These tariffs on Mexico are not going to accomplish a anything other than destroying our relationship with them. If I was Mexico or Brazil, I'd be finding a way to work out a deal on corn. That would surely sting the people that elected this man.

 

These tariffs on Mexico are not going to accomplish a anything other than destroying our relationship with them. If I was Mexico or Brazil, I'd be finding a way to work out a deal on corn. That would surely sting the people that elected this man.

 

Except it'd kill their own farmers. Where do you think Brazilian farmers get most of their corn seed?

 

The people that elected him are already stung. That hasn't changed a whole lot. The blame for the sting somehow falls other places...like the recent argument I heard that the legislative branch has followed to back up Trump's moves, and THAT is what has hurt farmers (nevermind that Congress has saved ag's butts with added deals for farmers to barely keep some afloat).

 

Essentially, Trump has created an agricultural industry right now that is a LOT like the housing industry in 2007. Sure, plenty of acres are being planted, but defaults are being pushed out by government programs that have an expiration date. Once those programs go away, farms go under, and the housing crisis will seem like a really pleasant financial situation in comparison.

Except it'd kill their own farmers. Where do you think Brazilian farmers get most of their corn seed?

 

The people that elected him are already stung. That hasn't changed a whole lot. The blame for the sting somehow falls other places...like the recent argument I heard that the legislative branch has followed to back up Trump's moves, and THAT is what has hurt farmers (nevermind that Congress has saved ag's butts with added deals for farmers to barely keep some afloat).

 

Essentially, Trump has created an agricultural industry right now that is a LOT like the housing industry in 2007. Sure, plenty of acres are being planted, but defaults are being pushed out by government programs that have an expiration date. Once those programs go away, farms go under, and the housing crisis will seem like a really pleasant financial situation in comparison.

But then big companies can buy all the land, you think this isn't a plan? I do.

 

But then big companies can buy all the land, you think this isn't a plan? I do.

 

Basically every flyover state has a law on the books to prevent one person (or company) from owning too much of the viable crop land. However, even if those laws were repealed and/or worked around, the collapse to the economy of hundreds of thousands suddenly without a vocation (or hundreds of thousands working whittled down to 3) would be incredibly impactful on the economy, nevermind what the big companies could do to pricing, which individual farmers currently can't dictate due to their lack of market domination.

 

You want corn from company XYZ's corn fields in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa? You're going to pay $ABC for it, or I'll sell it elsewhere because I'm the only guy who has that corn. Once General Mills or Coca-Cola or whomever finally secures the corn, you don't think it'd cause prices to absolutely skyrocket on consumables?

Basically every flyover state has a law on the books to prevent one person (or company) from owning too much of the viable crop land. However, even if those laws were repealed and/or worked around, the collapse to the economy of hundreds of thousands suddenly without a vocation (or hundreds of thousands working whittled down to 3) would be incredibly impactful on the economy, nevermind what the big companies could do to pricing, which individual farmers currently can't dictate due to their lack of market domination.

 

You want corn from company XYZ's corn fields in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa? You're going to pay $ABC for it, or I'll sell it elsewhere because I'm the only guy who has that corn. Once General Mills or Coca-Cola or whomever finally secures the corn, you don't think it'd cause prices to absolutely skyrocket on consumables?

Of course I do. The rich care about being rich. Companies don't care if they destroy a way of life if they make money. So, yes, I think this is a plan by the GoP.

 

And they will blame Mexico, and immigrants, and Democrats, and their voters will believe them.

Basically every flyover state has a law on the books to prevent one person (or company) from owning too much of the viable crop land. However, even if those laws were repealed and/or worked around, the collapse to the economy of hundreds of thousands suddenly without a vocation (or hundreds of thousands working whittled down to 3) would be incredibly impactful on the economy, nevermind what the big companies could do to pricing, which individual farmers currently can't dictate due to their lack of market domination.

 

You want corn from company XYZ's corn fields in Kansas, Nebraska, and Iowa? You're going to pay $ABC for it, or I'll sell it elsewhere because I'm the only guy who has that corn. Once General Mills or Coca-Cola or whomever finally secures the corn, you don't think it'd cause prices to absolutely skyrocket on consumables?

Since when have high prices pushed out the little guy? Prices will drop, and force the little guy to sell out. Same story different day.

 

I absolutely think Brazil can develop their own corn seed if need be. Plus, corn seed sales don't help our rural farmers. No, they haven't been stung enough IMO. Vote out the people bleeding you dry or continue to bleed.

 

Since when have high prices pushed out the little guy? Prices will drop, and force the little guy to sell out. Same story different day.

I absolutely think Brazil can develop their own corn seed if need be. Plus, corn seed sales don't help our rural farmers. No, they haven't been stung enough IMO. Vote out the people bleeding you dry or continue to bleed.

 

You obviously missed the part where the high prices were due to corporate farmers taking over and having the power to set prices that individual farmers simply do not at this point.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1137051097955102720

Ummm.

Questionable knowledge of the lay-out of the solar system aside, he seems to have forgotten he was pushing to go tot he moon less than a month ago.

 

 

Trump was referring to NASA Administrator Brindenstine publicly expressing frustration late yesterday at the standoff between Trump and House Democrats over his Trumpian plan to expedite the moon landing with Pell grant reserves.

 

Thanks to the deep-thinking collectivist invertebrates at lefty outrage vendors like Talking Points, among others, a typically cryptic Trump mention of wanting NASA to chat up the goal of Mars instead of the budgetary slap fight over the moon missions yields the predictably moronic assertion that Trump thinks the moon is attached to Mars.

 

But hey, hats off the work ethic of the youngsters on their writing staff for dashing off one last rant before going out to the bars to get woke-faced.

 

Trump was referring to NASA Administrator Brindenstine publicly expressing frustration late yesterday at the standoff between Trump and House Democrats over his Trumpian plan to expedite the moon landing with Pell grant reserves.

 

Thanks to the deep-thinking collectivist invertebrates at lefty outrage vendors like Talking Points, among others, a typically cryptic Trump mention of wanting NASA to chat up the goal of Mars instead of the budgetary slap fight over the moon missions yields the predictably moronic assertion that Trump thinks the moon is attached to Mars.

 

But hey, hats off the work ethic of the youngsters on their writing staff for dashing off one last rant before going out to the bars to get woke-faced.

That you call into question people's work ethic for not working to decipher the plain text of the president's tweet demonstrates your intellectual sincerity and investment in the subject at hand--though I suppose your sardonic and pedantic tone and verbosity gave away just as much.  

 

FWIW, I imagined that Trump was speaking that the moon would be a necessary leg on the way to Mars, but it doesn't make the plain text of the tweet any less hilarious or unnerving.  He may not be the moron we think him to be in this tweet, but he's a very poor writer/communicator nonetheless.  

Edited June 7, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

Trump was referring to NASA Administrator Brindenstine publicly expressing frustration late yesterday at the standoff between Trump and House Democrats over his Trumpian plan to expedite the moon landing with Pell grant reserves.

 

Thanks to the deep-thinking collectivist invertebrates at lefty outrage vendors like Talking Points, among others, a typically cryptic Trump mention of wanting NASA to chat up the goal of Mars instead of the budgetary slap fight over the moon missions yields the predictably moronic assertion that Trump thinks the moon is attached to Mars.

 

But hey, hats off the work ethic of the youngsters on their writing staff for dashing off one last rant before going out to the bars to get woke-faced.

Twitter shouldn't be used to for nuanced discussions, so I'm not sure how sympathetic I'm supposed to feel when he struggles to make clear points with a character limit.

FWIW, I imagined that Trump was speaking that the moon would be a necessary leg on the way to Mars, but it doesn't make the plain text of the tweet any less hilarious or unnerving.  He may not be the moron we think him to be in this tweet, but he's a very poor writer/communicator nonetheless.  

Mrs Ash doesn't have an account here, but gave it a Like the old-fashioned way when I read it to her, with a nod of approval.

 

Mrs Ash doesn't have an account here, but gave it a Like the old-fashioned way when I read it to her, with a nod of approval.

How'd did you manage to marry up in class? 

 

Twitter shouldn't be used to for nuanced discussions, so I'm not sure how sympathetic I'm supposed to feel when he struggles to make clear points with a character limit.

 

It's obviously poorly worded, which is a frequent failing of his that I mentioned in my post, and one which I've offered him no sympathy for either here or elsewhere.

 

But I'm just not seeing how that lets a hyper-partisan anger factory like TPM off the hook for distilling a comment (yes, even a very flawed one) about a fight over the future of manned space flight down to 'Trump thinks Mars is attached to Moon'.

Edited June 8, 20197 yr by LaBombo

How'd did you manage to marry up in class? 

You have no idea how on-the-mark you are.

 

It's obviously poorly worded, which is a frequent failing of his that I mentioned in my post.

 

But I'm just not seeing how that lets a hyper-partisan anger factory like TPM off the hook for distilling a comment (yes, even a flawed one) about the fight over possible Pell fund diversion vs. the future of manned space flight down to 'Trump thinks Mars is attached to Moon'.

Here's that incendiary article from TPM you must be referring to, where most of the copy is spent acknowledging what he probably meant.  

 

Calling TPM an anger factory is akin to calling Fox News a place of respite.  Clearly, you don't read the publication. 

Edited June 8, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

It's obviously poorly worded, which is a frequent failing of his that I mentioned in my post, and one which I've offered him no sympathy for either here or elsewhere.

 

But I'm just not seeing how that lets a hyper-partisan anger factory like TPM off the hook for distilling a comment (yes, even a very flawed one) about a fight over the future of manned space flight down to 'Trump thinks Mars is attached to Moon'.

Do you think anyone really believes that Trump thinks the Moon is part of Mars?

This is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of where we're at in our political climate right now.

 

Do you think anyone really believes that Trump thinks the Moon is part of Mars?
 

 

Thought crossed my mind.....

 

Do you think anyone really believes that Trump thinks the Moon is part of Mars?
This is pretty trivial in the grand scheme of where we're at in our political climate right now.

 

Pretty clear from the comments after the article that TPM caters to the sort of people who do.

 

And not only do I agree with the second part of your post, I'm openly scornful of TPM because they clearly do not.

Edited June 8, 20197 yr by LaBombo

 

Pretty clear from the comments after the article that TPM caters to the sort of people who do.

 

And not only do I agree with the second part of your post, I'm openly scornful of TPM because they clearly do not.

Oh shifting the goal posts, eh? It's the commentators, not the publication? 

 

Look, the President's tweets are news, even if they are largely trivial, but your faux-outrage at the reporting of his ill-conceived tweet seems like the out-sized reaction from my part.   

 

That you call into question people's work ethic for not working to decipher the plain text of the president's tweet demonstrates your intellectual sincerity and investment in the subject at hand--though I suppose your sardonic and pedantic tone and verbosity gave away just as much.  

 

FWIW, I imagined that Trump was speaking that the moon would be a necessary leg on the way to Mars, but it doesn't make the plain text of the tweet any less hilarious or unnerving.  He may not be the moron we think him to be in this tweet, but he's a very poor writer/communicator nonetheless.  

 

...which I referenced in my post, a fact you're implicitly denying with your final comment in a post attacking my intellectual sincerity.

 

But I will ABSOLUTELY take at face value your admission that you're much more informed on this topic than the professional writer who put together that vapid little piece.  And because of that admission I'll ask you this... why on earth would you expend so much vitriol defending a site that doesn't meet your own intellectual standards?

 

 

 

 

 

...which I referenced in my post, a fact you're implicitly denying with your final comment in a post attacking my intellectual sincerity.

 

But I will ABSOLUTELY take at face value your admission that you're much more informed on this topic than the professional writer who put together that vapid little piece.  And because of that admission I'll ask you this... why on earth would you expend so much vitriol defending a site that doesn't meet your own intellectual standards?

No, you're original post made no such concession.  It was a later post to Mr. Brooks where you noted that the tweet was poorly worded (which I did later quote, but it was not there that I questioned your sincerity).

 

TPM's article is just fine.  They reported on something that went viral and related to politics, and put it in it's appropriate context (what Trump likely meant).  

 

I just think you can't help but resort to hyperbole when you characterize how whomever you deem "the left" reacts to social phenomenon.  It's not that I really care to defend any publication or any reaction really, but rather I find the irony not at all subtle and worth pointing out that your reaction to a reaction you deem inappropriate is totally outsized and hyperbolic.  

Edited June 8, 20197 yr by PseudoSABR

 

Oh shifting the goal posts, eh? It's the commentators, not the publication? 

 

Look, the President's tweets are news, even if they are largely trivial, but your faux-outrage at the reporting of his ill-conceived tweet seems like the out-sized reaction from my part.   

 

You're punching the air now.

 

Brooks questioned whether TPM readers would really take the headline literally. If you really believe that my noting that the article's comment section showed there were people taking the headline literally is somehow "moving the goal posts", we're beyond done here.

 

No, you're original post made no such concession.  It was a later post to Mr. Brooks where you noted that the tweet was poorly worded (which I did later quote, but it was not there that I questioned your sincerity).

 

 

"a typically cryptic Trump mention of wanting NASA to chat up the goal of Mars" is not only what I said in the first post, but also what it pretty clearly was to anyone whose interest in the space program goes beyond what Trump tweeted awkwardly about it on any given day. 

 

Given that you're selectively ignoring what I'm writing, I didn't bother to read the rest of that post, and I think we're done.

 

"a typically cryptic Trump mention of wanting NASA to chat up the goal of Mars" is not only what I said in the first post, but also what it pretty clearly was to anyone whose interest in the space program goes beyond what Trump tweeted awkwardly about it on any given day. 

 

Given that you're selectively ignoring what I'm writing, I didn't bother to read the rest of that post, and I think we're done.

I didn't take that as a criticism of Trump, rather part of your thrust that the lefties should have worked harder to decode it...

As JFK famously said, “We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is Mars.”

Huh. Unexpected fallout from the tariff debacle.

 

https://www.polygon.com/2019/6/5/18652411/trump-china-tariff-board-games

As JFK famously said, “We choose to go to the Moon not because it is easy, but because it is Mars.”

Did you coin that semi-rhyming play on words yourself? A TD Exclusive?

 

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/92/9253c5b2e9520394d06ef32b9764c42b71939dc83beca8333814a4bbed6265ab.jpg

Did you coin that semi-rhyming play on words yourself? A TD Exclusive?

 

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/92/9253c5b2e9520394d06ef32b9764c42b71939dc83beca8333814a4bbed6265ab.jpg

Nope. Saw it on the cesspool.