Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[rda]

Speaking of the trade war, by the way.

Huawei are likely going to be banned from 5G in the US this week.

Why? Because of widespread allegations of spying (they have a loooooong history here, this goes beyond just the US).

This is a useful illustration of both why the trade war happened and what leverage beyond tariffs exists against China.

- - - Updated - - -

In a bit of good news, the US got their hands on an S-300 Russian missile defense system and is currently taking it apart, learning how it works and what its weaknesses are. Sorry, Russia's friends who bought this thing. You're about to own a multimillion scrap metal paperweight. So, fi we do, say, fly into Iran and bomb the shit out of it (not my words), it'll be a lot easier.

(You don't know anything about tech either. Ask Skroe, will you. Knowing how a thing like S-300 works is mostly useful for building your own similar systems. This is not a spy movie in which you get some super-secret spy codes that then disable it remotely making you invulnerable to it. "Scrap metal paperweight", ROFL. "A lot easier to bomb Iran now". I am really out of facepalms. You are deriding Trump for tweeting nonsense, but it is hard to say who says more nonsense, him or yourself.)

[kaid]

Speaking of the trade war, by the way.

Huawei are likely going to be banned from 5G in the US this week.

Why? Because of widespread allegations of spying (they have a loooooong history here, this goes beyond just the US).

This is a useful illustration of both why the trade war happened and what leverage beyond tariffs exists against China.

- - - Updated - - -



(You don't know anything about tech either. Ask Skroe, will you. Knowing how a thing like S-300 works is mostly useful for building your own similar systems. This is not a spy movie in which you get some super-secret spy codes that then disable it remotely making you invulnerable to it. "Scrap metal paperweight", ROFL. "A lot easier to bomb Iran now". I am really out of facepalms. You are deriding Trump for tweeting nonsense, but it is hard to say who says more nonsense, him or yourself.)

Well it does let you test it against your own weapons/vehicles and tweak how your stuff works to better penetrate the defense it provides. That is a non trivial advantage although it does not make them paperweights it does degrade their usefulness by a reasonable degree.

- - - Updated - - -

Who knew saving coal was so hard?

Fourth largest coal producer, in the US, files for bankruptcy.

The funny thing as much as they whined about obama and regulations what is killing coal is natural gas. The better fracking gets the worse coal is going to do. The coal industry as it was is dead. There are still uses for coal so some is going to be needed but I think the stripping of mountain tops probably won't be a think in another decade or two as the industry winds down.

[Kiri]

Well it does let you test it against your own weapons/vehicles and tweak how your stuff works to better penetrate the defense it provides. That is a non trivial advantage although it does not make them paperweights it does degrade their usefulness by a reasonable degree.

That's not what their post is about. If it was, they'd just corrected Breccia and moved on. It's all about pointing out that an exaggeration similar to what Trump would do occurred from someone who is on the "anti Trump side", to then imply that either a) a lot of Breccia's comments are nonsense (which they went for), or b) to show that the other side is no better and thus has no right to complain when Trump does it.

[rda]

That's not what their post is about. If it was, they'd just corrected Breccia and moved on. It's all about pointing out that an exaggeration similar to what Trump would do occurred from someone who is on the "anti Trump side", to then imply that either a) a lot of Breccia's comments are nonsense (which they went for), or b) to show that the other side is no better and thus has no right to complain when Trump does it.

Exactly, thank you.

By the way, in the credit where it is due department, in a different thread Breccia actually posted a link to the research that was likely the base for the Trump 21/4 split estimate tweet:

http://www.econpol.eu/sites/default/...yr_Tariffs.pdf

As I said, I had no doubt that the research that Trump was advised on is real and not fringe. Now everyone can see that this is the case for themselves. The elasticities are a little dated, but there is no cherry-picking, etc.

[Breccia]

That's not what their post is about. If it was, they'd just corrected Breccia and moved on.

Which will be difficult to do, seeing as how the article cited says it was being used for training -- as in, telling pilots how to dodge this thing. Which, while it isn't literally taking it apart, still fits the spirit. At best, he hides behind semantics. At worst, he admits he didn't read the article and posted anyhow.

It's all about pointing out that an exaggeration similar to what Trump would do occurred from someone who is on the "anti Trump side", to then imply that either a) a lot of Breccia's comments are nonsense (which they went for), or b) to show that the other side is no better and thus has no right to complain when Trump does it.

I'm a nameless asshole on the internet. I exaggerate for comedic purposes, but still cite my numbers from trustworthy sources. When I'm outright refuted with facts, say, on coffee from Starbucks in China not coming from America, I'll accept the hit and move on.

Trump is running the country on lies like "Iran is about to attack" "Chinese pay US tariffs" "noise causes cancer" and "NO COLLUSION!".

Don't you play the "both sides are equal" bit. I have every right to complain when someone runs a country based on the reverse of information and facts. That's why we have 839 and rising measles cases in the US so far this year alone -- more than any year since the disease was "eradicated".

But since you brought it up:

*ahem*

Even that most flattering result is still misrepresented by Trump, and it's an outlier.

Someone tried quoting this article without reading the very first paragraph.

We calibrate a simple economic model and find thata 25 percentage point increase in tariffs raises US consumer prices on all affected Chinese products by only 4.5% on average, while the producer price of Chinese firms declines by 20.5%.

Where does the money go, when the price is reduced?

Any attempt to say China pays 21% of the 25% is flat-out objectively false. Even the source Trump is most likely to have cited doesn't back that up. What it does say, is that Chinese businesses lower profits (possibly to be repaid by the government), which is not the same as paying the US. Meanwhile, the savings these lowered profits give will immediately be taken in tariffs, plus some extra the American consumer pays, in the hundreds of millions of dollars range. What you save, is immediately taken by this new tax, plus some extra.

You are still paying. I am still paying. China is still not paying. Even if you take the twisted viewpoint "The Chinese are losing money and the American government is gaining money, therefore, the Chinese are paying the tariffs" which is false, you would also have to admit struggling/failing US farmers are paying the Chinese government. Have fun with that. Because it's both or neither.

Even the cited source does not say "China pays the tariffs" using instead "China pays the tariff burden" because there is a difference between someone losing money, and someone handing money to you.

Oh, and it skips this:

s. Chinese firms pay approximately 75% of the tariff burden and the tariffs
decrease Chinese exports of affected goods to the United States by around 37%.

That's Page 1. As you can see, it's a substantial decrease in imports, which may have been the point. But what does a decrease in supply do? If you think the answer is "create jobs" then you're once again cherry picking, because as we've seen in post after post, it will kill jobs more jobs than it creates, estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2,200,000 in total. In the short term, meanwhile, it spikes prices.

And this:

Since August 23rd 2018, both countries have applied tariffs on all of
the products on their respective lists. Instead of negotiating over the issues and finding
solutions, both parties let the trade conflict escalate further.

That's Page 3.

Figure 3 shows the expected average increase in US consumer and firm prices for 702
Chinese products categories (HS92 4-digits) split into four broad categories. As the distribution of effective tariffs in Figure 2 already suggested, consumer goods are the most
heavily impacted. Their prices rise by 6.5 percentage points on average. The prices of
intermediate inputs increase by 5.2 percentage points, while capital goods only become
2 percentage points more expensive. On average, the US prices of affected Chinese
goods rise by 4.5 percentage points.1
In Figure 4 we show the distribution of US consumer price increases. While for most products the increases are only modest, some
consumer good and intermediate input categories are hit hard, with price increases of
over 20 percent in some cases. Low-income US households in particular will be affected
by this increase, as they spend a considerable share of their income on (cheap) Chinese
imports - see Zoller-Rydzek (2018). This will lead to a stronger decline in real income for
US low income households.

That's Page 9. Emphasis mine.

In 2017, the US had a trade deficit with China of roughly USD 375 billion. Even if we assume that exchange rates will not adjust, that China will not implement any retaliatory
duties, and that all demand side effects from third countries are constant, a 25-percentage-point increase in US import duties will only decrease the trade deficit by a mere
USD 63 billion to USD 312 billion. While this is a significant decrease, it is far removed
from President Trump’s goal of a positive trade balance with China.

That's Page 10. Yes, the paper goes out of their way to say that, even with the rosiest possible outlook (China doesn't retaliate, lol) it's nowhere near what Trump has promised.

Even the source Trump probably cited, he still had to misrepresent, because even this outlier of an outlook is still a damning testimony of this failure of a trade war has been. He picked an outlier, and he still had to twist what it said, because "the money you saved from lower Chinese prices, I'm going to take as increased taxes, and then some" doesn't play well to a rally crowd.

And he's using that lie to run the country. Get that "no right to complain" the hell out of my face.

[Kiri]

Which will be difficult to do, seeing as how the article cited says it was being used for training -- as in, telling pilots how to dodge this thing. Which, while it isn't literally taking it apart, still fits the spirit. At best, he hides behind semantics. At worst, he admits he didn't read the article and posted anyhow.



I'm a nameless asshole on the internet. I exaggerate for comedic purposes, but still cite my numbers from trustworthy sources. When I'm outright refuted with facts, say, on coffee from Starbucks in China not coming from America, I'll accept the hit and move on.

Trump is running the country on lies like "Iran is about to attack" "Chinese pay US tariffs" "noise causes cancer" and "NO COLLUSION!".

Don't you play the "both sides are equal" bit. I have every right to complain when someone runs a country based on the reverse of information and facts. That's why we have 839 and rising measles cases in the US so far this year alone -- more than any year since the disease was "eradicated".

Are you sure that is directed to me (the second part)? Because I sort of wanted to point out what the other person was trying to do when quoting you, not that I in any way agree with them.

[Edge-]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/1...s-social-media

Ever focused on the "serious" issues, the White House wants to know if you've been a victim of social media "censorship" due to political bias.

I feel bad for the poor interns that are going to have to sift through this garbage, because between barely-intelligible screeds to aggressive trolling I imagine this will be messy and gross as heck.

[Paranoid Android]

US Steel is down 67% since the Tariff announcement back in March 2018. $X https://t.co/6jgtskD8jv

https://twitter.com/charliebilello/s...802487297?s=19

So much winning.

This man is moron, an idiot who doesn't get simple economics. I only hope that these people get a clue next election.

[kaelleria]

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/1...s-social-media

Ever focused on the "serious" issues, the White House wants to know if you've been a victim of social media "censorship" due to political bias.

I feel bad for the poor interns that are going to have to sift through this garbage, because between barely-intelligible screeds to aggressive trolling I imagine this will be messy and gross as heck.

The funny thing about that "tool"... You can't even put in accurate zip codes for NH, NJ, VT, CT, RI and Massachusets

[Dontrike]

Seeing random pieces like the above linked not because they are notable or important, but rather simply because someone wants to copy/paste something bad about Trump and the media readily obliges by posting some exaggerated BS every day, it is damn tempting to start posting pieces from the pro-Trump camp just to show that this game can be played by more than one person.

So you're trying to make a point that he does something every once in a while? Great, you can post one thing every month, if that, all the while Trump fails 40 times for every near success.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/15/1...s-social-media

Ever focused on the "serious" issues, the White House wants to know if you've been a victim of social media "censorship" due to political bias.

I feel bad for the poor interns that are going to have to sift through this garbage, because between barely-intelligible screeds to aggressive trolling I imagine this will be messy and gross as heck.

I can't wait for the White House to receive a bunch of "I was banned from Twitter after posting my child porn/snuff film/up skirt/racist pics/videos." I'm sure some of those interns will be quitting from some of those alone.

https://twitter.com/charliebilello/s...802487297?s=19

So much winning.

This man is moron, an idiot who doesn't get simple economics. I only hope that these people get a clue next election.

He doesn't understand much, but you can be sure his zealots will be in here saying that these tariffs are great and nothing is going wrong.

[Poopymonster]

I can't wait for the White House to receive a bunch of "I was banned from Twitter after posting my child porn/snuff film/up skirt/racist pics/videos." I'm sure some of those interns will be quitting from some of those alone.



He doesn't understand much, but you can be sure his zealots will be in here saying that these tariffs are great and nothing is going wrong.

It wasn't real child porn, those totally were not phototshopped mustaches on the kids, er, actors...

[Breccia]

US Steel is down 67% since the Tariff announcement back in March 2018.

Two fucking thirds? What the hell? We've seen businesses destroyed by fire that didn't lose that much!

No, there's something more than just "national security lol" there. When do we hear about their turns-out-to-be illegal/shady business practices that lied about their net worth? Because no way did they lose that much honestly.

- - - Updated - - -

So apparently, we don't know if we're going to war with Iran or not. And not just us: Congress GOP members are kind of wondering the same thing.

A few legislators have received briefings, but many can only guess at the extent of the threat and where a ramp up in combat forces may lead.

“I don’t think it’s fair for us to walk around wondering,” said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), one of the Senate’s leading voices on global security issues.

*ahem*

Take the Fifth.

Sorry, Mr. Graham, you were saying? Something about being a hypocrite?

Graham, the chairman of the State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Subcommittee, said he’s concerned about the evacuation of personnel from the Baghdad embassy given the regular attacks that facility endured during the height of the Iraq War.

“We’re clearly moving people,” he said. “This is a big deal.”

“We had people there during the height of the war,” he added of his experience at the Baghdad embassy. “I was there a bunch of time getting rocketed. If we could stay in operation then, it must be some kind of real threat.”

Republican senators say they don’t know whether Trump is really contemplating the deployment of 120,000 troops to the Middle East to deter attacks by Iranian-backed militants, which The New York Times first reported on Tuesday.

Sen. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.), who is up for reelection next year in a state Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton won in 2016, said he wants more information from the administration and is worried the conflict with Iran could escalate.

“There should be more briefings. I think we should have that sooner rather later. I’ve talked to the administration about that,” he said, referring to conversations he had in the previous 24 hours.

Gardner, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, noted that lawmakers don’t have an administration assessment on news reports that Iranian proxies were given the green light to attack U.S. personnel in the Middle East.

Asked if he was worried about a rapid escalation of military hostilities, Gardner responded, “Anytime you’re dealing with a regime like Iran that has painted ‘death to America’ on missiles that have killed American soldiers throughout the Middle East, it’s a grave concern.”

One alarming scenario is that Saudi Arabia, which is waging a military campaign in Yemen’s civil war, could launch a retaliatory attack against Iran and draw U.S. troops into a regional conflict. Saudi officials stated Tuesday that Houthi rebels in Yemen, who are backed by Iran, have carried out multiple drone attacks on Saudi oil pumping stations.

Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) said, “I’m always leery to get us more heavily involved anywhere. If we’re going to go to war somewhere, Congress ought to approve it.”

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said he has warned the administration that it does not have congressional approval to go to war with Iran.

“I think it’s important that the administration know that they do not have the permission of Congress to go with Iran. The Constitution is very clear. Congress must declare war. I told the administration that today in our hearing. We had the undersecretary for policy from State. We want to be very clear to them they don’t have the prerogative to go to war without our authority,” he said.

“My understanding is there will be [a briefing] by early next week, but I don’t know where we’re going to be by early next week. I hope I’m wrong, we could be full blown into this thing. It’s a much more urgent situation than I think is being reflected. I’m surprised there isn’t more talk about it,” said Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

“I’ve been here eight years, this is by far the single most imminent potential conflict of this significance,” Rubio added. “I pray that it changes. I don’t want us to have a war in that region. I hope it doesn’t happen that way, but we have to respond if attacked.”

"Okay, but Trump is acting on intelligence -- "

HAHAHHAHAHAHAHA

"-- military intelligence that Iran is now a new bigger threat!"

A senior British military official told reporters Tuesday that he did not see an increased risk of attack from Iran or connected militant groups.

"Okay, but the British aren't the Americans. The US military surely saw something and didn't tell the UK for some reason."

Gen. Chris Ghika, the deputy commander of a U.S.-led coalition battling ISIS, told The New York Times that “there has been no increased threat from Iranian-backed forces in Iraq or Syria.”

And I'll end with Guess the Speaker.

The lessons of history teach us that when things are done in secret, behind closed doors, mistakes can be made and momentum built for a course of action that the nation ultimately regrets,

"That could be literally anyone."

No. It can't be Trump. Trump is the one escalating faster than the Iraq War. It could be literally anyone else. Although I doubt it's Bolton, either.

[Endus]

I can't wait for the White House to receive a bunch of "I was banned from Twitter after posting my child porn/snuff film/up skirt/racist pics/videos." I'm sure some of those interns will be quitting from some of those alone.

How about all the "I was banned from r/The_Donald for criticising the President" complaints?

Because that fits too, even if it doesn't line up with their pathetic persecution complex.

[PosPosPos]

How about all the "I was banned from r/The_Donald for criticising the President" complaints?

Because that fits too, even if it doesn't line up with their pathetic persecution complex.

The problem with this is, conservatives are waaaay better at this safe space thing than the actual SJWs.

[ringpriest]

State Department orders most Iraq staff to flee due to the Iran tensions they're making up.

Yeah, this is not looking good at all.

"You're overreacting. Trump is just trying to look strong internationally, after his across-the-board failures in every other outing like NK. 120,000 troops and a couple carriers for a country larger and stronger than Iraq? Plus, there's no money for this. It's a joke, and everyone knows it."

Hmm. That's an interesting point. I guess we'll find out together.

In a bit of good news, the US got their hands on an S-300 Russian missile defense system and is currently taking it apart, learning how it works and what its weaknesses are. Sorry, Russia's friends who bought this thing. You're about to own a multimillion scrap metal paperweight. So, fi we do, say, fly into Iran and bomb the shit out of it (not my words), it'll be a lot easier.

First, about the S-300... this isn't news - the DIA acquired an S-300 back in 1994, and it's not really relevant to the real challenges the US faces these days, which are more in the form of corrupt and self-destructive logistics and broken OODA-loops than basic intel stuff (which is generally decent, when it's not being cooked, although far too reliant on ELINT over HUMINT, to the best of my knowledge).

And Iran is looking very bad indeed - it's been a favored target for the more bull-headed warmongers in the US for a long, long time (see Admiral Fallon's 2008 resignation for a previous time when war with Iran was looming). Sure, what's being talked about is idiotic, but I'm not sure that's a reliable indicator that Trump and the same crew responsible for the endless Afghan failure and the similar Iraq failure aren't capable of going to war with Iran as stupidly as possible (and such a war would be optimal from a Russian POV - the last thing Putin wants to see is a swift, decisive and successful US-led regime change in Iran; fortunately for him, I doubt it can be pulled off).

On the "it's just posturing" side of the ledger... well, sending an aircraft carrier into the Gulf is stupid beyond words if you're actually expecting hostilities - restricted waters, easily in-range of everything Iran has, it's a dumb move; but it does make for a nice show of force, and (I have no doubt equally importantly for Trump) generates "tough-guy" headline back home - something that is always important for fascist dictators and generic military strongmen alike (<cough> Putin<cough>). And the rest of the reported preparations are staggeringly inadequate for an invasion - but they are enough for an attack.

On the red side of the ledger... well, you've got Bolton, who was been promising to attack Iran back in 2017 (and wanting one before that), before he was appointed national security adviser (BTW, didn't the US used to have something about needing Congress, or at least someone approved by the Senate, to declare war? Or is everyone in America just okay with a couple of un-elected, un-approved lackeys planning wars as long as they do a convincing job of making the orange puppet's lips move? But hey, he is an expert of long standing at ignoring the law to do what the President wants vis-a-vis Iran). And you also have Trump and co, who have plenty of financial ties to Saudi Arabia, and who recently vetoed Congress' decision to end US support for the Saudi dictatorship's genocidal farce in Yemen.

Currently, tension in the region (very real) and domestic propaganda in the US (pure propaganda) are being regularly increased, in a clear echo of Shrub's (Cheney's) Iraq War plan. Eventually some line will (claim to) be crossed (Shia milita attacking US forces in Iraq seems to be popular with the regime in DC), and the US will retaliate (possibly after making impossible demands first - "disarm your entire coast and submit to regular inspections"), and then there will be airstrikes. Whether the chickenhawks plan on ending it there, with a single round of airstrikes (with Trump's giant proof of manhood having been used to smite some Muslims to the deep satisfaction of all good Republican voters), or whether they plan on a larger campaign, I'm not sure (believing that a week or two of bombing will magically produce 'regime change' seems well within the scope of the Trumpian GOP's ignorance and self-delusion, as does the possibility of a 'short and victorious war' with Gulf Council support), but however it shakes out, Trump & Bolton doubtless have a picture of "what happens next" that will prove to be deeply wrong (and like most insane individuals, they will retro- and pro-actively edit reality to make themselves either champions or victims; they certainly won't admit to being wrong).

[rda]

On the "it's just posturing" side of the ledger... well, sending an aircraft carrier into the Gulf is stupid beyond words if you're actually expecting hostilities - restricted waters, easily in-range of everything Iran has, it's a dumb move; [...]

Commenting just on this bit - this is not dumb. Desert Storm (war with Iraq) used multiple carrier battle groups to establish air superiority / destroy command structure from exactly Persian Gulf and Red Sea, this was a success. Iran is next door to Iraq.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding the trade war.

Like it happens with all big events, the media slowly wakes up, goes to look into what's actually going on, and as they educate themselves on the issue the takes become less scandalous and more measured.

Stupid nonsense like "Trump just has a power complex, that's all" and "he simply does not know how tariffs work [and his advisors don't know either]" slowly subside and give way to pieces which start saying that yeah, actually fighting China makes sense, yeah, actually the US seem to have a stronger position too, yeah, the tariffs suck and do increase prices but the cap on that is not terribly high, etc.

Aaaaaand now we start seeing pieces saying that yeah, Trump might win this episode. For now they caveat that he will perhaps still lose the war, because the Chinese can endure bla bla bla. But that's because they are in the process of educating themselves on the issue, they are mid-road.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tariff-...-lose-the-war/

[Kiri]

Commenting just on this bit - this is not dumb. Desert Storm (war with Iraq) used multiple carrier battle groups to establish air superiority / destroy command structure from exactly Persian Gulf and Red Sea, this was a success. Iran is next door to Iraq.

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding the trade war.

Like it happens with all big events, the media slowly wakes up, goes to look into what's actually going on, and as they educate themselves on the issue the takes become less scandalous and more measured.

Stupid nonsense like "Trump just has a power complex, that's all" and "he simply does not know how tariffs work [and his advisors don't know either]" slowly subside and give way to pieces which start saying that yeah, actually fighting China makes sense, yeah, actually the US seem to have a stronger position too, yeah, the tariffs suck and do increase prices but the cap on that is not terribly high, etc.

Aaaaaand now we start seeing pieces saying that yeah, Trump might win this episode. For now they caveat that he will perhaps still lose the war, because the Chinese can endure bla bla bla. But that's because they are in the process of educating themselves on the issue, they are mid-road.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tariff-...-lose-the-war/

Or rather, your impression of what the media is saying has shifted from one thing to another. I've seen articles like that months ago, and not just on Fox News (which apparently is not news media?), but also WaPo etc. And the news I watch have reported the negative effects the trade war has on China for a while now, too. All of this, the trade war impacting China negatively as well, Trump undermining what could be a possible solution to the trade war, China likely only giving token concessions to let Trump walk away with a 'win' - that's not new stuff. That's not the media educating itself, since most smart people already know it.

The media is not just some amorphous blob that only does one thing at a time, anyway. There are many different outlets with different views, different bias, differing levels of integrity. It is about time you acknowledge that, if you want to continue talking about it. Because right now, you are using the term in a way that means absolutely nothing, since you defined 'the media' for yourself. These kinds of criticisms will always ring hollow if you do not start to properly define your terms and back them up with proper evidence.

For example, I pretty much never check CBSNews. So how would I be able to tell that anything changed for them? They could have been posting pieces like this every single week with the same general message and I wouldn't know without further research, yet you want me to believe that they were all "Trump was on a power trip, lol" before this one, without providing sufficient evidence for that.
If you actually want to convince me, you will have to do it properly. It is your thesis, so you have to lay out the evidence in a succinct manner. That's the minimum standard.

Though, if you don't actually want to convince me and just want to put your opinion there to have said something, I guess you are free to do so as well.

[rda]

I think the media tone changing is more than just my impression, but I guess this is best seen if you pay attention to a specific issue for a prolonged time, this is not something that is easy to prove to others (not implying that you or anyone weren't paying attention to the why's of US vs China, just saying that I did). Although I agree that maybe my general very critical stance towards the media -- I think what gets passed for journalism now is pathetic compared to what it was even 10 years ago, a lot has been lost, long story -- might play a role. Let's just observe it together.

[Thestrawman]

Let's just observe it together.

This is the part where you show evidence to prove your point.

[Paranoid Android]

NYDN: Company owned by Brazilian crooks received $62 million in Trump bailout cash meant for struggling U.S. farmers https://t.co/fdPR0pMVDS

https://twitter.com/jaketapper/statu...087192577?s=19

The article is about the largest meatpacking company in the world. Basically corporations getting the welfare money instead of farmers. This has been discussed multiple times how it's likely that Joe Farmer is not receiving most of their welfare checks.

So if you want get through this with the meat-head farmers, this would be the political attack add and talking point against Trump. Again does it even matter.