quickly, but Cuba can't. Unfortunately, that basically means that we don't have a consistent policy and we only punish poor countries (bad PR for America). Fifty years of isolation hasn't worked, and another fifty years won't work either. What America REALLY wants from Cuba is for all the money and land to be returned to Cuban-Americans, and that is EXTREMELY unlikely because Cuban-Americans aren't Cuban citizens, and almost all of the original Cuban landowners have passed away. If land is privatized in Cuba, Cuban citizens will get first dibs. Waiting just ensures that there are ZERO former Cuban landowners living to make a property claim.
The pinnacle of dreaming to American greed is who to sanction and punishment next. This is action speaking louder than words to the ignorance of American number worshipping accountants. They can't have a beautiful dream to precipitate to this physical plane on thier best day. .
He's a conservative. Current paradigms & reasoning above all, at all costs, no matter what. Stay put. If it comes from the the top, the top is always right. We've been doing it this way for so long, it must be right. Otherwise why would this be. 95% maintenance, 5% R&D. Trickle down economics baby.
He's basically saying...We have already established a need for these countries. He can sound Noble about not wanting to lift the embargo. Simple as that.
simple actually. He's saying that the US should not add more frenemies (in the form of Cuba) to it's list. The current frenemies are too difficult to do something about , so he'll tolerate then, for now...
If we pumped every drop of oil, considering that it would have to go into the global marketplace, we wouldn't see that much of a drop in gas prices and not for about 20 years anyway.
**Actually, China only buys a relatively small portion of US national debt** I think his is actually logically consistent. **He's talking about political benefits, not economical benefits. Opening up trade with authoritarian regimes doesn't necessarily lead to political reforms to democracy.** **I don't think lifting embargo is an issue. You can trade with Cubans if you want, but it won't make much of a difference politically unless the regime wants to change, or people start protesting in the street en mass. Economically speaking, the living standards of Cubans will rise from lifting embargo. But I'm afraid it's more like next mini-China.**
It's really simple: this guy is against dictators because he wants to be a dictator, or rather THE dictator. Get rid of other dictators so I can be the dictator. Makes perfect sense.
It isnmt just the US and Cuba in a vaccuum here. Other countries in South and Central America have normal relations with Cuba and they have been trying to pressure the US to do the same for years.
Easy to understand, become a meth addict for 3 years then attend NA meetings where you can score more meth. You now have attained oracle level enlightenment to tackle any gibberish.
When this guy says "lets also look at the fact , that I believe " ......blah...blah....you realise why he doesnt need evidence to back anything up . His belief is his own evidence .
What is there not to understand? "Herpa derpa, dey iz commulists! Drill baby Drill! O-bummer dun took mah cuntriii! 'Murica...." Basically your standard republican primary debate.
Oky, let me understand this, "we should not lift sanctions on cuba, because of how the regime treat their people," He then goes on to make the argument that sanctions dont works. Logic will tell you if sanctions dont work, then you should life the sanctions
The proper question is not what do we gain by lifting this embargo it's what do we lose? We lose nothing because the embargo has gained us nothing. What could we gain by lifting the embargo? We could gain economic influence in a country we've been shut out of and that is where change starts. Right now all we are is a big Boogeyman because of our embargo.
I don't think we should have anything to do with oil period.Whether its the Koch bro.or who ever.I don't see the benefits of us keeping an embargo on cuba.And he doesn't want to lift it because of our unconstitutional gitmo.Wow this guy is a screwed up person.