When I first read this I thought the Eagles guitarist? And honestly still had to look up who Joe Walsh was to make sure it wasn't the Eagles guitarist. American politics in 2019!

Heh.

Well I suspect he is going to get a ton of press. He will attack Trump on fitness for office, lies, demeanor, etc. relentlessly. The left-leaning media outlets will like reporting on him because he’s a conservative who will speak harshly of Trump, and right-leaning media will give him airtime because he will undoubtedly attack Trump from the right. Trump will be incapable of ignoring him, thus giving him even more exposure.

He’s basically somewhat of a mini Trump, but with a set of core beliefs, more savvy, and less charisma. He stands precious little chance of winning the nomination, but if we have an economic downturn while Walsh is continually attacking him, I wouldn’t be shocked if Trump has a public meltdown that would make everything else he’s done this far seem tame by comparison.

Trump has a 94% approval rating among Republicans. This feels much more like a publicity stunt to get his name out there and put some money in his political coffers if he decides to run for Congress again.

Living here in Myrtle Beach I have to worry about hurricanes, but now it looks like I may have to worry about nuclear fallout too as Trump wants to drop a nuclear bomb in one to try to stop a hurricane from hitting the US:


I tried to link an article on it here, but the forum didn't like it. It's on Axiom if you want to see it.

It must be a fun constantly going to the press to explain what the President really meant.

Aides say Trump not ordering U.S. companies to leave China — just suggesting - MarketWatch

Yeah I was pretty sure they weren’t the same but...

Holy shit. Brad Parscale gets a cut of every contribution to Trump and the RNC.

According to Trump.

You should know not to buy what he says as truth without corroboration.

You're right. Doing some research it seems to range from 82% to 87%. That's still remarkably high.

I guess I don't see who the target is for Walsh. He has nearly identical political views to Trump. Is a birther and bigot. Just seems like he flipped on Trump when being his ballwasher wasn't making him enough money.

Trump is open to giving Iran loans if they'll negotiate.

Best negotiator ever.

dola

I'm fascinated by this Haley/Pence stuff. Wouldn't it be a good thing for Pence if Haley took over and then Trump lost? He could both claim the mantle of Trumpism without the stink of a loss. He'd be in a good spot for 2024 or 2028 and Haley would be severely wounded.

The Haley thing is interesting. In a vacuum she probably makes Trump's 2020 ticket stronger, but I'm not sure ditching his VP helps at this point. It would definitely be awkward and the most Trump thing Trump could do.

I think Pence keeps the evangelicals but loses most of the rest of Trump's base. In a general election setting I think he's a variation of Romney that loses to any decent Dem candidate. He's just isn't an exciting candidate and without major changes to their platform the GOP is going to need every registered republican to vote by 2024 or 2028. I don't think he's the guy that makes that happen.

The Ag Secretary has a unique way of speaking with upset farmers.

But who will the farmers vote for in 2020?

"On the one hand, this farm has been in my family for 3 generations, and I'm going to lose it as a direct result of Trump's policies, and he has shown no indication of changing those policies if he is re-elected.

"On the other hand, I saw a facebook ad a few weeks ago, and the picture they used of AOC made her look silly.

"So I'm really conflicted."

I think this ethanol thing is putting more cracks into the Trump farmer base than anything. But let's not get too carried away in wondering who farmers will vote for because it's not 1920 anymore. Farmers have some sway as an economic bloc but as a voting bloc they aren't significant at all. It's all these other people living out here in the rural hinterlands that will continue to vote for Trump because they may only be loosely connected to agriculture.

Wow! Yet another big storm heading to Puerto Rico. Will it ever end? Congress approved 92 Billion Dollars for Puerto Rico last year, an all time record of its kind for “anywhere.”

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 27, 2019

Why doesn't PR just stop having hurricanes?

Obviously it's because they won't just nuke them.

We should sell Puerto Rico to buy Greenland.

Hmmm... it could be just those dumb uneducated farmers that don't know any better or it could be years of getting crapped on by the Democrats and the far reaching secondary consequences of their regulations such as the Clean Water Act? Nah... probably just a dumb farmer (probably racist too) that doesn't know any better than the fine liberal folks at FOFC.

If someone looks at the world and think that the GOP is the best choice, then they should vote for the GOP. There's nothing I can say that could convince them otherwise, and it would be a waste of my limited time and energy to try.

The Clean Water Act that passed the House 366-11 and the Senate 86-0?

And besides, who needs clean water?

We are tracking closely tropical storm Dorian as it heads, as usual, to Puerto Rico. FEMA and all others are ready, and will do a great job. When they do, let them know it, and give them a big Thank You - Not like last time. That includes from the incompetent Mayor of San Juan!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2019

ttps://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1166382203808440320?s=20
Donald J. Trump on Twitter: "Wow! Yet another big storm heading to Puerto Rico. Will it ever end? Congress approved 92 Billion Dollars for Puerto Rico last year, an all time record of its kind for “anywhere.�"

In my time farming, I never once felt hindered by any sort of unfair regulation. My fellow (I use that term loosely now) farmers like to bitch about regulations because quite frankly they need to be regulated. How dare the government make us come up with a nutrient management plan in terms of spreading manure! We should be able to spread it wherever and whenever we feel like! How dare the government inspect our facility where we make food for human consumption!

There are enough dumb farmers out there that need to be regulated. They would do some stupid shit if they weren't.

Hmm... maybe it's the hotter weather and warmer ocean and you should have attended the climate change meeting at the G7, Don.

Naw...that couldn't be it.

No. The changes made about 4 years ago, feel free to look up the vote but I can promise it wasn't 86-0.

Yeah sure it's all about clean water. You oppose the Patriot Act? What you are not a patriot!?! You oppose "Right to Work"? You oppose people's right to work? How dare you!

Does your farm have a river or a stream nearby or on property? My father-in-law has a farm in Ellsberry, MO off the Mississippi River and I can promise you the changes made a few years ago were about more than common sense clean water. I appreciate your viewpoint for sure as you are a farmer and know your stuff and I'm also sure some FOFC keyboard warrior will google Clean Water Act and tell me why I am wrong but my father-in-law can attest to the huge changes from the Obama administration's EPA changes to the Clean Water Act.

Does Trump have an even larger impact on farmers? Almost certainly yes, was mainly responding to the implication that reason to vote Democrat was because Trump sucks for farmers but if you vote Republican it isn't because Democrats can also suck for farmers but instead was because Fox News has a vice-grip on the "ignorant" farmer who is incapable of making more nuanced decisions than Trump sucks vote Democrat.

Well Georgia is going to be a ton of fun next fall. Senator Isakson announced he's going to retire at the end of this year for health reasons, so we'll have TWO Senate races in 2020 (from Jan 2020 the Governor will appoint someone - will be interesting to see who that will be).

It's not yet noon, and the President of the United States has attacked, via Twitter, by name, all of the following (in chronological order, as best as I can tell...)


-the New York Times

-Bret Stephens

-Anyone how has an opinion about China

-Puerto Rico

-the mayor of San Juan

-Fox News

-Juan Williams
-Sandra Smith

-CNN

-MSNBC
-Donna Brazile

-Shep Smith

-Our federal reserve

-Puerto Rico (again!)



...and said "I am the best thing that's ever happened to Puerto Rico!"


Completely stable genius, that one.

When it comes to impact of environmental legislation, I'll err against the view of the side whose leader wants to nuke hurricanes.

Not to mention that he's also the Chosen One!

I guess those awful Democrats failed with those decades of farm subsidies that were opposed by Republicans because socialism and free market, but none of that matters now because that clean water change? And I guess because farm subsidies ended up being a good idea that Republicans wouldn't dare cut them, and I guess they give more now, because CHINA, so socialism is in again?

Yes, there is a creek running through our land that feeds into the Wisconsin River, which feeds into the Mississippi River. About fifteen years ago we built a large manure storage facility and got government cost-sharing with it. As part of that process we had to have government engineers mandate some changes to make us a zero run-off farm. We lost some pasture and had to do some excavating to prevent any accidental run-off from flowing into the creek.

We also took some land out of production along the creek at some point, which was pretty instrumental in mitigating damage from flooding we had a few years later. And it comes with a nice check from the government as if they were renting it from us.

I have heard some complaints about WOTUS (which is what I believe you are talking about here) but I'm having trouble wrapping my head around the complaints. Perhaps there are some legitimate issues with its implementation but people screaming about property rights and all that seem to ignore that when dealing with water, we are not on an island as farmers. Water moves. We have a responsibility to not pollute the water before it leaves our land.

So then why would a farmer vote Trump? Anyone capable of making a nuanced decision has to see he is bad for their business.

Yes it is a list of costly "improvements" he had to make to his property and the easement of his property to reconcile with the new EPA regulations from the clean water act. I believe it also came from the Missouri conservation department so I won't put it all on the feds. I also know there is a very tedious process when he wants to sell his land. I fully admit to not knowing the specifics (and won't act like I do or put out a bunch of bs to win an internet argument) but know this was a big problem with him and his farmer neighbors. I also admit he may not know all the specifics or who is to blame specifically but he seems to know his stuff on ag policy.

I know another issue they are having is with the Army Corps of Engineers and how a lot of the flooding issues the Mississippi has been having are related to inconsistent policies that sometimes are trying to protect species of fish at the cost of thousands of acres of their land that flood. Again the next time I see him I will get more specifics but I know this is an issue as well. Again Trump is in power now so more a federal government issue than Democrats on this one.

The whole point being anyways is sometimes these issues are more complicated than Trump Bad, Democrats good. And saying Trump sucks for farmers but they hate AOC and vote "wrong" (implying I guess because they are closet racists) could be the reason that the Democrats lose some of these votes? Would you not agree knowing your fellow farmers pretty well that it doesn't help to insult them or ignore them like Clinton seemed to do during 2016?

Sure. And what I love about this board is Lungs gives me a perspective on farmers that I only get from my Father in Law, Pilotman the airline industry, JiMGa tv and advertising etc...

Just get irritated when it always is oversimplified to poor, dumb, white supremacist idiots. The board would be beside itself apeshit if that were said about minorities and their voting patterns. (And would have every right to be angry)

I can understand this point of view to a degree. We were fortunate to have cost sharing available to make these changes and overall it was not a major detriment to us economically. I'm guessing those cost sharing arrangements are not available in Missouri. Heck, they probably aren't available in Wisconsin anymore. Selling our farm this year was a breeze and we'd probably still be stuck with an empty farm if we hadn't made the changes as the new owner came in knowing that no environmental issues will need to be addressed. If I was dictator, I'd at least give some economic aid or incentive to comply with these laws as I do believe they are for the greater good of our environment. But as is, I can understand how it would upset people on the hook for making major investments in their land without any tangible short-term benefit to the bottom line.


Honestly, I think some of the insults directed at farmers are well deserved. Of course it doesn't help bring them over to the 'correct' side but I'd argue that trying to do that is a waste of time. I'm probably jaded by my exit from conventional agriculture but some of the stuff I see and hear only makes my shake my head. It's a defensive industry that loves to play the 'I'm being persecuted!' card at every turn. Right now we have farmers doing their best to use the government to stifle plant based substitutes for their conventional meat and dairy products through lawsuits and lobbying the FDA. Farmers in general tend to be for free markets until it comes time to belly up at the trough and get their own. Then justify it by saying they work hard so they deserve it. I don't see any good reason for Democrats to placate this subset of the population.

Trump admin is trying to eliminate birthright citizenship administratively. The second point is surprising. It sure seems to say children born to U.S. citizens outside of the U.S. aren't citizens. That's a huge change.

Now we wait for the Supreme Court.

If true, Russian Cosigners could be just another Friday for Trump..

Out of the number of things the Trump administration has done, this is among the most stunning. I can't even put a number on how many questions this raises.

I was in that position while I was stationed in Germany. Holy shit this mind blowing.

This administration has raided the construction funds for new barracks and other upgrades to build a pointless wall, shit on war heroes, banned non-citizen legal permanent residents from serving, insulted combat vets suffering from ptsd, insulted generals, deployed the national guard to the border as a publicity stunt, and is now taking citizenship away from the kids of service members overseas. But this is the president that's done more for the military than anyone else.

USCIS confirms to @JuliaEAinsley : As of October 29, children born to U.S. service members outside of the U.S. will no longer be automatically considered citizens.
Parents will have to apply for citizenship for their the children in those situations.

— Ken Dilanian (@KenDilanianNBC) August 28, 2019

Will attacking the troops get Trump below 45% approval?

Almost certainly not!

Tune in next week for another episode of Nothing Matters LOL!

This will create a group of global non-citizens, as other countries generally require a parent be a citizen before citizenship is granted. What happens to a child that isn't recognized as a citizen of any country?

Don't forget the transgender ban.

I don't have the tweet handy but it looks like Lawrence O'Donnell has had to apologize for his story about the Russian co-signers. Says it didn't go through nbc's procedures of verification, and he never should have reported on it.

Is a U.S. Military Base in another country considered "outside the U.S.?"

Dola...


And what about adopting a child from outside the U.S.???

There is a means to apply for citizenship in these circumstances, but apparently it costs $1200. So its basically a tax on military families who have children born overseas. And, you'd just have to hope that the Trump administration consistently grants the applications

Generally considered part of the US. However, many don't have hospitals on them so women give birth at local hospitals. Even at a decent sized installation in Germany where I was women went into town for nearly all prenatal care and the actual childbirth. Landstuhl was closest military hospital to us and it was over an hour away.

Ok...Reading a little more. This may be a simple case of piss-poor wording of a footnote.

I hope so. If it is then it's another example of this administration not having someone qualified and capable of writing actual policy.

I'm guessing the intended target of this is US citizens and service members marrying local foreigners and having a child in that country that's automatically a US citizen. I'm sure the thought of that happening sends chills down Stephen Miller's spine.

That's a good question. When we adopted we did all the paperwork at the consulate in China and when we landed on U.S. soil she became a citizen. There's nothing in this order specifically changing that, but it's clear the plan is to greatly limit immigration and citizenship.

TrumpÂ*officials sayÂ*children of some service members overseas will not get automatic citizenship | TheHill


Thanks for the clarification. It is still BS. I guess this is the point that I am accused about not really caring about these families right? About THOSE people.

Tell Florida to get the hell out of the way once in a while too while you're at it.

I'm just taking a pass, I'm exhausted trying to figure out WTF they're doing...

Uhhhhh...welcome to the board?

5 years ago was a much simpler time.

Obama's Tan Suit Controversy Is Five Years Old

What better tan suit or swinging bull nuts?


(At the 21-second mark)

Thank you for the support as we MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! pic.twitter.com/qKgwRMSgcf

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 28, 2019

There was also the time he put his feet up on the desk.

(Though on the other hand, there was some un-ironic outrage directed towards Kellyanne Conway sitting with her feet up on the oval office sofa once).

National debt is now 110% to GDP. Closing in on the largest ever which was during World War 2. And this is during a good economy. Should easily surpass it during a recession.

"I'm not worried about the deficit -- it's big enough to take care of itself."

Trump is now tweeting images from his intelligence briefing.

But her emails...

So the President posted on twitter what is very likely highly classified IMINT to taunt another country.

It doesn't appear to be a satellite image either. Which makes this way worse than it seems on the surface and on the surface this looks pretty bad.

If anyone other than the President does this they probably get 10 years.

Yeah that's a drone image.

Actually looks like a KH11 was in the area at the time. A lot of their tech is kept quiet so it would be insane to let the world know what your satellites can do. They've only released images a few times in history of it and usually at a low resolution so that other countries don't know what it does.

WaPo is reporting that Bolton isn't being allowed to see the draft agreement with the Taliban. Best team ever.

For those among us who were (stupidly) wondering what the Trump strategy would be if the economy started to dip before the election:

Daniel Dale on Twitter: "The most notable thing to me about Trump's dishonesty this summer: immigration, usually by far his #1 subject of false claims, has been only #5. #1 has been the economy -- mostly trade-related claims. https://t.co/AUApkQ5r1q… https://t.co/8wcrHcEzRz"

Answer: Lie. (duh)

Meanwhile in Boston:


A straight pride parade to support the troops and defend the wall building. Oh, and to celebrate straight culture.

The tariffs we have put on China goods is going to cost the average household $1k. What a fucking moron this guy is.
Tariffs will now cost American households $1,000 per year: J.P. Morgan

Listen, the power of lying to your own voter base and having them buy all of it is rather immense. This is merely a small example, but a powerful one. Trump can declare his trade war citing numbers that he clearly does not understand, impose ever-increasing tariffs that are paid by Americans, and then go to virtually everyone who support him and tell them 2+2=5. And they buy it.

When all your weaknesses are immediately and successfully dismissed as "fake news" and "media bias" and the like, then by definition you have no weaknesses.

Listen to the last week or two, Administration officials and media mouthpieces will say, with a straight face, that Trump does not lie and never has. What explanation can there possibly be? It's a deeply sinister and dangerous way to seize and retain power. And once he loses an election, why would they cease the operation then?

When exactly did the parties swap platforms on free trade/tariffs/globalization?

November 2016 apparently

I don't know who hates the WTO more, Trump, 90's far-left protesters, or Sanders until he started running for president.

Watching a Vietnam war documentary, there was an interesting line in a 1968 Nixon speech, which i tracked down to his Republican nomination acceptance speech


Ok, not the greatest person to deliver the message, but if even Nixon, from whom Trump stole much of his playbook, and with whom Trump may well share a legacy in history books of the future, recognises this...

At 2:24 if anyone’s interested
Richard Nixon Accepts the 1968 Republican Presidential Nomination - Highlights - YouTube

Dola, the next thing that struck me: Nixon contacted a foreign power (in this case South Vietnam) to thwart the peace negotiations 3 days before the 1968 election, as the talks were giving the Dems a political boost for the elections.

The Dems deliberated whether to reveal this, but ultimately didn’t as they didn’t want to reveal how they knew, and it cost them.

Sounds familiar, using a foreign country to sabotage the opponent just days before an election...

Next case of history repeating itself: The New York Times reported that Nixon had ordered the illegal bombing of Cambodia for weeks in 1969 (unknown to Congress and the public) - the government response was Fake News, and illegal wire taps placed on reporters and politicians to find the source of the leak.

If the Dems had the run of scandals from Nixon to Bush2, the GOP would bury them for a generation. Too bad the Dems can't even manage to investigate Trump.

Trump hasn't been investigated? Then what the hell was Mueller doing all this time?

Dems.

How bout that impeachment inquiry that Jerry Nadler is conducting?

lol

That's really making hay.

Odd how this doesn't get brought up as much as it should when talking history. Nixon committed treason.

Yes he did and Johnson found out about it.

For the sake of the country (his point of view) he didn't expose it.

https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...tellite-2019-9

Pretty much confirmed. I wonder how many investigations this would have spawned from Republicans if Clinton was President and did this?

C'mon, Business Insider!

I have a friend I caught up with yesterday in the intelligence community. He said that they all know the president has the right to declassify whatever he wants, so there is nothing technically illegal in what he did. Yet, he can't see how even the President was allowed to have a phone near something with this level of classification. Also, from his perspective, most of the people he works with have been long time Republicans and they severely dislike and distrust Trump.

https://www.businessinsider.com/spie...n-asset-2019-8

Business Insider laying down the smack recently.

I worked intel for nearly a decade in the Army. I prepared and gave briefs at a much lower level than the White House at one point. Yes, technically Trump didn't do anything wrong, but but being able to collect good intel is all about making your enemies guess your capabilities as much as possible. I'm sure Russia and China knew we had incredible satellite capabilities, but it's unlikely they knew just how accurate and detailed that imagery was. Now that they have an example it's a hell of a lot easier for them to plan ways to hide what they're doing.

It's difficult to overstate the damage that tweet will cause. I'm sure the intel folks around DC lost their minds over it. It's going to damage collection efforts for years.

Everything he is doing is going to damage us as a nation for years, and I suspect the closer we get to election time and the worse the polls show him doing he is going to go scorched earth.

The President of the United States altered a National Hurricane Center map with a sharpie to falsely extend the official forecast toward Alabama so he didn't have to admit he was wrong in a tweet. https://t.co/i0CJcYV4yq pic.twitter.com/pR57IL6WfT

— Dennis Mersereau (@wxdam) September 4, 2019

I mean they didn't even do a good job of faking it-trying to make it look like Alabama was included-at least use a white marker.

It's a federal offense to falsify NWS forecasts. So I highly doubt they were willing to help him break the law.

The dumbest thing about all this is that who the fuck prints this shit out on a display board to brief? You can't tell me that they don't use power point and IPads for this, like every other person on the planet does? How dumb is this?

They could care less about breaking the law/ethics violations. They all expect to be pardoned by Trump.

Also, that forecast is from well before he tweeted about Alabama. By the time he made that tweet, the forecast had already turned.

Everyone shoots themselves in the foot sometimes. This WH has the special quality of reminding us about when it has shot itself in the foot because it has to let the Dear Leader remind us that he never shot himself in the foot.

I'll admit, I haven't really read the article, but is there a reason for having a white house brief with the original projected path of the hurricane rather than the updated one?

Meanwhile 20-25% of the country will believe Trump on this and see it as the media jumping to conclusions while desperate to show that he was wrong, but owning themselves in the process. Another 10-15% don't care that he was wrong because he's a Republican. The rest of the country rolls their eyes, laughs about the sharpie, and waits for the next controversy that would have sunk any other President.

EDIT: Imagining the reaction Obama would get for things Trump has done got old about 12,000 controversies ago, but imaging how the GOP would have ripped Obama for this is entertaining. "Obama is clearly working with demonic forces and attempting to redirect the path of the hurricane to maximize the damage to red states" would have been a fairly realistic reaction from the right.

It was done because he was embarrassed about tweeting erroneous information a couple days ago.

It's a dominance play. He says something and sees who is willing to back him up. If asked, I bet at least 75% of the GOP electeds will support him or weasel out of the question in a way that can be taken for support.

If you think the hurricane would hit Alabama, you're in the club, if not, fuck you the next time you need something.

Eh I just think he repeated the wrong thing. A normal human would have just clarified that it was a mistake and made sure the proper information was out there. But he can't admit to ever making a mistake so we have to go through this whole weird charade.