Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Breccia]

By the way, in case you missed it, it's time again for Guess the Speaker.

It's the people that pull the trigger, not the gun that pulls the trigger. I don't want people to forget that this is a mental health problem. I don't want them to forget that because it is. It’s a mental health problem.

Congress is going to be reporting back to me with ideas. And they'll come in from Democrats and Republicans, and I'll look at it very strongly. But just remember, we already have a lot of background checks, OK?

"That's Trump, backing away from his earlier pledge to DO SOMETHING, when interviewed during his ten day golf vacation."

Correct. As a reminder, Trump tweeted about tying GREAT background checks to immigration legislation, which of course, was an attempt to have Democrats back away from the issue, and it failed. And that was after he said this:

On background checks, we have tremendous support for really common-sense, sensible, important background checks.

We will see where NRA will be, but we need meaningful background checks. We don't want people who are mentally ill, people who are sick, having guns

I guess the NRA got back to him, saying "Our Russian money says no more background checks. Continue to let the mentally ill, people who are sick, have guns."

He said a lot of other things, such as McConnell being on board, the Republicans would take the lead on this issue, and a bunch of other apparent lies. McConnell is still refusing to reconvene and Trump is backing away from anything that might possibly be viewed as consistency.

We’ve seen this movie before: President Trump, feeling public pressure in the immediate aftermath of a horrible shooting, talks about doing something meaningful to address gun violence, but inevitably, he backtracks in response to pressure from the NRA and the hard right.

These retweets from President Trump are not

"retreats".

These retreats from President Trump are not only disappointing but also heartbreaking, particularly for the families of the victims of gun violence

-- Schumer

- - - Updated - - -

Payroll taxes sound like something that would impact people who make a pay check, so it could play well for him even if democrats refused.

But you said the WH shut down the rumor they were trying. That can't be good for them, based on that logic.

[Xeones]

But you said the WH shut down the rumor they were trying. That can't be good for them, based on that logic.

Which is why I mentioned it because I found it odd. Just on the surface it makes no sense to go out of the way to refute rumors, unless it's due to the whole "Best economy ever!" bull shit Trump is using.

[Breccia]

Which is why I mentioned it because I found it odd. Just on the surface it makes no sense to go out of the way to refute rumors, unless it's due to the whole "Best economy ever!" bull shit Trump is using.

To hear Grassley tell it, a payroll tax cut would be admission the economy was in trouble. Which lines up with what you're saying.

Unrelated: Guess the Speaker continues.

For the United States to make a deal with China, Beijing needs to honor its commitments - beginning with the commitment China made in 1984 to respect the integrity of Hong Kong’s laws through the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Our administration will continue to urge Beijing to act in a humanitarian manner and urge China and the demonstrators in Hong Kong to resolve their differences peacefully

"That's Pence. You can tell by the use of 'our administration' not 'my administration' which should tell you a lot."

Correct. Incidentally, I found a translation of China's response:

Bitch, you didn't have a deal anyhow. You just want to make it look like you're taking the moral high ground, while letting children die in concentration camps, so you have an excuse when this round of talks fails as badly as a Trump hotel or the 2017 Colts

[Xeones]

It's a pity that isn't their real response.

[Zaydin]

Democrats response to Trump trying to buy his way out of the recession he is creating should be "Okay. How do you intend to pay for it? You've already added nearly two trillion dollars to the debt and exploded us back to trillion dollar deficits."

[Dontrike]

So reports are out that the white house was considering a pay roll tax cut to prop up the economy and apparently the white house had to immediately refute it.

Tax Cut 2: How the Deficit got it's Groove Back.

[Breccia]

So let's talk about --

"Yeah yeah, who's fucked this time?"

Midwest farmers. The article contains a lot of anecdotal information, including this picture:



"That's a burst grain silo. Why are you posting a picture from March?"

I'm not. That's from the 14th. As in, 5 days ago.

(checks iPhone)

Six days ago. But anecdotal information aside, there's other info in there.

1) A lot of farmers didn't get their $15/acre because they couldn't plant anything because they got flooded.

2) In fact, some farms are still fucking underwater.

3) There doesn't appear to be a commitment to rebuild the levees to the level...I just read that back and man is that confusing...they were before they were broken. So if, for example, 2020 is even partly as bad as 2019, the new levees will just break and I'll have to write this shit another fucking year.

The Army Corps of Engineers has the near impossible task of coming up with the clear timeline that these farmers need. The Missouri River is only one of the many waterways that overtopped its banks and destroyed billions of dollars of infrastructure.

4) Farm bankruptcies grew 13% last year. They are now the highest they've been since 2012. Guess what happened in 2011? The Mississippi flooded. I'm sensing a theme.

5) Crop insurance rates are up. I'm not an expert, but this article suggests rate increases are 30 to 80 percent. One farmer said the increase was $30 an acre, which would eat into --

"Whoa whoa whoa. The increase was $30 an acre?"

Yes.

"...isn't the money Trump promised $15 an acre? If they got crops in the ground by Aug 1st?"

Um...(checks article)...yes.

"So...the money Trump is offering is half the increase they have to pay anyhow? Meaning, they are actually losing even more money than before, even with the socialist bailout?"

Well, according to that one farmer's figures, yes. And crop insurance does not cover harvested, stored grain, apparently, so it would not have helped the farmer whose grain is in the picture above anyhow. They could end up paying more and getting nothing in return. Also, I'm fairly sure the insurance rates are based on the new, worse levees mentioned above.

6) Also, this is now the 22nd straight quarter of dropping farm incomes in the Eighth Federal Reserve District: Arkansas, Illinois, Indiana, McConnnell's state, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee. The flooding wasn't even all that bad there. Farm spending was also lower in the 8th. I'm going to assume that --

"Don't assume."

Well, there are a bunch of reports, and a lot of them aren't great. Unless you're in Dallas or San Fransisco, for some reasons. A few mention that crop prices are going up, which might help some...if you planted anything in time. But even with that, soybean prices are still lower than anything Obama ever posted and corn hasn't moved much since 2014. The prices for both hopped up a little in July, but that seems to be about it.

There doesn't appear to be a ton of good news here. In 2017, BLS predicted no significant change in number of agriculture jobs through 2026. Every chart I can find by them suggests they're right so far.

- - - Updated - - -

"Okay. How do you intend to pay for it?"

Tariffs. The answer would be tariffs. Because as long as you're caught regardless, lying can't make it worse.

- - - Updated - - -

FY 2019 agricultural exports are projected at $137.0 billion, down $4.5 billion from the February 2019 forecast, largely due to decreases in soybeans and corn exports.

Trump's own USDA had to post that in May. They're due to say something this month, which might not be as bad, as soybean/corn prices did peak for a few weeks at almost Obama levels.

- - - Updated - - -

Our Ruling

Trump said a new report shows "Google manipulated from 2.6 million to 16 million votes for Hillary Clinton in 2016 Election." The general idea here is that Google gave people search results that in some way affected their vote in the lead-up to the election for president.

Whether such indirect interactions could cause people to change their votes is questionable, and the paper — which is not new — does nothing to establish how that might happen. The paper doesn’t explain its methodology, and other academics questioned whether its findings were valid. Finally, Trump seems to have exaggerated the outer bound of the questionable findings.

Overall, we rate his statement False.

To add to that, the author of the study Trump mentions testified, under oath, that Google did not manipulate the results. In July. Trump tweeted Monday.

"I guess one blatant lie tweet isn't the end of -- "

Our Ruling

"Oh, shit."

Trump said that two major industrial projects in Louisiana and Pennsylvania exist today thanks to his policies. In reality, both were well underway before he took office.

The Louisiana plant had all necessary federal permits by 2014.

The Pennsylvania chemical complex was subject to state regulations, and initial approvals came in 2015. Federal regulators approved the rate structure for a key pipeline in 2018, but construction approval for the pipeline itself came from the state, not the federal government.

Trump can take credit for boosting LNG exports and pushing a regulatory approach in favor of natural gas, but those dynamics were in play before his election.

We rate this claim False.

"So two objective lies in a week? That's not ideal, But if it ends --"

Our Ruling

"Son of a bitch!"

Trump said, "We were losing all our cases in the World Trade Organization. ... And then I came along. Now we’re winning a lot of cases because they know that they’re not on very solid ground."

This statement contains multiple problems. For decades, the United States, like essentially all countries, has tended to lose most WTO cases in which it was a defendant. But it has won most cases when it was the complaining party.

Under Trump, there are some indications of an improved (though still losing) U.S. record in cases it’s defending against. But trade experts say this has had little to do with Trump’s policies, which have in fact put the WTO’s continued operations at risk.

We rate the statement Mostly False.

"Three in a week. That's bad. But I guess it could be w--"

Our Ruling

"OH COME ON!"

Trump talked about U.S.-Japan trade in terms of Americans buying Japanese cars while the Japanese bought American wheat. He also said the trade deficit is changing rapidly.

Trump distorted the actual trade relations in many ways. While he was reasonably correct on the scale of cars imported to the United States, he cast wheat as a major part of U.S.-Japan trade. It accounts for less than 1% of sales. Trump sidestepped the top ranking items of civilian aircraft and related goods, and industrial machinery.

The numbers also undercut his implication that the trade deficit is changing rapidly for the better. It has held steady, although getting a bit worse each year.

Trump was close on the car and truck imports, but missed the mark in every other respect. We rate this claim Mostly False.

- - - Updated - - -

One more for the road. Guess the Speaker! The topic is the socialist bailout for farmers, specifically the $12 billion promised but not provided.

It does not nowhere near cover the gaps– the markets that we lost. It does not nowhere near cover the loss of income. No the farmers do not want that. We want our markets back. We do not want the money from the taxpayer.

"The use of 'we' suggests some farming group head."

The President of the Minnesota Farmer's Union. He had more to say about the tariffs.

It already has driven some farmers off the farm, which not only hurts the farming community but it hurts rural – small rural communities. It's been very devastating to rural America

"He says 'it' a lot."

Wanna see the video? Things work better in context.

Also, it seems farmer support for Trump is slipping.

Rural Americans, which includes the nations farmers and agricultural workers, widely supported Trump in the 2016 election, with 62 percent voting for the president, according to an analysis by Pew Research. Despite the trade tensions and concerns voiced by prominent farming community leaders such as Wertish, the majority of rural Americans still support the president, although many have grown frustrated. A May Gallup survey found that 54 percent of self-described rural residents still supported Trump, compared to just 41 percent of Americans overall.

Minnesota farmers are overwhelmingly old white males, average age 55, 85% male and 99+% white. It is the #1 state in the country in sales of grain, #2 hog. There appear to be about 1100,000 or so MN farmers. Trump lost Minnesota in 2016 by about 45,000 votes. He might lose by more this time.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh, and in case you forgot like I did, the EU tariffed whiskey in response to Trump's tariffs. Both are still in effect.

Whiskey sales to EU are down 21%, a loss of about $150 million, most of which is Jack Daniels. That's not a ton, but it all adds up. So would the 10,000 to 70,000 possible jobs lost due to this facet of the trade war. Companies have halted expansion, and many have lost profits because
a) they'd rather lower their prices and eat the loss, rather than lose all their sales and lose even more
b) US and EU use different bottle sizes apparently, so you can't just say "fuck it, I'll sell the EU stuff locally"
c) Scottish and Irish Whiskeys are now cheaper than American in the EU, and let's face it, probably better. I don't know. I don't drink any of them. But when an entire group of liquors is literally called "Scotch" I'm just going to assume it's because it's tasty. Plus the Irish.

[Rasulis]

3) There doesn't appear to be a commitment to rebuild the levees to the level...I just read that back and man is that confusing...they were before they were broken. So if, for example, 2020 is even partly as bad as 2019, the new levees will just break and I'll have to write this shit another fucking year.

The Army Corps will only repair the levees to withstand 25- or 50-year flood events. The old ones were built to withstand 100-year flood events. The 2019 floods were considered 500-year events.

Why? No money, shortage of contractors, shortage of qualified workers, widespread damage, not enough time before the next rainy season, the water levels are still too high, something, something.

Here is a map of the levee breach along a short section of the Missouri River south of the Missouri-Iowa border.



Now multiply the damage by all the other states and rivers (Mississippi River, Ohio River, Arkansas River and Tennessee River). The Army Corps is facing an impossible task.

[ati87]

And Hilary Clinton swoops in with the clincher:
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/s...377320961?s=20

Oh burn
I like the honest H. Clinton without some conservative aid allot better more, imagine if she had a line like this during the 2016 election instead of those other cringe attempts at humor that you know some old guy came up with ''pokemon go to the polls''.

[Kiri]

The Army Corps will only repair the levees to withstand 25- or 50-year flood events. The old ones were built to withstand 100-year flood events. The 2019 floods were considered 500-year events.

Why? No money, shortage of contractors, shortage of qualified workers, widespread damage, not enough time before the next rainy season, the water levels are still too high, something, something.

Here is a map of the levee breach along a short section of the Missouri River south of the Missouri-Iowa border.



Now multiply the damage by all the other states and rivers (Mississippi River, Ohio River, Arkansas River and Tennessee River). The Army Corps is facing an impossible task.

Didn't military spending go up in the last budget? I seem to remember something like that, but I got to admit I don't know the structure here well enough. Just don't know how they would be out of money.

[D Luniz]

Didn't military spending go up in the last budget? I seem to remember something like that, but I got to admit I don't know the structure here well enough. Just don't know how they would be out of money.

held while its decided if he can redirect them to the southern border wall?

[Attackrabbit]

But when an entire group of liquors is literally called "Scotch" I'm just going to assume it's because it's tasty.

In my experience it most definitely is not tasty...but I may be drinking it wrong

[Ghostpanther]

held while its decided if he can redirect them to the southern border wall?

Already been decided by the Supreme Court he can.

[Belize]

In my experience it most definitely is not tasty...but I may be drinking it wrong

Vaatttt??

Scotch is great! Much better than the flavorless garbage that are American Whiskeys.

I recommend Highland Parks 12.

[NED funded]

To hear Grassley tell it, a payroll tax cut would be admission the economy was in trouble. Which lines up with what you're saying.

Unrelated: Guess the Speaker continues.



"That's Pence. You can tell by the use of 'our administration' not 'my administration' which should tell you a lot."

Correct. Incidentally, I found a translation of China's response:

Dunno if people are aware but Pence is right. China has a terrible track record of upholding treaties, so if they decide to ignore the 1984 agreement, like they already do now anyways its not worth having a trade agreement.

An example of a domestic case is access to financial services. The US won the cases at the wto twice and they are yet to comply with the ruling. Im surprised Obama didnt follow it up with some retaliation of his own, but his staff was filled with people that actually believed in China, so I guess its expected.

[Redwyrm]

Dunno if people are aware but Pence is right. China has a terrible track record of upholding treaties, so if they decide to ignore the 1984 agreement, like they already do now anyways its not worth having a trade agreement.

An example of a domestic case is access to financial services. The US won the cases at the wto twice and they are yet to comply with the ruling. Im surprised Obama didnt follow it up with some retaliation of his own, but his staff was filled with people that actually believed in China, so I guess its expected.

Well with the way the U.S. is being run we also now have a terrible track record up upholding treaties. How many agreements has Trump burned to the ground or scrapped (that were actually working and beneficial to us) and still hasn't replaced them with anything.

[Nellise]

Seriously, wtf is wrong with this administration. The auto industry wants to keep its stricter regulations but Trump is trying to undo them: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/20/c...-disarray.html

Trump being petty as usual: "At one White House meeting, Mr. Trump went so far as to propose scrapping his own rollback plan and keeping the Obama regulations, while still revoking California’s legal authority to set its own standards, according to the three people familiar with the meeting. The president framed it as a way to retaliate against both California and the four automakers in California’s camp, those people said."

[Breccia]

Dunno if people are aware but Pence is right. China has a terrible track record of upholding treaties, so if they decide to ignore the 1984 agreement, like they already do now anyways its not worth having a trade agreement.

And this would be an excellent argument. If we had a trade agreement of any kind, that Trump or Pence or whoever was backing away from.

There isn't one. This is Sour Grapes. Trump has been losing the trade war since he started it -- and remember, he claimed he would declare them a currency manipulator on Day One, so this has been a struggle since before he was elected -- and the Hong Kong thing, yes par for the Chinese course, is recent.

Let's put it in context: if the USA vs China trade war was a football game, regulation time 90 minutes, then this most recent issue with Hong Kong, the specific even Pence cited, was the last one minute, fifteen seconds. Less, actually. You cannot play an entire football game, find yourself down 3-1 and your own fans are booing you while they walk out, then at 88:45 say "Hey! That guy's flopping to draw a foul! You'd better give him a yellow card, or this game is unfaaaAAAAaaair and we'll walk off and that means we didn't lose!"

Pence is threatening to walk away from a deal that doesn't exist. This is spin. This is a vlame-ass vlimp-dick IMVPOTUS excuse. The fact that he's right about China's behavior is irrelevant in context.

[Breccia]

How are all you Americans spending your extra $5000 that Mike Pence believes is happening inn the average household?

He has the same point about wages as they've had about umemployment. Wage growth hit a low, like many things did, in 2010 at 1.6% per year. They spiked to 3.9% in Nov 2016 and were 3.2% Jan 2017. They're 3.9% now, but Trump has never beaten 4%.

Thanks, Obama.

The $5,000 is a stupid thing to say. The numbers for 2018 don't exist yet. However, "household" and "individual" aren't the same. Depending on source, average individual income is $50 to $60 thousand. $5,000 growth on top of that did not happen, even if you include every single day of 2017, 2018, and 2019 whose numbers also don't exist yet. However, $5,000 on top of two incomes, over two years, is 2.37% growth...and as I just posted, Obama did way better than that.

Oh, and if Pence is including the tax cut, which for the average income bracket ($50k to $75k individual) was $1,000 to $1,500 or so. If you include that, then Pence is admitting that there was nearly no wage growth.

Pence is twisting the numbers to give the wrong impression. At least he's not a blatant fucking liar.

[Dontrike]

How are all you Americans spending your extra $5000 that Mike Pence believes is happening inn the average household?

I was able to buy three whole unicorns and a cantaloupe.