All Things Trump: Is it over yet?

[Tero]

[Seabass]

[pErvinalia]

[Hermit]

I think he's in a huff after being suspended...

He was suspended? I missed that.

Only for 1 day...

What a snowflake.

Never mind. If I want to hear about the latest right wing talking points I'll check out Breitbart directly. That cuts out an articulate but not specially intelligent middle-man. In the past Coito was actually preferable due to his even tone and temper, but that is no longer the case. He has become a lot more shrill and hysterical than the sites he gets his talking points from.

Moreover, the recent discussion about the Mueller report made me wonder whether he keeps intentionally lying or is fundamentally deluded. We got this from the report: "...if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state." He saw and argued only the red-coloured bit while either not seeing the blue-coloured text himself at all or pretending to us that it wasn't there.

[pErvinalia]

I think that he's so spectacularly biased that he genuinely doesn't see how much he misrepresents.

[Tero]

Why did we go 184 pages on this thread?

[Hermit]

Why did we go 184 pages on this thread?

Because that's how many pages it takes to fit 2571 posts into a thread at 15 posts per page.

[Rum]

The kiss of death?

Donald Trump says Boris Johnson would be 'excellent' Tory leader https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48478706

[Animavore]

Maybe. Maybe not. Every time I see an article about Trump in the British papers there's plenty of Brits supporting him in the comments. Saying things like, "He loves his country. I wish our leaders were like that."

And if Brexit proves anything there's plenty of Brits show the same level of nationalism, white supremacy, racism, ill will, self destruction, and bad intent as any degenerate Trump supporter.

[Brian Peacock]

He called Meghan "nasty" though.

[Brian Peacock]

Why did we go 184 pages on this thread?

Because tweets are important.

[L'Emmerdeur]

[pErvinalia]

D77elvuUIAA1Yhp.jpg (31.71 KiB) Viewed 1749 times

[Tero]

So much winning!

Last week, President Donald Trump announced a huge aid package for farmers affected by the trade war with China. Sixteen billion dollars will go toward farmers who have lost money as a result of fewer Chinese imports. Stacey Vanek Smith, co-host of The Indicator From Planet Money, spoke to one Ohio farmer about the impact of the trade war on his farm and how he feels about the president's latest aid package.

STACEY VANEK SMITH, BYLINE: Brian Watkins is a sixth-generation farmer in northwest Ohio. He raises corn, soybeans, wheat and pigs. So Brian, when the trade war with China went into effect, what did that mean for you?

BRIAN WATKINS: We saw, you know, immediate market reaction and lowered prices. On the hog side, I would say you're looking at probably a 5 to 10% obvious market reaction. On the soybean side, it was more like 20%.

SMITH: Whoa.

WATKINS: The price of soybeans just tanked.

SMITH: What did that mean for your business? I know that farming typically doesn't have giant profit margins.

WATKINS: No, we don't have a 20% profit margin. I mean, if the price goes down 20%, that's the difference between profit and loss. The administration brought out their first aid package last fall. Most of that money went to soybean farmers.

SMITH: Did you see any of it?

WATKINS: We did see a payment on our farm; my farm got a payment. They paid $1.65 per bushel, for every bushel of soybeans you grew in 2018.

SMITH: Said you think you lost money because of the tariffs and the effect that they had.

WATKINS: Right.

SMITH: I mean, did this make up for it, entirely? Or...

WATKINS: For soybeans, for most of it, it did. Yes, quite frankly, it did. So this is where we get into the interesting thing. So now - what? - two weeks ago, they broke off the talks with China.

SMITH: Yeah.

WATKINS: And it looks like both sides are entrenching.

SMITH: I know.

WATKINS: And they're both talking about changing supply chains and all this stuff. So now we're in a mode of China, as a market, is gone. Well, from a farmer standpoint, that's - you know, that's really not good because they've been such a big market for us. And so I think because of that, the administration has - they're scrambling, right? And there's farmers who are a very important constituency to them. So this latest package has been put together very quickly.

But here's the rub, Stacey. I've got to decide, OK, am I going to plant corn? Am I going to plant soybeans? Well, this subsidy package, if they say, well, we're going to pay whatever - let's say they're going to pay another $1.65 for soybeans, that suddenly becomes this big incentive for me to try to plant soybeans to get more of the payment.

SMITH: So I mean, how do you feel about all this? Are you - how do you feel about the farm aid?
https://www.npr.org/2019/05/31/72875490 ... -s-farmers

[Animavore]

Remember when Trump yesterday supported gay pride and the Trump supporting drones on here scrambled to tell us how liberal Trump is (well, they would've if they were here)?

The State Department announced that it will be launching a new advisory panel that will stress human rights in the context of “natural law.”

In contemporary politics, “natural law” is associated with conservative Christianity, especially opposition to reproductive and LGBTQ rights. Anti-LGBTQ activists use the phrase constantly to justify opposing basic human rights.

The State Department published a notice to create the Commission on Unalienable Rights. The notice says that the Commission “will provide the Secretary of State advice and recommendations concerning international human rights matters.”

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/05/tru ... xz74nkpnSE

I (nipping it in the bud) remember.