posted
Then Congress is full of immature children or something? That Castro gets to live to see the end of the embargo and the crime against humanity it represents is one of life's beautiful ironies.
I don't see why I don't get to call it how I see it. It's not a victory for communism or the Cuban system or anything, without that embargo Cuba would've been capitalist by now. Its a victory for the Cuban people.
quote: Marco Rubio posted:
“This whole new policy is based on an illusion, on a lie, the lie and the illusion that more commerce and access to money and goods will translate to political freedom for the Cuban people”
Marco Rubio IS A COMMUNIST!!!!!!
[ December 17, 2014, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Elison R. Salazar ]
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If Congress's decisions are dependent on whether or not Blayne uses kid gloves, then the US is more screwed than I thought.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah its a little ridiculous to assign responsibility to internet commentators when *real* pundits are 1000x worse.
My personal feelings are completely irrelevant to the issue's resolution; we're observers, we have a right to be smug without affecting the process.
Politicians are against normalization because of some old decrepit cubans who are also wealthy donors and no other reason, it has nothing to do with childish notions of 'winning or losing'.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I meant the second person plural representative "you" rather than YOU for most of that.
quote:Politicians are against normalization because of some old decrepit cubans who are also wealthy donors and no other reason, it has nothing to do with childish notions of 'winning or losing'.
That's half of it, exactly as I said above.
The other half is absolutely ego. Or at least, faux ego used as a cudgel for political gain. But that's a distinction without a difference most of the time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Speaking of pundits, I'm very curious if Cuba and The Interview can be shoehorned into tonight's Daily Show, what with the Colbert retirement.
...it's like how Sarah Palin stepped down from being governor of Alaska right before a two week shooting break.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I meant the second person plural representative "you" rather than YOU for most of that.
quote:Politicians are against normalization because of some old decrepit cubans who are also wealthy donors and no other reason, it has nothing to do with childish notions of 'winning or losing'.
That's half of it, exactly as I said above.
The other half is absolutely ego. Or at least, faux ego used as a cudgel for political gain. But that's a distinction without a difference most of the time.
Well if its not me specifically then that's fine, sorry.
This convo was slightly mirrored elsewhere:
"Did Fidel get the last laugh?" "In terms of foreign policy? Absolutely. He outlived every member of the CIA and Executive Branch who tried to have him killed."
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: “I don’t care if the polls say that 99 percent of people believe we should normalize relations in Cuba,” Rubio answered, later adding: “I don’t care if 99 percent of people in polls disagree with my position. This is my position, and I feel passionately about it.”
posted
What confuses me is that so many Republicans are against this move. I could have sworn something about the Free Market belief system says that people just won't buy things / sell things to Cuba if they don't like what they are doing, etc.
Shouldn't they be all for the move, and letting the 'free market' sort out whether or not the embargo is actually lifted by corporations?
Posts: 164 | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rand Paul weighing in with surprisingly historical correctness.
quote:Senator Marco Rubio believes the embargo against Cuba has been ineffective, yet he wants to continue perpetuating failed policies. After 50 years of conflict, why not try a new approach? The United States trades and engages with other communist nations, such as China and Vietnam. Why not Cuba? I am a proponent of peace through commerce, and I believe engaging Cuba can lead to positive change. Seems to me, Senator Rubio is acting like an isolationist who wants to retreat to our borders and perhaps build a moat. I reject this isolationism. Finally, let's be clear that Senator Rubio does not speak for the majority of Cuban-Americans. A recent poll demonstrates that a large majority of Cuban-Americans actually support normalizing relations between our countries.
quote: “I don’t care if the polls say that 99 percent of people believe we should normalize relations in Cuba,” Rubio answered, later adding: “I don’t care if 99 percent of people in polls disagree with my position. This is my position, and I feel passionately about it.”
If we ran the government based on polls, we wouldn't need representatives. We elect them to exercise their judgment and if we don't like it we don't vote for them again.
I don't know if there's an issue in the country that 99% of the people oppose that I'm in favor of. But I can imagine a large majority being against something and me being for it and honestly believing it was my duty to not do what they tell me to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Thesifer: What confuses me is that so many Republicans are against this move. I could have sworn something about the Free Market belief system says that people just won't buy things / sell things to Cuba if they don't like what they are doing, etc.
Shouldn't they be all for the move, and letting the 'free market' sort out whether or not the embargo is actually lifted by corporations?
Sure...unless it's evil fascist communist EVIL EVIL dictators!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: “I don’t care if the polls say that 99 percent of people believe we should normalize relations in Cuba,” Rubio answered, later adding: “I don’t care if 99 percent of people in polls disagree with my position. This is my position, and I feel passionately about it.”
If we ran the government based on polls, we wouldn't need representatives. We elect them to exercise their judgment and if we don't like it we don't vote for them again.
I don't know if there's an issue in the country that 99% of the people oppose that I'm in favor of. But I can imagine a large majority being against something and me being for it and honestly believing it was my duty to not do what they tell me to do.
An elected official's job description is to represent his constituency's wishes in enacting policies and legislation. He's blatantly saying in this issue, he doesn't care what the people think.
If my boss gives me instructions on an important part of my job, I have to do it with my other option being to find a new job. Rubio's boss is his constituents, and if 99% of them want a certain policy, he should either listen to them or find a new job.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: “I don’t care if the polls say that 99 percent of people believe we should normalize relations in Cuba,” Rubio answered, later adding: “I don’t care if 99 percent of people in polls disagree with my position. This is my position, and I feel passionately about it.”
If we ran the government based on polls, we wouldn't need representatives. We elect them to exercise their judgment and if we don't like it we don't vote for them again.
I don't know if there's an issue in the country that 99% of the people oppose that I'm in favor of. But I can imagine a large majority being against something and me being for it and honestly believing it was my duty to not do what they tell me to do.
An elected official's job description is to represent his constituency's wishes in enacting policies and legislation. He's blatantly saying in this issue, he doesn't care what the people think.
If my boss gives me instructions on an important part of my job, I have to do it with my other option being to find a new job. Rubio's boss is his constituents, and if 99% of them want a certain policy, he should either listen to them or find a new job.
I've never really looked at it like that. To me, it's more like the constituency elect a representative whose judgment they trust.
Which is not the same thing as electing someone who will vote exactly as you want them to vote.
If you have cause to believe his judgment isn't sound, then don't vote for him again.
That's not to say that I don't think Rubio is a dick.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not buying that. How many people who voted for Obama would still like him if, once he got into office, his judgment told him that the Republicans have it right and followed their stances on all the issues. Would Democrats think, "Well, we voted for his judgement, not because of his stance on the issues, and if his judgement is telling him the Republicans had it right all along..."
quote: If you have cause to believe his judgment isn't sound, then don't vote for him again.
That's the equivalent of firing him, only, unlike most jobs, we have to wait until the next election to do so. I would fire him, not because I don't believe his judgment is sound, but because he isn't accurately representing my interests as he was hired to do.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this issue is moot because Rubio's constituents are pretty much where the majority of Anti-Castro Pro-Embargo cubans live, so he is representing them (or at least the older wealthy political donors).
This will probably pass, the business wing of the GOP want to do business in Cuba and turn it into the Vietnam of the Caribbean.
Posts: 12931 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: An elected official's job description is to represent his constituency's wishes in enacting policies and legislation. He's blatantly saying in this issue, he doesn't care what the people think.
No. The job description of an elected official is to represent his constituents *interests*. Significant difference there: what people want (cotton candy and 0% income tax) and what they need (sex education and a progressive income tax, a minimum wage, basic regulation, and other odds and ends) are often at odds. Nevertheless, it is the elected official's job to balance the two, and pursue their interests, as well as follow and uphold the constitution.
quote: If my boss gives me instructions on an important part of my job, I have to do it with my other option being to find a new job. Rubio's boss is his constituents, and if 99% of them want a certain policy, he should either listen to them or find a new job.
I really hate this stupid canard. Marco Rubio's boss is not his constituents. His effective boss is (was) Mitch Mcconnell, and the people of the United States are his ultimate boss. He serves all of them, not just his constituents.
We need less of this lame, narrow minded gabble about who the boss is. Elected officials (particularly congresspersons) are not puppets for the people who voted for them, and they are not solely responsible to the people they represent in congress. They are responsible to the laws and constitution of the united states, and to the people of the unites states, and they swear an oath to that effect.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: [QUOTE]Originally posted by GaalDornick: [qb] An elected official's job description is to represent his constituency's wishes in enacting policies and legislation. He's blatantly saying in this issue, he doesn't care what the people think.
No. The job description of an elected official is to represent his constituents *interests*. Significant difference there: what people want (cotton candy and 0% income tax) and what they need (sex education and a progressive income tax, a minimum wage, basic regulation, and other odds and ends) are often at odds. Nevertheless, it is the elected official's job to balance the two, and pursue their interests, as well as follow and uphold the constitution.
I would guess that polls would show most Americans wouldn't support a 0% income tax and would support all the other things that you pointed out we need. Isn't the underlying purpose of a Democracy that you trust the people to ultimately make the right decisions to govern themselves, albeit indirectly through an elected official?
quote: quote: If my boss gives me instructions on an important part of my job, I have to do it with my other option being to find a new job. Rubio's boss is his constituents, and if 99% of them want a certain policy, he should either listen to them or find a new job. I really hate this stupid canard. Marco Rubio's boss is not his constituents. His effective boss is (was) Mitch Mcconnell, and the people of the United States are his ultimate boss. He serves all of them, not just his constituents.
We need less of this lame, narrow minded gabble about who the boss is. Elected officials (particularly congresspersons) are not puppets for the people who voted for them, and they are not solely responsible to the people they represent in congress. They are responsible to the laws and constitution of the united states, and to the people of the unites states, and they swear an oath to that effect.
You're right, I incorrectly referred to the American people as his constituents, but that is what I meant. I wasn't thinking about only Florida voters when I was saying that the his constituency is his boss.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do back off a little of what I said though. It just rubbed me the wrong way, hearing Rubio say that even if ninety-nine percent of voters disagreed with him on an issue it wouldn't change his stance.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are situations in which I would agree with something like that. If 99% of constituents believed that we should teach Intelligent Design in science classrooms, I would hope their congressional representative would vote it down. Politically, that doesn't make sense or happen often, but it is what an elected official is theoretically supposed to do.
quote:
I would guess that polls would show most Americans wouldn't support a 0% income tax and would support all the other things that you pointed out we need. Isn't the underlying purpose of a Democracy that you trust the people to ultimately make the right decisions to govern themselves, albeit indirectly through an elected official?
No. That doesn't describe democracy, much less The American system, in any real sense.
In theory (and this is how Jefferson would have seen it), representative democracy allows a political class to dedicate itself to leadership, with the expressed, but effectively limited permission of the people (and only some of the people- only the kind who fit into the aspiring political class).
In practice, representative democracy means that the political class weighs the balances of special interests with those of labor and other public interest groups. Business allows the political class to survive (by sponsoring them), and the people have a check against their power with the vote and other direct action (like referendums and strikes).
The fallacy inherent in your interpretation is that, at any time, democracy has been viewed by those in power to effect it, as an actual devolution of power to individuals. That would be closer to anarchism than democracy. The vote is not power. The vote is a check *against* power.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
