Grey Templar wrote:
He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. but making public statements saying anything more than "everybody needs to play nice" are a problem.

The president has no business butting into local jurisdiction or rulings outside the purview of his office.

 Grey Templar wrote:
It was a serious problem with the Zimmerman case too.

His remarks there were totally out of line, especially the imaginary son bits.

It appears he's, sort of, learned his lesson. Although he has still commented way too much on it.

Frankly, I think all 3 of these cases were people looking(desperately) for racism where there was none. Its easier than looking at the actual problem(if there even was one in the first place)

 daedalus wrote:
Obummer is history's greatest monster. He's the devil and he serves only the un-American Islamic interests.

(unsubscribes thread)

 Ustrello wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Obummer is history's greatest monster. He's the devil and he serves only the un-American Islamic interests.

(unsubscribes thread)

Can't tell if troll or actually stupid.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ustrello wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
Obummer is history's greatest monster. He's the devil and he serves only the un-American Islamic interests.

(unsubscribes thread)

Can't tell if troll or actually stupid.

Sarcasm. Daedalus a damn good debater

 daedalus wrote:
Obummer is history's greatest monster. He's the devil and he serves only the un-American Islamic interests.

(unsubscribes thread)

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's no "Thanks Obama" or "Asking for medical/legal advice" square.

Needs updating.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He is, of course, entitled to his opinion. but making public statements saying anything more than "everybody needs to play nice" are a problem.

The president has no business butting into local jurisdiction or rulings outside the purview of his office.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:
There's no "Thanks Obama" or "Asking for medical/legal advice" square.

Needs updating.

Yes there is. Go to the actual bingo link in Ouze's signature, refresh it a few times, and it will pop up.

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that the President of the US shouldn't speak on what are now months of widespread domestic turmoil that have spread to many other states is a fairly stupid one, in my opinion.

Shouldn't intervene unless it becomes federal, sure. Should pretend it's not happening? That's pretty clownshoes even for the "history's greatest monster" crowd.

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that the President of the US shouldn't speak on what are now months of widespread domestic turmoil that have spread to many other states is a fairly stupid one, in my opinion.

Shouldn't intervene unless it becomes federal, sure. Should pretend it's not happening? That's pretty clownshoes even for the "history's greatest monster" crowd.


And yeah, the card reloads dynamically, and I add new squares as people suggest them and I remember and\or feel like it.

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
The idea that the President of the US shouldn't speak on what are now months of widespread domestic turmoil that have spread to many other states is a fairly stupid one, in my opinion.

Shouldn't intervene unless it becomes federal, sure. Should pretend it's not happening? That's pretty clownshoes even for the "history's greatest monster" crowd.

Obama is almost as bad as this guy!



Education belongs to the states and a Federal President should never interfere with local education and read to kids at a local school!

But yeah, it's stupid to complain about a President of the United States commenting on stuff that is happening in the United States.

 Frazzled wrote:

Considering most of the time his comments inflame the sitatuation, yes he should stick to : every keep calm and carry on or shut the hell up.
EDIT: I will state that his comments last week after the Ferguson no bill were calm and exactly what was needed. of course no one listened,

then he had the meeting with Sharpton. Bad move.

 Frazzled wrote:

Considering most of the time his comments inflame the sitatuation, yes he should stick to : every keep calm and carry on or shut the hell up.
EDIT: I will state that his comments last week after the Ferguson no bill were calm and exactly what was needed. of course no one listened, then he had the meeting with Sharpton. Bad move.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
His comments are inflammatory to people who don't like him and are looking for a reason to use anything he does/says against him. As annoying as it is, there is no way anyone can deny that is absolutely the reality we live in.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Considering most of the time his comments inflame the sitatuation, yes he should stick to : every keep calm and carry on or shut the hell up.
EDIT: I will state that his comments last week after the Ferguson no bill were calm and exactly what was needed. of course no one listened, then he had the meeting with Sharpton. Bad move.

His comments are inflammatory to people who don't like him and are looking for a reason to use anything he does/says against him. As annoying as it is, there is no way anyone can deny that is absolutely the reality we live in.

 Breotan wrote:
I think we can take Zimmerman off the bingo card. And I don't understand the cabinets thing. There's only one thread with anything like that and it's in the DCM forum so most people never saw it.

 d-usa wrote:
Kitchen Spam was a daily thing for quite a while here in the OT, but it has been gone for quite a while.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
All I'm saying is this thread is going to no end well.

 Ouze wrote:
No idea, it got so bad that Legoburner literally banned the word "kitchen" from appearing in a thread title. Go ahead, go create a new thread with Kitchen in the title, see what happens.

 Ashiraya wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
No idea, it got so bad that Legoburner literally banned the word "kitchen" from appearing in a thread title. Go ahead, go create a new thread with Kitchen in the title, see what happens.

Wait, what? Have I missed something?

What's wrong with 'kitchen'?

Obama issues 'executive orders by another name'

By issuing his directives as "memoranda" rather than executive orders, Obama has downplayed the extent of his executive actions.

WASHINGTON — President Obama has issued a form of executive action known as the presidential memorandum more often than any other president in history — using it to take unilateral action even as he has signed fewer executive orders.

When these two forms of directives are taken together, Obama is on track to take more high-level executive actions than any president since Harry Truman battled the "Do Nothing Congress" almost seven decades ago, according to a USA TODAY review of presidential documents.

Obama has issued executive orders to give federal employees the day after Christmas off, to impose economic sanctions and to determine how national secrets are classified. He's used presidential memoranda to make policy on gun control, immigration and labor regulations. Tuesday, he used a memorandum to declare Bristol Bay, Alaska, off-limits to oil and gas exploration.

Like executive orders, presidential memoranda don't require action by Congress. They have the same force of law as executive orders and often have consequences just as far-reaching. And some of the most significant actions of the Obama presidency have come not by executive order but by presidential memoranda.

Obama has made prolific use of memoranda despite his own claims that he's used his executive power less than other presidents. "The truth is, even with all the actions I've taken this year, I'm issuing executive orders at the lowest rate in more than 100 years," Obama said in a speech in Austin last July. "So it's not clear how it is that Republicans didn't seem to mind when President Bush took more executive actions than I did."

Obama has issued 195 executive orders as of Tuesday. Published alongside them in the Federal Register are 198 presidential memoranda — all of which carry the same legal force as executive orders.



He's already signed 33% more presidential memoranda in less than six years than Bush did in eight. He's also issued 45% more than the last Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who assertively used memoranda to signal what kinds of regulations he wanted federal agencies to adopt.

Obama is not the first president to use memoranda to accomplish policy aims. But at this point in his presidency, he's the first to use them more often than executive orders.

"There's been a lot of discussion about executive orders in his presidency, and of course by sheer numbers he's had fewer than other presidents. So the White House and its defenders can say, 'He can't be abusing his executive authority; he's hardly using any orders," said Andrew Rudalevige, a presidency scholar at Bowdoin College. "But if you look at these other vehicles, he has been aggressive in his use of executive power."

So even as he's quietly used memoranda to signal policy changes to federal agencies, Obama and his allies have claimed he's been more restrained in his use of that power.

In a Senate floor speech in July, Majority Leader Harry Reid said, "While Republicans accuse President Obama of executive overreach, they neglect the fact that he has issued far fewer executive orders than any two-term president in the last 50 years."

The White House would not comment on how it uses memoranda and executive orders but has previously said Obama's executive actions "advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility."

"There is no question that this president has been judicious in his use of executive action, executive orders, and I think those numbers thus far have come in below what President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton did," said Jay Carney, then the White House press secretary, in February.

Carney, while critical of Bush's executive actions, also said it wasn't the number of executive actions that was important but rather "the quality and the type."

"It is funny to hear Republicans get upset about the suggestion that the president might use legally available authorities to advance an agenda that expands opportunity and rewards hard work and responsibility, when obviously they supported a president who used executive authorities quite widely," he said.

While executive orders have become a kind of Washington shorthand for unilateral presidential action, presidential memoranda have gone largely unexamined. And yet memoranda are often as significant to everyday Americans than executive orders. For example:

• In his State of the Union Address in January, Obama proposed a new retirement savings account for low-income workers called a MyRA. The next week, he issued a presidential memorandum to the Treasury Department instructing it to develop a pilot program.

• In April, Obama directed the Department of Labor to collect salary data from federal contractors and subcontractors to monitor whether they're paying women and minorities fairly.

• In June, Obama told the Department of Education to allow certain borrowers to cap their student loan payments at 10% of income.

They can also be controversial.



AVOIDING 'IMPERIAL OVERREACH'

Obama issued three presidential memoranda after the Sandy Hook school shooting two years ago. They ordered federal law enforcement agencies to trace any firearm that's part of a federal investigation, expanded the data available to the national background check system, and instructed federal agencies to conduct research into the causes and possible solutions to gun violence.

Two more recent memos directed the administration to coordinate an overhaul of the nation's immigration system — a move that congressional Republicans say exceeded his authority. Of the dozens of steps Obama announced as part of his immigration plan last month, none was accomplished by executive order.

Executive orders are numbered — the most recent, Executive Order 13683, modified three previous executive orders. Memoranda are not numbered, not indexed and, until recently, difficult to quantify.

Kenneth Lowande, a political science doctoral student at the University of Virginia, counted up memoranda published in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1945. In an article published in the December issue of Presidential Studies Quarterly, he found that memoranda appear to be replacing executive orders.

Indeed, many of Obama's memoranda do the kinds of things previous presidents did by executive order.

• In 1970, President Nixon issued an executive order on unneeded federal properties. Forty years later, Obama issued a similar policy by memorandum.

• President George W. Bush established the Bob Hope American Patriot Award by executive order in 2003. Obama created the Richard C. Holbrooke Award for Diplomacy by memorandum in 2012.

• President Bush issued Executive Order 13392 in 2005, directing agencies to report on their compliance with the Freedom of Information Act. On his week in office, Obama directed the attorney general to revisit those reports — but did so in a memorandum.

"If you look at some of the titles of memoranda recently, they do look like and mirror executive orders," Lowande said.

The difference may be one of political messaging, he said. An "executive order," he said, "immediately evokes potentially damaging questions of 'imperial overreach.'" Memorandum sounds less threatening.

Though they're just getting attention from some presidential scholars, White House insiders have known about the power of memoranda for some time. In a footnote to her 1999 article in the Harvard Law Review, former Clinton associate White House counsel Elena Kagan — now an Obama appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court — said scholars focused too much on executive orders rather than presidential memoranda.

Kagan said Clinton considered memoranda "a central part of his governing strategy," using them to spur agencies to write regulations restricting tobacco advertising to children, allowing unemployment insurance for paid family leave and requiring agencies to collect racial profiling data.

"The memoranda became, ever increasingly over the course of eight years, Clinton's primary means, self-consciously undertaken, both of setting an administrative agenda that reflected and advanced his policy and political preferences and of ensuring the execution of this program," Kagan wrote.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE?

Presidential scholar Phillip Cooper calls presidential memoranda "executive orders by another name, and yet unique."

The law does not define the difference between an executive order and a memorandum, but it does say that the president should publish in the Federal Register executive orders and other documents that "have general applicability and legal effect."

"Something that's in a presidential memorandum in one administration might be captured in an executive order in another," said Jim Hemphill, the special assistant to the director for the government's legal notice publication. "There's no guidance that says, 'Mr. President, here's what needs to be in an executive order.' "

There are subtle differences. Executive orders are numbered; memoranda are not. Memoranda are always published in the Federal Register after proclamations and executive orders. And under Executive Order 11030, signed by President Kennedy in 1962, an executive order must contain a "citation of authority," saying what law it's based on. Memoranda have no such requirement.

Obama, like other presidents, has used memoranda for more routine operations of the executive branch, delegating certain mundane tasks to subordinates. About half of the memoranda published on the White House website are deemed so inconsequential that they're not counted as memoranda in the Federal Register.

Sometimes, there are subtle differences. President Eisenhower signed Executive Order 10789 in 1958 giving emergency contracting authority to the Department of Defense and other Cabinet departments. President Bush added other departments in 2001 and 2003, but he and Obama both used memoranda to give temporary authority to the U.S. Agency for International Development to respond to crises in Iraq and western Africa.

When the president determines the order of succession in a Cabinet-level department — that is, who would take over in the case of the death or resignation of the secretary — he does so by executive order. For other agencies, he uses a memorandum.

Both executive orders and memoranda can vary in importance. One executive order this year changed the name of the National Security Staff to the National Security Council Staff. Both instruments have been used to delegate routine tasks to other federal officials.

'THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT'

Whatever they're called, those executive actions are binding on future administrations unless explicitly revoked by a future president, according to legal opinion from the Justice Department.

The Office of Legal Counsel — which is responsible for advising the president on executive orders and memoranda — says there's no difference between the two. "It has been our consistent view that it is the substance of a presidential determination or directive that is controlling and not whether the document is styled in a particular manner," said a 2000 memo from Acting Assistant Attorney General Randolph Moss to the Clinton White House. He cited a 1945 opinion that said a letter from President Franklin Roosevelt carried the same weight as an executive order.

The Office of Legal Counsel signs off on the legality of executive orders and memoranda. During the first year of Obama's presidency, the Office of Legal Counsel asked Congress for a 14.5% budget increase, justifying its request in part by noting "the large number of executive orders and presidential memoranda that has been issued."

Other classifications of presidential orders carry similar weight. Obama has issued at least 28 presidential policy directives in the area of national security. In a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit last year, a federal court ruled that these, too, are "the functional equivalent of an executive order."

Even the White House sometimes gets tripped up on the distinction. Explaining Obama's memoranda on immigration last month, Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the president would happily "tear up his own executive order" if Congress passes an immigration bill.

Obama had issued no such executive order. Earnest later corrected himself. "I must have misspoke. I meant executive actions. So I apologize," he said.

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

He has a right to his opinion. It's in the constitution. It might hurt him or his party politically. It might be mind blowingly stupid, but it's still just words. If he takes action, that is a different story.

As I said before, Law Enforcement accountability IS a legitamate issue and has been for years. (google Ruby Ridge) The fact that more of these incidents happen to people of color and the president is also a person of color is only relevant if you are an idiot and/or a Republican.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 WellSpokenMan wrote:

He has a right to his opinion. It's in the constitution. It might hurt him or his party politically. It might be mind blowingly stupid, but it's still just words. If he takes action, that is a different story.

As I said before, Law Enforcement accountability IS a legitamate issue and has been for years. (google Ruby Ridge) The fact that more of these incidents happen to people of color and the president is also a person of color is only relevant if you are an idiot and/or a Republican.

Basically... the Pres. can issue Executive Orders, or he can issue Presidential Memoranda, both carry the same weight in a legal sense.

While people are bitching and moaning about how many executive orders he's used (really not that many compared to other presidents), he has issued more Memoranda than any president previously.


In either case, using an EO, or a Memo is taking action to "enforce" his opinion. (which is basically your first point there)

As to the second line of yours, I do agree that LEO accountability and oversight is needing reform and should be looked at more heavily (perhaps it is being looked at, but no action being taken... etc)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Basically... the Pres. can issue Executive Orders, or he can issue Presidential Memoranda, both carry the same weight in a legal sense.

 dogma wrote:
Executive Orders have been historically given legal weight, Presidential Memoranda have not. The number is also misleading as it includes all Memoranda, not just Hortatory Memoranda.

 Ouze wrote:

If you can expand on this I'm all ears. Can a memoranda be overturned by Congress in the way an EO can?

MWHistorian wrote:I think Obama has been "less than cautious" in regards to what he says about race related issues.

 Ahtman wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:I think Obama has been "less than cautious" in regards to what he says about race related issues.

Most minorities I have heard from would say the opposite as well as complaining about him not saying enough. There is a disconnect between groups, which is part of the problem. There was an episode of some show where there was a panel of white people that said we talk to much about race and in another room a panel of black people were saying that we didn't talk enough about it.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:I think Obama has been "less than cautious" in regards to what he says about race related issues.

Most minorities I have heard from would say the opposite as well as complaining about him not saying enough. There is a disconnect between groups, which is part of the problem. There was an episode of some show where there was a panel of white people that said we talk to much about race and in another room a panel of black people were saying that we didn't talk enough about it.

That sound hilarious.

 Ahtman wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:I think Obama has been "less than cautious" in regards to what he says about race related issues.

Most minorities I have heard from would say the opposite as well as complaining about him not saying enough. There is a disconnect between groups, which is part of the problem. There was an episode of some show where there was a panel of white people that said we talk to much about race and in another room a panel of black people were saying that we didn't talk enough about it.

 dogma wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

If you can expand on this I'm all ears. Can a memoranda be overturned by Congress in the way an EO can?

Yes. Any Executive Action can be overturned by Congress, even the ones Congress empowers the Executive to take.

However, that does not mean all Executive Actions are the same. The Court, Congress, and the Executive have historically treated Executive Orders with legal weight, whereas the same is not true of Memoranda. I don't know how to better explain that, at least without writing an essay, it just hasn't happened.

 djones520 wrote:
There is talking about it, and there is talking about it intelligently.

 Ahtman wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
There is talking about it, and there is talking about it intelligently.

I imagine both sides say that about the other.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
IIRC, Morgan Freeman has repeatedly said

 whembly wrote:

Not quite... for all practical purposes, they're legal actions employed by the Presidential Office.

 whembly wrote:

There's actually 3 types.

 whembly wrote:

So... legally, they're basically same thing, but used in different manner.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
IIRC, Morgan Freeman has repeatedly said

One man doesn't get to be the voice of any trend, and trotting out outliers doesn't change a trend, it just reinforces something people already know i.e. there are outliers.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
While true, I think that more people have a greater respect for him than, say.... Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton.

 WellSpokenMan wrote:
If you have been the victim of descrimination for x, you tend to see it everywhere. Absent some other explanation you wonder if that x is why something happend or why something didn't go your way. It's very frustrating. On the other hand, if you don't actively descriminate for x, you think that people making that assumption is ridiculous. This all feeds into more misunderstanings and stereotypes.

Numbers don't lie, and the numbers indicate there is a problem here.

 Ouze wrote:
I think he's done a pretty awesome job this year, all in all. I think I'd be willing to upgrade him from his previous C to a B or even a B+.

I'd never be able to give a perfect A+ to any president who keeps the detainee facility at Guantanamo Bay open, which remains a stain on our national honor.

 whembly wrote:
To be honest, his hands are tied. I believe it would've been done at the beginning of his Presidency if he could. But, I suspect you don't have a problem with the detainee facility per se, but over the "indefinite detention" policy.

 Ouze wrote:
Disagree that his foreign policy is in shambles, but it's a bit uneven. He's in a rough spot with Iraq I think: if we don't intervene and it gets worse, which seems likely, then it's his fault. He's already blamed for leaving Iraq too early (despite the fact it's on Iraq for refusing a new SOFA agreement!).

Obama's Shift on Cuba Comically Overblown
By Mark Salter - December 31, 2014

For all the media attention paid to President Obama’s decision to “normalize” relations with Cuba, it’s not entirely clear what the president can do on his own to justify all the portentous headlines. On its face, it would seem very little.

He cannot lift the trade embargo without congressional cooperation, which he won’t get. He cannot send a U.S. ambassador to Havana without Senate confirmation, which probably won’t happen. He cannot even expand the size of our interest section in Cuba into a full-fledged embassy without congressional appropriations, also doubtful.

He can relax travel restrictions to Cuba, but 600,000 Americans already travel every year to the island nation, mostly Cuban-Americans visiting family. It’s not clear that the number will increase that significantly in the wake of Obama’s decision.

Thanks to his announcement, those who do make the journey will for the first time be able to use their bank debit and credit cards while there. They can bring back Cuban cigars and rum as souvenirs. But neither product will be imported for sale in the U.S. unless Congress agrees to lift the trade embargo, a change of course for which the president laid no predicate on Capitol Hill.

In short, Obama’s decision is more expressive than definitive, which is by now a familiar recourse for a president whose foreign policy record abounds with symbolic statements and empty gestures. Like his executive decision not to deport some illegal immigrants, his executive action on Cuba can be reversed as easily as it was made by a successor with different priorities.

As a result, media speculation that this small alteration in U.S.-Cuban relations will work a profound change in the tyranny that has oppressed Cuban society for nearly six decades seems comically overblown. The Castro regime weathered the loss of its Soviet sponsors, who had sustained Cuba’s primitive economy, as well as the prestige it once enjoyed in parts of our hemisphere and on college campuses. It’s just a Caribbean backwater now, with antique cars, the ruined beauty of its towns and a flourishing sex tourism trade.

Yet the regime shows no sign of change or self-doubt. It’s unlikely to become a more benign agency merely because of the presence of more American tourists. I think it’s safe to assume the political prisoners Raoul Castro agreed to release, as welcome as that action is, will not find their “liberty” any less precarious should they resume their human rights advocacy.

Obama loyalists point to our normalization of diplomatic and commercial relations with China and Vietnam, which have expanded extensively even though both regimes continue to oppress their citizens. That is true. Of course, China is a great power, and its enormous impact on global security and prosperity necessitates our engagement with it. Cuba’s heyday as David to America’s Goliath has long passed. We have no important security or economic interests at stake in the decision to exchange ambassadors or trade with Cuba.

Like China, in the two decades since we normalized relations, Vietnam has remained a one-party state that imprisons those who challenge its prerogatives. Yet relations between our countries have strengthened as Vietnam emerges as a thriving, mostly free-market economy and likely ally in opposition to Chinese adventurism in Southeast Asia.

As someone who was marginally involved (as an aide to Sen. John McCain) in the events that led to normalization with Vietnam, I can testify that the process was the mirror opposite of the approach President Obama took on Cuba.

In the first place, it was a decision that could be fairly attributed to two presidents, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. In 1991, the Bush administration approached Vietnam’s U.N. delegation with a proposal for a quid pro quo normalization process that became known as the “roadmap.”

We had three major issues with the Vietnamese at the time. First, we wanted them to withdraw their forces from Cambodia, which Vietnam had invaded in 1978. Second, we wanted them to release from “re-education camps” South Vietnamese officials imprisoned since the war had ended. Finally, and most importantly, we wanted Vietnam to cooperate much more extensively than it previously had in determining the fates of hundreds of American servicemen still listed as POW/MIA in Vietnam. If they did those things, two successive U.S. administrations said they would lift the trade embargo and eventually restore normal diplomatic relations.

The Vietnamese never formally agreed to the roadmap, but they complied with its conditions. They got out of Cambodia and emptied the re-education camps. Their cooperation on POW/MIA investigations, which had been grudging and fitful, soon became much more helpful and trusting, and allowed for what will be remembered as one of the most extensive efforts to account for the fallen in the history of warfare.

Clinton had succeeded Bush 41 when it came time to reciprocate. Both presidents had worked assiduously to get Congress and other stakeholders to buy in to the roadmap. Bush had sought the counsel of Vietnam veterans in both parties in Congress, particularly McCain and Sen. John Kerry. He asked McCain to travel to Vietnam as his emissary. Kerry chaired a special committee to help determine the fates of missing servicemen, a committee on which McCain and several other Senate veterans of the war served.

Owing to his personal history as a draft avoider and opponent of the Vietnam War, Clinton acted gingerly before taking any step toward better relations. He sat in many meetings with representatives of the veteran organizations, the families of the missing, members of Congress. Cabinet-level discussions were held. The Vietnamese were pressed again and again for more cooperation on POW/MIA investigations. Clinton asked McCain and Kerry to author a Senate resolution calling for lifting the embargo and then to persuade a bipartisan majority to support it.

Consequently, the decision to normalize proved far less controversial and politically confrontational than does Obama’s decision on Cuba. It wasn’t much of an issue in Clinton’s re-election. Relations between the U.S. and Vietnam have grown steadily closer and more beneficial to both parties. A course was prudently considered and elaborately negotiated, a political consensus to support it was built carefully, and a relationship was established by meaningful actions from both parties.

That is how statecraft is made by an administration interested in making history instead of headlines.

 whembly wrote:
Well...

President Obama gives himself A-plus for 2014

What do you think?

 whembly wrote:

t's a fething mess Ouze and I think you know it.

Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

 Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see a policy where we stop interfering with other countries. Yeah, there are a lot of terrible regimes, but there always have been, and there always will be, forever and ever, hallelujah, amen... lets concentrate on just trying to make America great.

 Jihadin wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I'd love to see a policy where we stop interfering with other countries. Yeah, there are a lot of terrible regimes, but there always have been, and there always will be, forever and ever, hallelujah, amen... lets concentrate on just trying to make America great.

Can't. Exceptionalism is frown upon in the US of A

 Ouze wrote:
That's exactly what an Obama Loyalist would say, though.

 whembly wrote:

Because "we didn't build that".

 Tannhauser42 wrote:
Honestly, I would say our foreign policy has been "in shambles" for quite some time now, since before Obama and before Bush. Our constant attempts to play off different powers against each other for our so-called personal gain, supporting one country because they have better congressional lobbyists than another country, supporting Group A to overthrow Group B to be overthrown by Group C when Group A turns on us, and so on, is now finally biting us in the ass.

I think Teddy Roosevelt had the right idea.

 whembly wrote:


Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

 reds8n wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Let's look at the latest efforts to normalize Cuban relations... why now?

Because of the situation in Russia.

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

 Jihadin wrote:

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

All the more reason to normalize relations.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

.... and this wasn't a consideration, somehow, when we granted China Most Favored Nation trading status?

I too have never understood the particular beef we have with Cuba.

 Ouze wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

At the very least, the Castros need to be out of power.

I don't really understand the unique obsession the US has with the Castro regime, at least outside the fact that Florida is a swing state.

They're commie bastiches that's an affront to human decency?

.... and this wasn't a consideration, somehow, when we granted China Most Favored Nation trading status?

I too have never understood the particular beef we have with Cuba.

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

Actually, Raul has brought in quite a few reforms since becoming leader.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Have to wait for the other Castro brother to die because its not changing.

Actually, Raul has brought in quite a few reforms since becoming leader.

Source? I just googlefu'ed this and I'm not seeing anything in the first couple of pages.

 whembly wrote:


Who else is going to fuel our capitalist tendencies? Besides, that situation is an example of "freedom" growing in that part of the world.

How would that work in Cuba? China had the resources/people to become the economic force they're currently experiencing.

Do you think that'll happen to Cuba? With the Castro regime still running the show?

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Who else is going to fuel our capitalist tendencies? Besides, that situation is an example of "freedom" growing in that part of the world.

How would that work in Cuba? China had the resources/people to become the economic force they're currently experiencing.

Do you think that'll happen to Cuba? With the Castro regime still running the show?

I believe the term someone used earlier was Coca Cola diplomacy. Captain Morgan and Bacardi will roll in to make rum, Starbucks will move in to make coffee, the cigar companies will want to increase production, tourists will come in, etc.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I doubt that'll make the Cuban's lives better.

Furthermore, if we're going to "give up" the Embargo, we should get "something" back in return.

 whembly wrote:
President Obama gives himself A-plus for 2014

 d-usa wrote:
The something back is the access to the Cubans.

Tourists will spend US money, talk about US things, give the Cubans a view of what it is like to not live under Castro.

Sometime a free flow of people, and the attached money and information, is more powerful than any other "deal".

 Jihadin wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

My obsession with Cuba. Getting one of their classic vehicles they're still using. You know damn well you be in line if you could Dogma

All the more reason to normalize relations.

I rather go full bore with someone more willing in the Cuban leadership who actually share that same goal. One willing to meet whatever benchmarks we set.

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I doubt that'll make the Cuban's lives better.

 whembly wrote:

Furthermore, if we're going to "give up" the Embargo, we should get "something" back in return.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I doubt that'll make the Cuban's lives better.

It probably won't, but why should the US care?

 whembly wrote:

Furthermore, if we're going to "give up" the Embargo, we should get "something" back in return.

The US will, it won't have to deal with this stupid "issue" anymore. An issue it largely created.

 whembly wrote:
Then it signals "surrender" unfortunately.

 whembly wrote:

Logically, I'd think that original expats got old or died, and that the new generation wouldn't care.

 whembly wrote:

Then it signals "surrender" unfortunately.

 whembly wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Eh... I doubt that'll make the Cuban's lives better.

It probably won't, but why should the US care?

From a libertarian view... you do have a very solid point.

However, the dirty politics of it is simply because of Florida imo. I was shocked that its still a hot topic for that State.

Logically, I'd think that original expats got old or died, and that the new generation wouldn't care.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

According to this article, cuban expat support in Miami for the trade embargo is waning, with 48% in favour of it in a 2014 survey, compared to 87% in the 1991 survey.

Though, critically, the current opinion among registered voters is 51-49 in favour of the embargo, though I imagine that that split is narrower than it has been before.

 Ahtman wrote:

 whembly wrote:
Then it signals "surrender" unfortunately.

You'd have to be neck deep in Kool-Aid to think of it as surrender. Sorry, "surrender".

 whembly wrote:

Unilaterally saying "no mas" without getting anything in return is a "surrender".

You do know that an "American Most Wanted" is living there...right?

 d-usa wrote:

Of course, like so many things Obama, it was interesting to watch you go from "Yeah, Obama did a good thing" to "No, Obama did a bad thing" in less than 24 hours.

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Of course, like so many things Obama, it was interesting to watch you go from "Yeah, Obama did a good thing" to "No, Obama did a bad thing" in less than 24 hours.

Uh huh... everything he touches turns to gold for you, amirite?

 Torga_DW wrote:
I can see the rest of your points, but i don't understand how relaxing internet access in cuba is a win for america?

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

Of course, like so many things Obama, it was interesting to watch you go from "Yeah, Obama did a good thing" to "No, Obama did a bad thing" in less than 24 hours.

Uh huh... everything he touches turns to gold for you, amirite?

Are you denying that you did a complete 180 on this subject?

 d-usa wrote:
So to summarize:

You: We got nothing!
Me: We got a number of things. You supported this decision and changed your mind within 24 hours.
You: You love everything Obama does!
Me: Are you denying that you changed your mind?
You: Obama said something stupid about ISIS!

Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

 d-usa wrote:
Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

 whembly wrote:
We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

 MrDwhitey wrote:
No, you're the one doing that "at" talking. You're not even trying to respond to his points at all.

It's really fething sad to watch really, especially when after all of it you claim "both sides are at fault" when no, it's YOU.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

 whembly wrote:
We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

Come on fellas...

 whembly wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
So to summarize:

You: We got nothing!
Me: We got a number of things. You supported this decision and changed your mind within 24 hours.
You: You love everything Obama does!
Me: Are you denying that you changed your mind?
You: Obama said something stupid about ISIS!

Are we going to have an actual conversation grounded in reality about any subject today, or are we done here?

We both need a time out.

We're talking at each other, not too to each other.

 whembly wrote:
You do know that there's a two-currency system in Cuba. Go look that up. Think about the impact on normal Cubans and it's impact.

Although, you did missed this discussion back in Ouze's thread... take a peek:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627362.page

 whembly wrote:
Eh...

A lot of people on the right and in the Cuban-American expat community are going to go ballistic about this...

But let's be honest, it's time.

I think we made our point.

You could argue now that with the Ruble free-fall and economic unrest with China & Central America, now is the time to break that ice. With normalize relations, that may hasten the change to move away from the Castro-Communism environment faster than maintaining the embargo.

 whembly wrote:

I'm not against it per se...

But, there's always "the right way" vs "the wrong way" to do this.

But, I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at Obama's body of work in Foreign Policy... history won't be too charitable.

And yes, those "concession" are Jack & gak. And Jack left town.

I'm saying we should get a better result.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:
You do know that there's a two-currency system in Cuba. Go look that up. Think about the impact on normal Cubans and it's impact.

Although, you did missed this discussion back in Ouze's thread... take a peek:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/627362.page

I didn't miss it. That's why I pointed out that you went from this:

 whembly wrote:
Eh...

A lot of people on the right and in the Cuban-American expat community are going to go ballistic about this...

But let's be honest, it's time.

I think we made our point.

You could argue now that with the Ruble free-fall and economic unrest with China & Central America, now is the time to break that ice. With normalize relations, that may hasten the change to move away from the Castro-Communism environment faster than maintaining the embargo.

To this (2.5 hours later):

 whembly wrote:

I'm not against it per se...

But, there's always "the right way" vs "the wrong way" to do this.

But, I shouldn't be surprised. Just look at Obama's body of work in Foreign Policy... history won't be too charitable.

Which is why I have mentioned that Cuba was another one of those "Obama did good...I mean bad...." subjects for you.

And yes, those "concession" are Jack & gak. And Jack left town.

So our citizen should still be in a Cuban jail because his release was gak?

I'm saying we should get a better result.

You didn't say we should get something better. You said we "surrendered" and "got nothing".

 whembly wrote:

Extradition?

 whembly wrote:

Resolve the old property disputes?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Extradition?

Gitmo makes that a nonstarter.

 whembly wrote:

Resolve the old property disputes?

Gitmo also makes that a nonstarter, as does the trade embargo.

 Torga_DW wrote:
I can see the rest of your points, but i don't understand how relaxing internet access in cuba is a win for america? It sort of feels like maybe america should have insisted some new sport be introduced to cuba as well. We'll trade prisoners, we'll do business, but your citizens MUST take up yodeling as a past-time!

 d-usa wrote:
Porn at dial-up speeds.

You kids have no idea what it was like!

 djones520 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
Porn at dial-up speeds.

You kids have no idea what it was like!

The struggle was real... You really had to want it.

 Torga_DW wrote:
Maybe thats the plan: look at how much faster you can download porn in the usa compared to your country? This may well be the single most important blow struck for democracy in the world.

 whembly wrote:

Uh huh... so, what would it "take" for US to close the base?

 whembly wrote:

Remember, Gitmo isn't just the detainee facility. It's also the port servicing one of our fleet (4th I believe) and the central american anit-narco unit hub.

 whembly wrote:

For me, something like verify "free elections" would be a start for the US to implement a sunset date for Gitmo.

 dogma wrote:
Why should the US care about free elections in Cuba?

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

For me, something like verify "free elections" would be a start for the US to implement a sunset date for Gitmo.

Why should the US care about free elections in Cuba? It knows who the Castros are, and what their regime is like; free elections disrupt that.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We have diplomatic relations with countries with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba and no one, including you, seem to give a gak about it.

I will say that it has been entertaining watching you take an about-face over this subject in such a short amount of time.

 whembly wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
We have diplomatic relations with countries with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba and no one, including you, seem to give a gak about it.

I will say that it has been entertaining watching you take an about-face over this subject in such a short amount of time.

I'm still for it, if nothing else to "move the ball forward" at bit. I just wish we're fething serious about it and get concessions.

Know what I mean?

As for your comment that we have "diplomatic relations with countriels with human rights records that are much worse than Cuba"... thankfully, there's only a few that fit in that parameter. Yeah, Cuba is pretty bad bro.

Wanna complain about our relations with China? Simple reason... it was to drive a wedge between China and the USSR.

 Da Boss wrote:
You guys are pretty friendly with plenty of Gulf states that have pretty despicable human rights records.

Not picking a fight, just saying that you can be awful selective there.

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

Guantanemo and death penalty (with huge wait on Death Row), probably more but those were two which came off the top of my head.

 djones520 wrote:

The long wait gives them time to appeal, many deaths having successfully been so.

 Torga_DW wrote:
In theory yes. The problem is every country has limited resources, and it costs a lot of money to keep someone for life. The question is where do you draw the line?

 Torga_DW wrote:
Not to condone or condemn executions, but how much is that due to government regulations and associated costs? They used to do it with a noose, then the french invented the guillotine.

Again, not trying to take a side on the issue here, just trying to define it.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:

In fact, the US is pretty bad when it comes to human rights, when I think about it.

Wait... wut?

Guantanemo (torture and indefinite detention without trial, or even formal charges) and death penalty (with huge wait on Death Row), probably more but those were two which came off the top of my head.

Relapse wrote:


I started out as an ardent supporter of the death penalty, but conversations with d-usa have made me less so, and incidents like this, if regularly repeated, would put me square in the opposition camp:


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/08/01/arizona-inmate-injected-15-times-records-show/13498865/

 Torga_DW wrote:
Not to condone or condemn executions, but how much is that due to government regulations and associated costs? They used to do it with a noose, then the french invented the guillotine.

Again, not trying to take a side on the issue here, just trying to define it.

 Torga_DW wrote:
With enough time and resources put into it, cuba could be the next iraq.

 whembly wrote:

Cuba has no free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Dissidents are jailed or worst.

 whembly wrote:

Sure we may get a few folks back... but, keep in mind that human rights groups (ie, Amnesty Int.) estimates that over 8,000 prisoners of conscience incarcerated in Cuba.

 whembly wrote:

IF we are to normalize relations, get rid of the embargo, setup embassies... Cuba must reciprocate something major. Unlike what happened in Vietnam or China, Cuba has not undertaken any similar reforms in either its external behavior or its internal political and economic structure.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Cuba has no free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Dissidents are jailed or worst.

Again, why should the US care? After all it was more than happy to support Batista, who was significantly worse, though at least in that instance there was a clear geopolitical reason.

 whembly wrote:

Sure we may get a few folks back... but, keep in mind that human rights groups (ie, Amnesty Int.) estimates that over 8,000 prisoners of conscience incarcerated in Cuba.

I don't think the US gets to call foul on prisoner retention in Cuba.

 whembly wrote:

IF we are to normalize relations, get rid of the embargo, setup embassies... Cuba must reciprocate something major. Unlike what happened in Vietnam or China, Cuba has not undertaken any similar reforms in either its external behavior or its internal political and economic structure.

In the Vietnam case the US, primarily, wanted its POWs back; the rest was window dressing. In the China case the US simply wanted to establish relations with China as it finally realized it didn't like the USSR either.

 whembly wrote:

I just don't the we should just "give away the store" here.

 dogma wrote:

 whembly wrote:

I just don't the we should just "give away the store" here.

You didn't answer the question.

 Ouze wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
With enough time and resources put into it, cuba could be the next iraq.

This is probably, in my opinion, the high point of the thread.

One can only hope, my friend.

John Stossel ✔ @FBNStossel
Follow
Obama translation #SOTU
8:21 PM - 20 Jan 2015

I regret that I have but one Like to give to that post.

-some guy on the internet

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 whembly wrote: