Fate

Meanwhile, Obama couldn't be bothered to get political prisoners permanently released or get cop-killers turned over

.

Maybe they should trade for this guy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:As far as most Americans are concerned, the only victims of the Castros are the Cuban people. If Rubio reinstates some trade restrictions, maybe he'll actually leverage something from them.

I know. It sounds absurd after 8 years of asking our enemies what else we can give them in return for nothing, but it might work.

Sorry, but the preceding 50 years of sanctions against Cuba achieved what for the Cuban people, exactly?

Reinstating sanctions without some indication that Cuba has reneged on agreements would show the USA to be untrustworthy. And would also damage your reputation with other nations, including your allies.

I suspect in reality most Americans are not really all that concerned about Cuba at all. I can't think of any other immigrant group in the US that has anywhere near as much influence on foreign policy and especially the attitude towards the government of their former homeland, except perhaps the Jewish-Israel lobby, but there's a lot more to that and most of those did not come to the US from Israel.

Oh brother. It doesn't have to be a complete return of all sanctions. Some particular sanctions if certain behaviors are not changed--who is going to object?

Without knowing which "particular sanctions" and which "behaviours", I don't know.

Meanwhile, Obama couldn't be bothered to get political prisoners permanently released or get cop-killers turned over. In other words, Obama's approach was "What do we have to give you to release all the sanctions against you?"

Well, seeing as many sanctions haven't actually been lifted yet, and the main thing is diplomatic relations, your characterisation of Obama's position is (as ever) hyperbolic nonsense.

Some 50-odd political prisoners released from prison is a good thing. Allowing more trade and travel would help Cubans to see what they have been missing. Given it was about a year ago, I think a bit of time to see what happens is in order, rather than immediately thinking of ways to justify rowing back.

rickyp wrote:Fate

Meanwhile, Obama couldn't be bothered to get political prisoners permanently released or get cop-killers turned over

.

Maybe they should trade for this guy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

You would find a way to take the side of Stalin. I have no doubt of your political leanings.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

Meanwhile, Obama couldn't be bothered to get political prisoners permanently released or get cop-killers turned over

.

Maybe they should trade for this guy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

You would find a way to take the side of Stalin. I have no doubt of your political leanings.

Nice dodge. USA fights a "war on terror" but harbours the guy who killed 73 people on a plane.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Fate

Meanwhile, Obama couldn't be bothered to get political prisoners permanently released or get cop-killers turned over

.

Maybe they should trade for this guy.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Posada_Carriles

You would find a way to take the side of Stalin. I have no doubt of your political leanings.

Nice dodge. USA fights a "war on terror" but harbours the guy who killed 73 people on a plane.

Not a dodge. I was talking about what Obama extracted.

Back to Rubio. Did Christie shoot his fox?

danivon wrote:Back to Rubio. Did Christie shoot his fox?

Funny things:

1. It appears to have damaged Rubio.
2. It appears not to have helped Christie.
3. Rubio came back "after halftime."

Hard to tell what will happen on Tuesday. I would guess this helps Kasich. I think Christie came across as unlikable, which is not what he needs.

Jeb had his best performance by far. This Jeb would have been the frontrunner.

Trump was weak on eminent domain was weak.

Cruz was surprisingly reserved.

Was Carson there? I think Dr. Carson is a great doctor and a fine man who is wasting people's money right now.

I dislike Kasich immensely, but I'd give him the night.

1. Kasich
2. Jeb
3. Trump
4. Cruz
5. Rubio
6. Christie
7. Carson

Will it affect Tuesday? Yes, Rubio will finish no higher than 3rd, probably 4th. Kasich will do well and become the media darling.

Out of interest, what exactly about Kasich do you dislike so much ?

Sass mentioned an excessive number of Republican debates but I think there is something admirable and democratic about forcing the candidates to go through ruthless scrutiny. Cruz is too extreme and can't get along with people, Bush is a wuss, Rubio is inexperienced and rehearsed, Kasich is too moderate, Trump is not a Republican, Christie is not likeable. (I wish we had something similar in 2000.) It's great. The lack of candidates makes for less scrutiny on the Democratic side. Is Rubio smart enough at the next debate to get rid of canned answers and respond extemporaneously? We'll see. Looking at DF's grades I am wondering if part of Kasich and Bush doing well is that they were in front of a more moderate audience.

For what it worth's CNN's debate team expert gave Rubio an F.

Sassenach wrote:Out of interest, what exactly about Kasich do you dislike so much ?

He takes credit for things that he was tangentially involved in--like balancing the Federal budget.

He also explicitly utilizes his religious beliefs as a rationale for his politics. Oddly, I'm not a fan of that. I think it is fine to want to take care of the poor. I dislike the Bible being used as a governmental motivation for caring for the poor. Can you imagine Jesus saying to Caesar, "Take care of these poor people or else?"

Basically, I think he's a Huntsman-like sort of Republican. He wants to be a lecturer rather than a leader.

There are some intangibles I don't like about him too.

freeman3 wrote:Sass mentioned an excessive number of Republican debates but I think there is something admirable and democratic about forcing the candidates to go through ruthless scrutiny. Cruz is too extreme and can't get along with people, Bush is a wuss, Rubio is inexperienced and rehearsed, Kasich is too moderate, Trump is not a Republican, Christie is not likeable. (I wish we had something similar in 2000.) It's great. The lack of candidates makes for less scrutiny on the Democratic side.

As to the latter, I don't think that's right. With only two candidates, it ought to INCREASE scrutiny. Why hasn't it? There is more time to drill into the candidate's positions, but they don't.

I know you don't think Democrats should have to answer questions about social issues--because all Democrats agree (apparently). But, why not? What limitations, if any, would they put on abortion?

How would they pay for their new programs? What do they see as dangerous levels for the National Debt?

How does Hillary explain her "expertise" on foreign affairs in light of Libya?

Is Rubio smart enough at the next debate to get rid of canned answers and respond extemporaneously? We'll see.

He better be, or he's done. It's already going to hurt him. He really had the opportunity to shut this race down last night.

Looking at DF's grades I am wondering if part of Kasich and Bush doing well is that they were in front of a more moderate audience.

Jeb was way more passionate and decisive than he has been. Kasich was less annoying than usual.

For what it worth's CNN's debate team expert gave Rubio an F.

Well, in the exchange with Christie, he deserved an F-. After that, a B. So, I'd say he was in the C- or D+ range. I think a B+ or A- would have narrowed the field to Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Bush, with only the first 3 continuing after South Carolina.

I think Jeb has a chance to get back into this, which is a shame. If Kasich somehow wins New Hampshire, expect Christie--and maybe Trump--to get out.

Doctor Fate wrote:1. Kasich
2. Jeb
3. Trump
4. Cruz
5. Rubio
6. Christie
7. Carson

To be clear: even though I thought Christie was incredible, it was as a prosecutor. I just don't think that works to win him votes. In fact, I'd say he went kamikaze last night: it was like his goal was to take out Rubio without a care for what happened to his own chances.

Candidates themselves seem to be best able to expose the weaknesses of other candidates. Moderators can ask questions but they can't deliver attacks. I suppose if there were only a few candidates they could still attack other just as much, but it seems like with a lot of candidates there is a need to stand out and one way to do that is to knock down the competition a peg. Survival of the fittest.

Yes, Christie may have done significant damage to Rubio but he's still at only 5 percent in New Hampshire. Not likely to keep going if that remains the same. So that leaves Bush and Kasich as the moderates. I am guessing if one of them significantly beats the other in New Hampshire, the loser should pack his bags.

If he doesn't take out Rubio he has no chance anyway.

He also explicitly utilizes his religious beliefs as a rationale for his politics. Oddly, I'm not a fan of that. I think it is fine to want to take care of the poor. I dislike the Bible being used as a governmental motivation for caring for the poor. Can you imagine Jesus saying to Caesar, "Take care of these poor people or else?"

So if a politician uses Biblical justifications for opposing gay marriage or abortion would you make the same point ?

Fact is that politicians use their faith as an explicit justification for their policies all the time. Tony Blair used to like saying his strong faith motivated him to invade Iraq. Bush cited Jesus as his favourite philosopher and never missed a chance to trumpet how his muscular Christianity was the motivation for all of his policies.

Doctor Fate wrote:He also explicitly utilizes his religious beliefs as a rationale for his politics. Oddly, I'm not a fan of that. I think it is fine to want to take care of the poor. I dislike the Bible being used as a governmental motivation for caring for the poor. Can you imagine Jesus saying to Caesar, "Take care of these poor people or else?"

Are there many US politicians who don't?

Rubio invoked "God's Law" when speaking out against the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage. And he went heavy on religion in the lead up to Iowa. But I don't see you complaining about that.

At least Jesus was clear to his followers about taking care of the poor ("or else"), and he never spoke to Caesar. But he was not the first to tell Israel that either - it is a theme of a few prophets when they describe how Israel has fallen.

I did not think Christie had won much for himself, but Rubio was hurt by the exchange. And it will set some to wonder how sincere he is if he can't respond to such a challenge.