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.