NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

RobertDyck · 2016-12-10 02:47:53

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Lets see, what happens when I suggest to RoberyDyck that Canada join the United States?
...
Most liberals in the United States don't believe that the government of a State is the right place to go to implement their policies, they always look to do that at the national level.

Ottawa can do some things. But I'm going to prove Tom wrong. Yesterday was a "First Ministers" conference. That means the Prime Minister of Canada met with the Premiers of all the provinces. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to impose a carbon tax, and is trying to coerce the provinces to do it. Months ago he threatened that if any province refused to do so, he would have the federal government impose a carbon tax on that province. He left the provinces the option of "cap and trade" instead of carbon tax, but he demands some sort of carbon pricing. The premier of Saskatchewan is adamantly opposed to any form of carbon pricing. The premier of my province, Manitoba, was just elected this fall. The out going premier of Manitoba had said he would not impose any form of carbon pricing in this province. The new premier had not agreed to carbon pricing either, but media claimed he had waffled. At the meeting of First Ministers yesterday, the new premier of Manitoba refused to impose carbon pricing on my province.

Yea! Go Brian Pallister! I am a member of the Liberal Party of Canada. I have ambition to be the federal Member of Parliament for the riding (electoral district) I live in. The current Prime Minister of Canada is the leader of the the Liberal Party of Canada. I agree with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on most things, but I disagree on carbon pricing. Within the Liberal Party, I am a "fiscally responsible Liberal" also known as a "blue Liberal". The party colour for the Liberal party is red, the colour for the Conservative party is blue. A British nic-name for a Conservative party is "tory", a member of a Conservative party who has liberal leanings is called a "red Tory". Someone like me is sometimes called a "blue Liberal". Within the United States, at the time of Abraham Lincoln, the Republican party was more left, the Democrats were more right. So at that time your left party was red, your right party was blue. Somehow your parties have reversed places on the political spectrum. In 2007 I won the nomination for the Liberal Party of Canada for my riding (electoral district), the federal election was 2008. For reason that aren't germane I was replaced. But the point is in 2007 a powerful individual within the Liberal party accused me of being a Conservative; he said this to a member of the Green Light Committee who has the authority to disallow the nomination. I was standing right there when he said it, and refuted his accusation. I pointed out I was a supporter of Paul Martin, who was leader of the Liberal Party and Prime Minister of Canada from 2003 to 2006. Paul Martin was leader of the "fiscally responsible Liberals". This conversation was at a meeting of the executive for the Liberal Party of Canada (Manitoba). That's the provincial association; it's part of the federal party, but the part for my province. I was there because at that time I was a member of the executive, and president of the riding association for my riding.

So within the Liberal party I am considered to be right leaning. Within Manitoba, several members of the Liberal party consider me to be a maverick. But specifically regarding the issue of carbon pricing, I have to celebrate the decision of our provincial Premier, who happens to be leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Manitoba. That's the Conservative party in this province. The previous Premier was leader of the NDP, a socialist party. We haven't had a Liberal Premier in this province since the 1950s.

So there. In this case I support province rights, and another party.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-12-10 02:59:47)

Void · 2016-12-10 08:48:15

How Canadians work out this Carbon tax issue is going to be an interesting thing to watch. My understanding is that somehow the more spread out and remote locations of Canada get to pay more taxes, and the more populated, locations (Ontario, Quebec) get a net benefit. I am not one of those who hopes to see a major alteration of the nature of Canada. Don't think that is likely, but it does seem that just now Canada might resemble a bag full of angry cats.

Void · 2016-12-10 08:49:18

Well speaking of NAFTA, and Oil/pipelines;
https://sputniknews.com/middleeast/2016 … ican-opec/
I'm sort of a gawker, but it is an interesting topic.

Quote:

North America’s oil-producing countries should form a continental body that would compete with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), US congressman Pete Olson told Sputnik.

Quote:

In 2015, the United States became a net energy exporter for the first time since the 1950s, largely as a result of new technologies such as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, as well as discoveries of new oil and gas deposits.

My understanding is that Trump will reduce regulation of Coal, and also intend to reduce subsidization of solar and wind power.

I believe that Natural Gas will tend to replace Coal in the USA in any case due to it's low price. But I think that perhaps under Trump the export of it will be facilitated.

And as far as the removal of subsidies for solar and wind, I don't think it matters that much, as other nations in Europe and East Asia, and of course sunny places will be nurseries for such technology as long as they don't have internal sources of Hydrocarbons.

Also I understand that the main competitive problem with solar and wind is energy storage, and I am aware that much is being done for that. Liquid air, and batteries (Elon Musk). And Electric vehicles are likely to become more and more present.

Looking at the likelihood that the USA has 30 years of oil and perhaps 70 years of natural gas at todays consumption rate (Conservative estimates), and that the electric vehicle world is definitely going to become more real, I would guess, that what becomes established now could be with us as a pattern for perhaps 60-120 years.

Very interesting. A different world.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-10 09:01:56)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-10 10:12:27

Natural gas is by far cheaper than propane but when it comes to pipelines there is still the sentiment of not in my back yad due to the huge gas line explosions that people fear. Not to much coal is used in my neck of the woods other than for power plants which most have become converted to be able to use a mix of fuels as price gouging happens. The leased solar seems to be catching on slowly but out right purchase is still not possible for the average american. Other than the mountain ridge wind farms there is nearly none to be found locally. Hydro plants are far and few between but those that live near them get cheap power. Then there is wood and pellets that seem big for some for heating in the New england area. With Oil taking the lion share of fuels used for heating. Of course there is the heat pumps, solar thermal types but these have not really taken.

Void · 2016-12-10 16:07:55

A slap fight then sir? Oh, not really.

I can see your perspective. Yes, just when we trust someone, we find that we are being swindled, sort of. How can I complain about being swindled, when I live in the USA on a class retirement? Granted the B.S. is sometimes so bad you can's stand the stench, but the table scraps are good for someone like me.

Yes, pipelines, like other infrastructure needs to follow process.
I must say however, that the "Outs" just now were globalists that wanted to bring back the good old days when they could pocket money by keeping America on it's ass energy wise. They are still working that angle. I can't tell you I like them.

And it is apparent to me that you do favor the globalists, if not their globalist agenda. (Which amounts to getting us on our ass as fast as possible and keeping us there).

Therefore it is hard for me to know what is right or wrong in this matter of pipelines. I am quite sure if we were allowed to follow the money, it would lead to our quislings and their foreign sponsors, (Not even a little like Americans). But I understand that the downtrodden do not wish to loose more. So, it is a quandary.

Now I will let you in on a little bit of what I think I know. We are supposed to be making a shift from a EuroAfrican perspective to a EuroAsian perspective. But the problem is some people in this country refuse to pass the baton. They like their eternal perks which never belonged to them. Spoiled brats think they must win no matter what, or they will throw a tantrum. It doesn't matter. They may not believe that reality watches them, but reality has more plans for them now then they should have wished for.

And most will think that I am indicating that I or some entity like me is the one to deal this hand. No, i'm nothing. I am a watcher however. But I would not worry about it. It is in everyones best interests in the long run that what is to happen will happen. But the spoiled brats won't like it I expect.

North America does seem to becoming energy independent, and I agree with Peter Zeihan that we are likely to have a massive reshoring of industry, into North America (Mexico), and the USA / Canada, due to internal energy and comparative demographics per the N.A. vs the rest of the world (Except S.E. Asia which will do OK.)

Actually not picking a fight, just noting that whatever this new administration does, it will not be as dividing of our nation as the previous one was. It's just not the nature of this new beast, compared to the "Old Beast".

Not saying Angels with harps will show up though.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-10 16:22:28)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-10 17:32:08

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Lets see, what happens when I suggest to RoberyDyck that Canada join the United States?
...
Most liberals in the United States don't believe that the government of a State is the right place to go to implement their policies, they always look to do that at the national level.
Ottawa can do some things. But I'm going to prove Tom wrong. Yesterday was a "First Ministers" conference. That means the Prime Minister of Canada met with the Premiers of all the provinces. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau wants to impose a carbon tax, and is trying to coerce the provinces to do it. Months ago he threatened that if any province refused to do so, he would have the federal government impose a carbon tax on that province. He left the provinces the option of "cap and trade" instead of carbon tax, but he demands some sort of carbon pricing. The premier of Saskatchewan is adamantly opposed to any form of carbon pricing. The premier of my province, Manitoba, was just elected this fall. The out going premier of Manitoba had said he would not impose any form of carbon pricing in this province. The new premier had not agreed to carbon pricing either, but media claimed he had waffled. At the meeting of First Ministers yesterday, the new premier of Manitoba refused to impose carbon pricing on my province.
...
So there. In this case I support province rights, and another party.

It is interesting how Canada, until recently because of its Conservative Government, stood to the Right politically of the United States under Obama. now with the election of Donald Trump the US and Canada have just switched places on the Political spectrum. The main difference between Justin Trudeau and Barack Obama, is that Justin Trudeau doesn't have the antipathy towards Canada that Barack Obama has towards the United States. I think it was unfortunate when he expressed his regrets at the passing of Cuba's late Dictator and longest serving President Fidel Castro. I think Puerto Rico would make a great 51st state, and its sister Cuba would make a great 52nd state, I think there maybe an opportunity for just such an occurrence coming up shortly, we'll see, he model is East Germany's reunification with the rest of Germany. Cuba will be in pretty poor shape when they finally get rid of the Communist government, Raul Castro is very old, I'm not sure how long he'll last, maybe Trump will be President when he finally kicks the bucket, I hope he takes advantage of whatever opportunity arises and makes a deal. As I said before, we need to make the United States a more attractive place to join, that means weakening the Federal Government on most things besides Defense. I say we make Cuba an offer.

RobertDyck · 2016-12-10 18:08:25

What's up with your obsession over expansion?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-10 18:17:30

RobertDyck wrote:

What's up with your obsession over expansion?

Trump is all about expansion, throughout his career h has sought to expand his business, and as President of the United States, why shouldn't be seek to expand it as well? I think Cuba is a ripe fruit about to fall from the tree. Do you know it was a Republican Administration that was responsible for its independence from the Spanish Empire? I think Cuba is a piece of unfinished Republican business. Cuba is a sister state to Puerto Rico.

Maybe we can bring these two sisters back together, what do you think? I think an even number of stars would look good on the flag of the United States, so we should add two at a time.

Antius · 2016-12-11 14:05:29

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
What's up with your obsession over expansion?
Trump is all about expansion, throughout his career h has sought to expand his business, and as President of the United States, why shouldn't be seek to expand it as well? I think Cuba is a ripe fruit about to fall from the tree. Do you know it was a Republican Administration that was responsible for its independence from the Spanish Empire? I think Cuba is a piece of unfinished Republican business. Cuba is a sister state to Puerto Rico.
http://img06.deviantart.net/14b2/i/2009 … ey23ep.jpg
http://s1.bwallpapers.com/wallpapers/20 … 249202.png
Maybe we can bring these two sisters back together, what do you think? I think an even number of stars would look good on the flag of the United States, so we should add two at a time.

Why would you want you want to bring a pathetically poor Hispanic country into the United States? Trump is widely considered to be a man with White Nationalist sympathies. Bringing Cuba into the US would lead to a surge in Hispanic immigration. It would be an unbelievably stupid move for a man whose campaign was all about helping the white working class.

I have never understood the sanctions against Cuba, the motivation behind them or why they are remotely in US interests. There is an opportunity for Cuba to become a holiday destination for US citizens and a supplier of agricultural goods. Lifting sanctions would allow the necessary investment to be brought in.

Last edited by Antius (2016-12-11 14:12:31)

RobertDyck · 2016-12-11 15:25:58

Antius wrote:

I have never understood the sanctions against Cuba, the motivation behind them or why they are remotely in US interests. There is an opportunity for Cuba to become a holiday destination for US citizens and a supplier of agricultural goods. Lifting sanctions would allow the necessary investment to be brought in.

The answer is a couple reasons. Rich powerful interests really hate communism. They didn't want any communist country in the Americas, and they certainly didn't want a country that was influenced by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union threatened all-out war if America invaded Cuba, so the United States tried to starve them until they quit. They thought sanctions would starve Cuba until they quit any association with the Soviet Union, and quit communism. It didn't work.

The other reason is many wealthy individuals in Cuba had their property seized when Castro took over. These individuals fled to Miami. They and their descendants are highly resentful of armed robbery from the Castro regime. They hate Castro with a passion. They're a large voting block in Miami and the surrounding area, so any politician who wants votes from Florida will pander to these people. It's long since over. The revolution in Cuba occurred before I was born. Reading Wikipedia, various revolutionary groups rose against the government of Cuba throughout the 1950s. Castro's group became the leading revolutionary group in 1958, president Batista fled on January 1, 1959. So this is 58 years old. But if any politician wants votes from the Miami area of Florida, they had to maintain sanctions against Cuba. It's just politics.

As you said, Trump is all about the white working class. Obama re-established normal relations with Cuba. If Trump really wants to take a business approach, he'll establish normal business with Cuba. Cuba is missing practically everything, it's an excellent market opportunity.

Void · 2016-12-11 19:26:36

Not trying to be difficult, but your statement: "As you said, Trump is all about the white working class".
I don't think you can substantiate that color specification.

His rhetoric does indicate that his thinking is more https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mercantile
So his thinking is about engaging in a particular business model, that is somewhat different than what we have supported since the end of WW2, "Bretton Woods".

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

And so I do not think that he specifically promises to protect American workers who happen to fall under some definition of "White", but his policies would simply it seems help American workers.

He is not as a fanatic a free trader, it would appear. He does not have it as a religion, but I am guessing will examine cases of it and either accept or reject. In the case of reject, sometimes a rejection will be overcome with a revision perhaps.

Now here is Peter Zeihans opinion it would seem. I believe he feels it holds with or without Trump. (It is not Trump dependent).
http://zeihan.com/2016/08/03/cuba-life-cold-war/
Quote:

Cuba: Life After the Cold War
Aug 03, 2016 peterzeihan 0 comments
Outside of the political protestations regarding Obama’s visit to Cuba (it is a presidential election year, after all), the United States has a strong strategic interest in returning Havana to the American sphere of influence.
The geopolitical rationale is twofold:
A hostile Cuba, backed by a meaningful external power (such as the Soviet Union during the Cold War) could threaten control of America’s internal waterways—most notably anything exiting the Mississippi, as these exports have to pass either the Florida or Yucatan straits. Also at risk are the Intracoastal Waterway along the Gulf Coast. As the US becomes less interested in international trade, domestic exchange becomes more important, and so too does the political relationship with and within Cuba.
Cuba is the only portion of the Western Hemisphere through which American power does not thoroughly penetrate. That it is so close to US shores only heightens Washington’s interest.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Venezuela became Cuba’s key political and economic ally. With Caracas itself caught in the throes of political and social unrest, Cuba has no choice but to normalize relations with the US. And so it is.
There will be three primary changes that will emerge from the thawing of the last vestiges of the Cold War:
1) Tourism. Already underway, Cuba’s tourism sector is poised to soon become the top Caribbean destination for American tourists, and within a decade should be well on its way to resume its position as a sort of tropical Las Vegas. The embargo doesn’t even have to be lifted for this to happen.
2) Sugar. Cuba’s sugar industry is historically far stronger than America’s, and has operated with far lower costs. The island’s proximity to the Intracoastal Waterway and the Mississippi will vastly simplify the logistics of the sugar trade and distribution within the US market. Sugar production is set to at least double in the half-decade following the lifting of the embargo as investment flows into Cuba’s cash-and-tech starved sugar industry. The biggest obstacle is the US sugar lobby (far more powerful than most people realize), but America’s other agricultural producers will likely prove more formidable as they clamor to access a Cuban market heavily dependent on food imports.
3) Manufacturing. Perhaps one of the most frequently overlooked impacts of an American détente with Cuba. Although Cuba’s educational and vocational training system is vastly outpaced by the United States, Cuban wages are a mere fraction of what they are in the US. Cuba’s proximity means that the island can be integrated into US infrastructure and supply chains relatively easily, as well as NAFTA/CAFTA. Training, infrastructure and industrial plant buildout will take a decade, but the economic argument behind integration is solid.

If I understand what Peter Zeihan has otherwise said, mostly the U.S. / North American Community? will have much less interest in the world at large, with the exception of parts of Europe (U.K., France?, Holland?, Others?)
And South East Asia.

And according to his thinking the U.S. is going to make the rest of the world fend for itself, as far as the freedom of the sea lanes goes. But perhaps the U.S. will only work with some countries on the sea lanes, such as South East Asia.

So that could be a very big savings on Naval deployment expenses, and so help us with our budget.

Also he feels that 3D printing will help the USA / North American Community? to practice a greater degree of Autarky.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky

Once again, according to Peter Zeihan, this was due to happen no matter who would become president.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-11 19:44:15)

Void · 2016-12-11 20:02:12

Also, I am thinking that Canada will get it's XL pipeline(s).

If they can keep their tar sands alive (Will it be cost competitive?), then they can ship that heavy sour crude to the USA, and it would be mixed with light shale oil, and refined, and the two countries can sell oil to countries like the UK, to partially satisfy their market.

So, surprised at the lack of Happy Canadians.

I imagine I will hear from a Pipelineaphobe sometime soon

Last edited by Void (2016-12-11 20:03:04)

RobertDyck · 2016-12-11 20:33:37

Well, I'm pro-pipeline. The Northern Gateway pipeline went through aboriginal land that was never ceded to the Crown. Aboriginals have been treated badly far too often in history, we can't take more land from them. The current Canadian federal government agrees. After all, Aboriginal voters are one of the core constituencies of the Liberal Party of Canada. So the ruling has already been made, that pipeline is cancelled. However, the project to twin the Trans-Mountain pipeline was approved. The renewal of Line 3 was also approved, a pipeline from the oil fields of Alberta to Chicago. Still outstanding are "Energy East", a project to convert an existing natural gas pipeline to oil.

And I wanted to reverse the flow of Line 9. That pipeline was built under the administration of Pierre Trudeau, our current Prime Minister's father. Line 9 extends from Chicago northeast, crossing into Canada just north of Detroit, then connects to all oil refineries in Ontario and Quebec. In 1984 Prime Minister Brian Mulroney shut it down. The company that owns it couldn't leave it idle; a pipeline is expensive. So they built an extension from Montreal to Portland Maine, and reversed the flow. They used it to receive Middle East oil, transport it to Detroit and Chicago. Since eastern Canadian refineries were connected, they get "left overs" of that Middle East oil. I want to reverse the flow again, back to what the pipeline was built for. Transport Alberta oil to Ontario and Quebec. Since the pipeline now extends to an oil port in Maine, it could be used to export Canadian oil to the world.

But I'm ambivalent about XL. The purpose is to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta to refineries in Texas. Instead of building upgraders in Alberta to convert bitumen to synthetic crude, the plan is it sell bitumen at fire sale prices to Texas. Then Texas will convert it to synthetic crude and sell at a profit to the world. Why should Texas get the profits?

Void · 2016-12-11 20:52:35

It is good to get your input/view. According to Peter Zeihan the world could go into a split market for oil. That is the USA with shale would have a lower priced oil. And of course we have a natural gas price advantage now which apparently is to continue for a long time.

However if the world did go into a split market, then that could revive the profitability of the Tar Sands.

I know their are a lot of people who don't believe that our "Merchants" would allow a split market but would insist on exporting shale oil to the higher world market if it happens. Still Peter maintains that it is a political thing and that if the world starts having a major shortage of oil, even if the laws now would allow exports, our politicians would be forced to lock it back down to the American / North American? market.

We shall see, if we are here.

I agree that better consideration for aboriginal views/needs should be entertained. However, I am much against any foreign mischief or the mischief of Americans who might see a financial or political advantage in disrupting processes which will benefit the American / North American community. In other words globalists who want to revive the planetary oil market, and American energy dependence to non-North American energy. They get the hairy eyeball from me.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-11 20:53:28)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-11 21:19:21

The fracking in the mid west has been stopped for a bit due to earth quakes but that will probably be just for a short time....

Void · 2016-12-11 21:27:01

My last look at that was that the fracking down in Texas/Oklahoma has a very high water output, and that it is not the fracking which causes the problem but the disposal of excessive amounts of waste water. They inject it underground, and it would seem it may lubricate things. For Oklahoma I understood that they have arrived at a safe rate of injection. We will see.

Also there is activity around cleaning the water, so it would not be injected back into the ground. It will have to be cost effective though.

The Bakken Field does not have nearly as much water mixed with it's oil apparently, so not as much a problem.

There is a lot of propaganda that fracking fluids are toxic, but my understanding is the new fluid before it is used can be ingested safely.

But the wastewater may have salts, and toxic metals. I am not sure. If it does have toxic metals, perhaps they could look into reclaiming them with Electrowinning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrowinning
Quote:

The most common electrowon metals are lead, copper, gold, silver, zinc, aluminium, chromium, cobalt, manganese, and the rare-earth and alkali metals. For aluminium, this is the only production process employed.

This might still leave you with salt water however. Fish ponds, and natural evaporation from them? (Only if the toxins can be handled I am sure.

Last edited by Void (2016-12-11 21:32:15)

SpaceNut · 2016-12-11 22:02:29

The water with large amounts when laid to settle would make draining from the bottom of the storage location a possible low cost method for processing in the Electrowinning which is electrolysis for water but this is for metals instead. Solar evappration of water in a chamber also would thicken the metals for cheaper processing as well.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-11 23:00:07

Antius wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
What's up with your obsession over expansion?
Trump is all about expansion, throughout his career h has sought to expand his business, and as President of the United States, why shouldn't be seek to expand it as well? I think Cuba is a ripe fruit about to fall from the tree. Do you know it was a Republican Administration that was responsible for its independence from the Spanish Empire? I think Cuba is a piece of unfinished Republican business. Cuba is a sister state to Puerto Rico.
http://img06.deviantart.net/14b2/i/2009 … ey23ep.jpg
http://s1.bwallpapers.com/wallpapers/20 … 249202.png
Maybe we can bring these two sisters back together, what do you think? I think an even number of stars would look good on the flag of the United States, so we should add two at a time.
Why would you want you want to bring a pathetically poor Hispanic country into the United States? Trump is widely considered to be a man with White Nationalist sympathies. Bringing Cuba into the US would lead to a surge in Hispanic immigration. It would be an unbelievably stupid move for a man whose campaign was all about helping the white working class.
I have never understood the sanctions against Cuba, the motivation behind them or why they are remotely in US interests. There is an opportunity for Cuba to become a holiday destination for US citizens and a supplier of agricultural goods. Lifting sanctions would allow the necessary investment to be brought in.

Well you know that the Republican Party started out as an anti-slavery party don't you? What has been going on in Cuba during the rule of Castro was slavery plain and simple. under Communism, the state owns everything including its citizens, that is why, Cubans needed exit visas to leave Cuba, and why many Cubans took to boats and rafts to escape Cuba, this is the modern version of the Underground Railroad. Bringing Cuba into the United States would bring in a lot of Hispanics with no illusions about the nature of Communism, and would balance out all the Mexican-Americans and other Latinos that harbor these illusions, because they have been fed positive propaganda about Communism courtesy of the Castro Regime. Cuba would be a Hispanic "Poland", people who grew up under Communism and want no part of it! Also whatever happens to Cuba, it still remains only 90 miles south of Miami, we don't want a Cuba that descends into chaos after he fall of Communism, and then have a Cuban version of Putin when people grow impatient with market reforms. In a Cuba that is part of the United States, the Cuban people can simply migrate off island to where the jobs are, much as the East Germans did after they were reunited with the rest of Germany. With Cuba as part of the United States, we don't have to worr about it destabilizing other parts of Latin America.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-11 23:31:59

RobertDyck wrote:

Antius wrote:
I have never understood the sanctions against Cuba, the motivation behind them or why they are remotely in US interests. There is an opportunity for Cuba to become a holiday destination for US citizens and a supplier of agricultural goods. Lifting sanctions would allow the necessary investment to be brought in.
The answer is a couple reasons. Rich powerful interests really hate communism. They didn't want any communist country in the Americas, and they certainly didn't want a country that was influenced by the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union threatened all-out war if America invaded Cuba, so the United States tried to starve them until they quit. They thought sanctions would starve Cuba until they quit any association with the Soviet Union, and quit communism. It didn't work.

Gone-With-the-Wind-gone-with-the-wind-4372308-1024-768.jpg
Have you ever seen the movie "Gone with the Wind"? Do you see the slave in this picture, do you recall how the slaves were depicted in the movie "Gone with the Wind"? They were happy, they just "loved" serving their white masters, and didn't mind being slaves at all! The Civil War was such a bother to them, the Yankees came and burned the mansion down! This is what your typical left wing liberal thinks of the ordinary Cubans, they should be "happy slaves" just as in the movie "Gone with the Wind", and they don't understand why some are not so happy, and why they foolishly risk an over sea crossing in rickety old boats to get to America, because they think they have it so good in Cuba under the "beneficent master" Fidel Castro!

The other reason is many wealthy individuals in Cuba had their property seized when Castro took over. These individuals fled to Miami. They and their descendants are highly resentful of armed robbery from the Castro regime. They hate Castro with a passion. They're a large voting block in Miami and the surrounding area, so any politician who wants votes from Florida will pander to these people. It's long since over. The revolution in Cuba occurred before I was born. Reading Wikipedia, various revolutionary groups rose against the government of Cuba throughout the 1950s. Castro's group became the leading revolutionary group in 1958, president Batista fled on January 1, 1959. So this is 58 years old. But if any politician wants votes from the Miami area of Florida, they had to maintain sanctions against Cuba. It's just politics.

It is just theft, why should they mind being robbed? Would you like to be robbed? Castro is a thief, he is a bandit who stole a lot of private property, but I guess it isn't a big deal it it wasn't your private property he stole. Most of those Cubans weren't millionaires.

As you said, Trump is all about the white working class. Obama re-established normal relations with Cuba. If Trump really wants to take a business approach, he'll establish normal business with Cuba. Cuba is missing practically everything, it's an excellent market opportunity.

You know what? Fidel Castro was white, a lot of Cubans aren't, so they too worked for a white master just as in a Southern Plantation before the Civil War. Southern Propaganda was that of the Happy Slave, who couldn't find work if freed, and so were better off is they remained property. This is pretty much the status of Cubans today, they are property of the government, they get free health care because they belong to the government of Cuba, just as a slave belonged to his master. If a slave got sick, the master would get a doctor to examine him, and help him get better so he can return to the field and do the master's work, it is much the same for ordinary people in Cuba.

RobertDyck · 2016-12-12 00:15:51

Blah blah blah. You continue to claim communism is slavery, while claiming capitalism is perfect. Bull shit. Reality is we currently have a mixture. Labour unions are an extension from communism. If you want to try to claim that's slavery, try saying that to the face of a teamster. A lot of modern labour law is from labour unions. I feel unions today have too much power, but events a couple centuries ago demonstrate the need. And you claim there isn't theft here? What about tax? That's actually government theft. And what about expropriation? Community laws restricting whether you can build a vegetable garden in your front yard, or how often you have to mow your lawn, whether you have a lawn at all, are all unreasonable intrusions into private property.

The reason there was a revolution in Cuba was average workers were so poor. The people complaining about Castro were themselves treating workers as slaves. Middle class were unemployed, and upset that President Batista outlawed all political parties other than his own. Wikipedia image, slum housing in Havana 1954, 4 years before the communist revolution. In the background is a baseball stadium, with advertising for a nearby casino on the stadium light tower.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-12-12 05:43:24)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-12 09:27:48

RobertDyck wrote:

Blah blah blah. You continue to claim communism is slavery, while claiming capitalism is perfect.

I never made the claim that Capitalism is perfect, but still that does not justify Communism. Nothing in this world is perfect, but some things are better than others! Your claiming that because two things aren't perfect, they are the same, that is flawed logic!
What do you call a system where you get arrested for trying to leave the country? "Help, my property is escaping!"
You know what the real problem with Communism is? It is a means of avoiding competition, Fidel Castro didn't have to worry about challengers and running for reelection, because even though there were a whole bunch of people that would be better at running Cuba that he was, he could just have them arrested and executed, so Cuba ends up with a lousy leader for life. I notice a lot of undemocratic countries hold on to the same head of state for long periods of time. Cuba since the Cuban Revolution had just one head of state, and then he passed it on to his brother, basically as far as he is concerned, Cuba is his property and he just passed in on to his brother as an inheritance. So much for the so called "People's Republic" it is no republic at all. Most Communist states devolve into monarchies over time if they don't just collapse.

Bull shit. Reality is we currently have a mixture. Labour unions are an extension from communism. If you want to try to claim that's slavery, try saying that to the face of a teamster. A lot of modern labour law is from labour unions. I feel unions today have too much power, but events a couple centuries ago demonstrate the need. And you claim there isn't theft here? What about tax? That's actually government theft. And what about expropriation? Community laws restricting whether you can build a vegetable garden in your front yard, or how often you have to mow your lawn, whether you have a lawn at all, are all unreasonable intrusions into private property.
The reason there was a revolution in Cuba was average workers were so poor. The people complaining about Castro were themselves treating workers as slaves. Middle class were unemployed, and upset that President Batista outlawed all political parties other than his own. Wikipedia image, slum housing in Havana 1954, 4 years before the communist revolution. In the background is a baseball stadium, with advertising for a nearby casino on the stadium light tower.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ … ms1954.jpg

And they are all rich now? What would Cuba be like today if the Communist revolution hadn't happened? Would Cubans be better off or worse off? The Casino and stadium provided employment for Cubans. Some Cubans did very well, and they had their property stolen by the Castro regime. Are the Cuban people better off because of that theft? People do well in a Capitalism economy because they have talent, other people do not and so are poor. You are trying to conflate he politics of envy with that of poverty, they are two separate issues! Punishing success didn't solve Cuba's problems, it just made them worse!

RobertDyck · 2016-12-12 10:05:27

And the United States now has a problem with exporting money out of the country. During a trip to a Mars Society convention, I saw police nab a passenger at the boarding gate. I overheard them discuss if the person they were looking for was me. They thought I was trying to run away when I went to an airport ATM. They calmed down when they saw me use the ATM. From what I overheard, the guy was not carrying any contraband, just cash. How is that different than communism?

I wouldn't want to live in a communist country either. My point is it's their country. Not your problem, not your decision. They chose a system after getting rid of the previous tyrant. If you don't like it, then don't go there. It certainly isn't your place to coerce another country how they will run their internal affairs.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-12-13 09:00:09)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-12 11:15:31

Do the slaves own the plantation? Cubans try to escape their country because right now it doesn't belong to them, it belongs to Raul Castro, and they are his property! Would you want to live next to a Plantation full of slaves and mind your own business? Cuba is a Slave Plantation, that's what it is, it is called a "People's Republic" but those are just words, the reality of it is, the Cuban people who reside in Cuba are all slaves, Raul Castro is the master and he owns them, and as the master, he gets to decide who lives and who dies, and he does not want his property running off without his permission!

SpaceNut · 2016-12-12 19:32:25

The pleasant smile was to appease the master as they did not want to be seperated from family being sold off to who knows, being beaten to the point of maiming or death, and other such fears that is why they pretend.....
So that would make Putin the plantation owner in Russia....that does not make it so in cuba.....only time will tell if the new leader will follow suit.....

Back a few pages we talked about the pipeline and this is why its not happening...

It's not yet clear why electronic monitoring equipment didn't detect the leak, as Pipeline Spills 176,000 Gallons of Oil Into Creek 150 Miles From Dakota Access Protestsroughly two and a half hours from Cannon Ball, where protesters are camped out in opposition to the Dakota Access pipeline. Energy Transfer Partners says the Dakota Access pipeline would include safeguards such as leak detection equipment and that workers monitoring the pipeline remotely in Texas could close valves within three minutes if a breach is detected. True Cos. operates at least three pipeline companies with a combined 1,648 miles of line in Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming, according to information the companies submitted to federal regulators. Since 2006, the companies have reported 36 spills totaling 320,000 gallons of petroleum products, most of which was never recovered.
North Dakota officials estimate more than 176,000 gallons of crude oil leaked from the Belle Fourche Pipeline into the Ash Coulee Creek. State environmental scientist Bill Suess says a landowner discovered the spill on Dec. 5 near the city of Belfield, which is roughly 150 miles from the epicenter of the Dakota Access pipeline protest camps.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-12-13 00:00:28

At $50 a barrel, there are 55 gallons in a barrel of oil, therefore 3200 barrels of oil were spilled, and that is worth $160,000. Lets the oil company pay the farmer $1,600,000 for damages and be done with it. That should be enough to buy the farmer a new farm.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2016-12-10 02:47:53

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#52 2016-12-10 08:48:15

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#53 2016-12-10 08:49:18

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#54 2016-12-10 10:12:27

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#55 2016-12-10 16:07:55

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#56 2016-12-10 17:32:08

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#57 2016-12-10 18:08:25

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#58 2016-12-10 18:17:30

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#59 2016-12-11 14:05:29

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#60 2016-12-11 15:25:58

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#61 2016-12-11 19:26:36

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#62 2016-12-11 20:02:12

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#63 2016-12-11 20:33:37

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#64 2016-12-11 20:52:35

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#65 2016-12-11 21:19:21

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#66 2016-12-11 21:27:01

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#67 2016-12-11 22:02:29

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#68 2016-12-11 23:00:07

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#69 2016-12-11 23:31:59

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#70 2016-12-12 00:15:51

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#71 2016-12-12 09:27:48

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#72 2016-12-12 10:05:27

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#73 2016-12-12 11:15:31

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#74 2016-12-12 19:32:25

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

#75 2016-12-13 00:00:28

Re: NAFTA nation for lack of a better name

Board footer