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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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???
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.
"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
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.
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!
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
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.
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...
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.
**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.**
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. .
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.
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 .
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.
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
So Josh is against dealing with Cuba because he doesn't see what's in it for the US but is ok with dealing with the world's largest dictatorship China and with the most brutal dictatorship in the Middle East Saudi Arabia
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.
![🎤 จับฉลากร้องเพลง x P’ #XXSIVK [EP.1] (2/2) เพื่อนจับได้คำไหน..ต้องร้องคำนั้น เริ่ม! 💓🎶 #MXFRUIT](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1bJvMJXmeS4/mqdefault.jpg)
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.
"whats next, are we going to normalize relations with North Korea" - LOL
Luke Brooker this comment has aged well. Well done.
To answer the Title's question, Nope
Ęÿūį Æßñ The answer is within Grasshopper: Either you understand the idiots arguments or you do not.
Agreed and there is a good reason for that - they don't make any sense!!
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.
I have the perfect rebuttal for his opening argument. Two words. Saudi Arabia. I rest my case.
Counter Argument: Keystone XL
Most of the oil from the keystone pipeline is going abroad.
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.
i have one word. china
Benghazi
What pisses me off is knowing Trump will go down in fucken' History. lets hope in the Deterioration of Humanity section of history.
decadence of the American empire
*I need to give this man a course in debating. Why? Because I won all of mine! I am the BEST with words, and have said many of them.*
You always win bigly!
*Did you see my BIG LEAGUE crowd at my inauguration? They were MUCH bigger than Failure Obama!*
COMRADE DONALD TRUMP Your Crowd was YUUUUUGEEE!
+COMRADE DONALD TRUMP Yes!! All I can say is COVFEFE! COVFEFE!! COVFEFEEEE!!!!
...and please, pleeeeze grab my poosy!
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.
"Are we going to normalise relations with North Korea?"
UUUUUUUUUUUHHHH
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.
snarrface ideologues, limted thinking capacity, im just spit balling.
snarrface Because Communism
Cuba is a left wing government, Saudi Arabia and Qatar are right wing governments. There's your answer.
Cognitive Dissonance is a requirement to live in modern Western society.
Cause he watches Fox News, the Republican State Ran Propaganda Network
"sets a dangerous precedent for negotiatiing with dictators" omfg im laughing my ass off
I love the way David speaks so clearly and logically. He allows these people to defeat themselves.
This is the first time I've listened to a person who is completely fact-free and logic-free. It's an amazing accomplishment.
"I don't see any evidence...."
*has eyes glued shut*
you can't nail down a fart. poor David sure did try tho.
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.
This guy is talking to us like we are Fox News viewers. Sorry, Pakman's audience look at the whole argument, not stupid points.
That bright overhead light he put directly behind him was a huge mistake. His forehead was blinding me the entire time.
people like this have no idea how the world works, and most of his answers are based in headlines and right-wing media talking points
Its very entertaining when David destroys someones argument with sound logic, and maintains a deadpan expression the entire time. Killer
His whole house is made in China, so its okay; he is practically Chinese.
What about the human rights abuses that are happening in America. The states should clean their own doorstep first.
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.
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.
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.
Where does this we import 70% of our oil come from? We're a net exporter.
"It sets a precedent of negotiating with dictators."
Two words. Saudi Arabia.
I think this guy passed the Westborough Baptist Church and the Phelps family as the stupidest guest you have had on.
This is why I don't even try to discuss ANYTHING with them anymore.
josh has been badly dumbed down by Fox and Limbaugh.
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.
Closing Guantanamo is about the prison at Guantanamo, not the whole base. Jeeeezuuuuss.
China is the second biggest economy at $11 trillion vs the US at $18 trillion.
As a Canadian, your closest ally isn't Israel, that's just the people you give the most money to... there is a difference.
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.
David is so polite and respectful to his guests, but always manages to hold them to account. really excellent at his work.
Are we gonna normalize relations with North Korea?
Boy that aged well
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.
A right winger with a thing for teddy bears,... mull that over for a bit.
Safe spaces with a cuddle factor.
I'll bet some of those cuddly toys have "made in china" on em.
Loud and and clear. His argument in 2 words: Obama bad.
This is painful. Actually... painful.
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.
David seriously I haven't meet a right winger that isn't delusional, and I really do try to understand.
So his argument is "Let's continue to punish Cuba for all the things we accept in China, Saudi Arabia, etc." Why? "Just because."
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's funny that Rachel Maddow is using the same exact argument against Trump talking to Kim. How poetically ironic.
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.)
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.
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???
13:36 Considering Russia's GDP and life expectancy collapsed in the 1990's, can you blame him?
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.
"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
A man without convictions can make excuses for every situation.
"We've been speaking to Josh Bernstein, Spokesman for AMAC, radio host, etcetera.. etcetera..." LOL... loved that
David called a conservative intellectually dishonest. 😂 Isn’t that part of the definition?
Gotta love the double standard
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.
Sometimes I think Trump supporters are McCarthyists?
I liked his dig at Obama for kissing the Saudi's ring, wonder how he views Trumps curtsy given and U-turn on his entire campaign rhetoric
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!
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
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.
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...
I can't take him serious because of his political position, but that incredibly old TV makes it even more funny.
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.
**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.**
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.
.
They like circular conversations and the “no, that’s not what I’m saying” defense. It only makes sense to them because they want it to.
good job David for trying to keep it on track.
I would love to talk to this guy now that El Chump is the president.
David Parkman is like the Stephan Curry of debating.
funny what this guy said about Putin at the end, go to his twitter now and he seems to be a full blown Trumper
America should continue with the embargo. In about 400 years, it might actually work.
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.
I thought the discussion was balanced. There are no easy answers.
This is what happens when your right wing father ignores you during your formative years. It's a psychopathy.
You should have him on again in light of current events.
Josh. Josh. Josh. Yeah....Yeah...Yeah. When did you stop wearing the Guardian Helmet?
How does a human's brain degrade this much?
I can't believe he didn't just admit to fucking up badly.
So, we should distance ourselves from 11 million people because we don't approve of ONE?
Seems a lopsided approach, no?
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 .
That guy doesn't know anything.
But we can negotiate with Russia because it's a "democracy" right? LOL
no matter whether we drill for oil in this country it still goes on the world market. we don't have a national Energy socialized system.
Does everything have to benefit us?
Maybe it will be good for them and in turn become good for us.
Drill, Baby, drill. That guy seem confused.
Jews are smart. This guy is the exception
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.
RADIO HOST??!? How many people has he confused that we don't know of
Trump kissed the ring and did the sword dance. These guys are so hypocritical.
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
China's economy is not as large as the USA, even counting the amount of money we owe them.
Conservatives don't like change. Plain and Simple.
Even if it is for a better.
Wait, there is a No Communist button. No one told me🤬
Josh said sanctions don't work, but supports an embargo, i.e. a type of sanction.
“Are we gonna normalize relations with North Korea??” idk ask trump my guy lmao
So Josh is against dealing with Cuba because he doesn't see what's in it for the US but is ok with dealing with the world's largest dictatorship China and with the most brutal dictatorship in the Middle East Saudi Arabia
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.
Rubio's parents came 3 years before the revolution