***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

This ************ Trump ia really criticizing the cover up. Not the fact they killed an innocent journalist for no damn good reason

 

[blastercombo]

Trump don’t want Melania to turn into a flesh light. Smart man. Keep that dumb **** up and hope they don’t throw your family into a meat grinder feet first

 

[Belgium]

Someone please try to explain what this tool is saying

One explanation could be that he is implicitly trying to brag about how a stable genius with the best brain could've done a much better job at a cover-up

 

[Belgium]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/busi...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f54e36cd2aed
Chinese-owned company qualifies for Trump’s anti-China farm bailout
A Chinese-owned pork producer is eligible for federal payments under President Trump’s $12 billion farm bailout, a program that was established to help U.S. farmers hurt by Trump’s trade war with China.

Smithfield Foods, a Virginia-based pork producer acquired in 2013 by a Chinese conglomerate now named WH Group, can apply for federal money under the bailout program created this summer, said Agriculture Department spokesman Carl E. Purvis.

JBS, a subsidiary of a Brazilian company by the same name, is also eligible to apply for the federal money. The two companies are the biggest pork producers in the United States, according to the National Pork Board, a quasi-government agency.

The USDA said in August that, as part of a broader bailout, it would buy $1.2 billion of surplus food from farmers for distribution to food banks across the country, including about $560 million in pork purchases. The administration has billed the plan as an effort to shield farmers from retaliatory tariffs from China.

But the possibility of money flowing to foreign-owned businesses underscores the difficulty of trying to craft government programs that benefit only domestic firms. The international reach of companies makes it hard to ensure that federal dollars stay in U.S. hands, regardless of their intended target.

The bailout program has also angered smaller hog producers, who expressed frustration that it appears likely to help large, international farms that already dominate the U.S. pork market.

“It’s just going to help the big boys, like JBS and Smithfield,” said Chris Petersen, 63, who owns a few hundred hogs on a farm in north-central Iowa. “I’m very concerned because of the political power and the power of money and big corporations. The taxpayers should be up in arms over this.”

In a statement, Smithfield Foods declined to say whether it has applied to participate in the purchase program. Keira Lombardo, senior vice president of corporate affairs at Smithfield, said in an email that the company meets the USDA’s eligibility standards and that “any approved vendor that can supply the requested product can bid for the contract.”

Lombardo also said that Smithfield is a U.S.-based company employing thousands of Americans and that its U.S. meat products are made in its nearly 50 domestic facilities.

WH Group, Smithfield’s owner, said in its 2017 annual financial statement that its American operations account for about 60 percent of its overall revenue and close to half its profits.

Lawmakers have probed apparent ties between WH Group and the Chinese government. The company, then named Shuanghui, received a $4 billion loan from a state-run bank to take over Smithfield in 2013, a move in alignment with the government’s objectives, according to the Center for Investigative Reporting. WH Group did not respond to a request for comment about its relationship with the Chinese government.

A JBS spokesman also did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

The USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service, which is administering the purchase program, said the products it will buy are “100 [percent] American produced.”

In a separate statement, the USDA’s central communications office said the agency could not control whether federal funding given to U.S. subsidiaries would increase the profitability of their Chinese owners.

“USDA does not have the ability to police whether money will eventually ‘filter to the Chinese,’ ” a USDA spokesman said in an email. “The Department goes to great lengths to ensure we have registered, approved U.S. vendors that work closely with the Agricultural Marketing Service.”

The USDA expects to “soon” announce some of the partners for the purchases, which will be spread over the course of the year, Purvis said. The bailout was authorized under a rarely used farm program from the Great Depression and did not require congressional approval.

After the administration announced tariffs on a host of Chinese goods this spring, Beijing responded with levies on U.S. products. Those included 62 percent tariffs on U.S. pork products, according to the U.S. Meat Export Federation, an industry group.

The Trump administration announced the bailout in July amid pressure from farm-state lawmakers over the trade war’s consequences for farmers. It billed the bailout as a temporary measure that would help farmers while the administration negotiated better deals.

But critics say the potential payments to a Chinese-owned firm speak to the inadequacy of the bailout.

“Framing this as support for farmers has always been problematic because only the biggest meatpackers, like Smithfield, can deliver pork to food banks, school lunches or other USDA feeding programs,” said Patrick Woodall, research director of Food & Water Watch, an advocacy organization focusing on corporate and government accountability related to agriculture issues. “Smithfield is the biggest subsidiary of WH Group: All Smithfield revenues are WH Group revenues.”

The purchase program is part of the larger aid program for farmers. Most of the $12 billion is slated to be given in direct cash payments, particularly to producers of soybeans. Those checks began going out in September.

The direct cash payment program has an income cap, meaning farmers earning more than $900,000 annually cannot receive federal assistance under this program. But there is no such cap for applicants seeking the $1.2 billion authorized for the Food Purchase and Distribution Program. The list of applicants and recipients of the direct cash payments has not been made public.

The third prong of the bailout is a $200 million program to promote U.S. trade in new markets.

The $559 million for pork producers represents a substantial influx of government cash. The federal government typically purchases between $30 million and $50 million in pork commodities every year, according to the National Pork Producers Council.

Smithfield’s exports to China have fallen by close to 20 percent since the start of the tariff spat with Beijing, said Usha Haley, a professor at Wichita State University who has studied Smithfield closely for years and testified to Congress about its acquisition by WH Group.

Some farmers urged the federal government to change the purchase program’s eligibility rules to exclude firms owned by foreign conglomerates.

“We know we have to get our trade imbalance in order, but any bailout should not support the very companies who are owned by the very countries causing us the pain,” said Joe Maxwell, who owns a small pig farm in southern Missouri and is the executive director of the Organization for Competitive Markets, a farm advocacy organization.

Lombardo, the vice president of Smithfield, said the awards do not amount to federal assistance, since the government is buying a product rather than handing companies a check.

“This is not a solicitation to receive ‘federal assistance’ — it is to supply the USDA with requested domestically produced products,” Lombardo said. “Any business can become a vendor if it meets certain requirements from USDA and is approved to supply products to USDA. As an American pork company, Smithfield meets these requirements and has been an approved vendor for many years.”

Both companies already receive regular federal money. In 2017, USDA purchased $11 million worth of goods from Smithfield, as well as $12 million from JBS, according to Tony Corbo, senior lobbyist with Food and Water Watch. These goods are delivered to schools, food banks and households under the USDA’s Commodity Procurement Program, which aims to “support American agriculture by encouraging the consumption of domestic foods,” according to the USDA’s website.

Larry Kudlow, the president’s top economic adviser, said in an interview that he was unaware of the possibility that money from the federal bailout could end up helping a Chinese company.

Danny Lewis, 69, runs a small farm in the eastern Missouri town of Curryville, where he owns about 1,200 hogs. Lewis, who supports Trump and typically votes for Republicans, said the bailout program could do some good if the pork bought by the government helps hungry Americans.

But he also expressed concern that federal money would go to enormous foreign conglomerates that do not need it.

“I don’t think the government buying a large volume of pork from JBS or Smithfield is going to substantially change the profit position of the independent pork producer’s pocket,” Lewis told The Washington Post. “But you should mention I’m still a supporter of Trump.”

 

[KingdomFlatbush]

Im considering make a post in every non political thread titled "Y'all know y'all need to vote, right?"

So you finna do it or ....?

 

[blastercombo]

One explanation could be that he is implicitly trying to brag about how a stable genius with the best brain could've done a much better job at a cover-up

It’s juat another half way “not really a response” responses. Nothing new from this ******* idiot. Like when a kid gets beat on Xbox and then says “well this game sucks anyway”.

 

[Mark Antony]

"Original concept " implies he was aware of some plan.

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Dude the Dems did lose those states that allowed Trump won because Trump offered better solutions. Aside from the usual mess that works against Dems like voter suppression, they lost because Trump primed people's racism and xenophobia. It seems like every month a new study comes out showing the rust belt was won not off of promises of economic prosperity but bringing minorities to heel.

And what good is a base when your damn base is barred from voting. What irks me about analysis like yours is that ignores how much voter suppression warps results and reactions to those results. I agree with moving left to meet their base on issues but that plan is sure to be undermined if Dem voters continuously are targeted for voter suppression and others don't show up because the Dems are not exactly what they want.

On the real **** Bernie, he is an *** and a horrible message. He used to that argument just to dog whistle Hillary is corrupt but now we can't even have a nuanced discussion about the Dems relationship with Wall Street. It is laughable in hindsight that people believed Hillary was Wall Streets preferred candidate after what Trump has done. I want more Wall Street regulation too but now we in a position where people think that anything less than Glass Steagall is being in Wall Streets pocket. And I am highly skeptical that if the Dems refused to take any corporate Pac money that would appease enough people for them to reliably show up.

Your argument seems to essentially boil down to since the Dems can't overcome the structural disadvantages (like gerrymandering and voter suppression) and can't stop ****ty from being self-destructive, then it is all their fault, they are failures. And somehow this falls on Pelosi. If you look at that Nancy's job actually is, she is extremely good at it. When she ran the House she delivered for the base regularly. It is the Senate that is a bigger issue legislatively.

The Dems need to improve in many areas to get back and maintain power. Getting rid of Nancy Pelosi is not that pressing. Supposed Wall Street ties and Corporate Pac money is not what is really keeping them from going left. It is the fact that whenever they do, they have to answer to an electorate that is whiter, older, and more conservative that the general voting public. Even if I agree with some of your positions, I beleive it goes beyond the Dems changing their stances on a few issues.

You won’t get an argument from me about the great barrier gerrymandering, voter suppression, & ID law changes has caused. But I'll argue a lot of the responsibility for this happening is the poor organization on the part of the democratic party dating back to 2010 midterms where dems took a "shellacking". Here in MD, which is historically a blue state, I saw huge deplorable presence in the state that was highly organized with heavy presence from the national front. I'd imagine that's what happened in other states where they Dems ceded control which paved the way for states to make the changes necessary to what we're seeing today. Wouldn't you agree?

You also won’t get an argument from me about Bernie. I agree with you in fact, but his message worked & resonated enough with a good number of Democrats & independents. I don't see a convincing effort on the part of Dems to connect with non-white voters (who didn't turn out for hillary in droves) & white working class voters.

You say your skeptical if the Dems refused to take any corporate pac dough wondering if that would appears enough voters to turn up. How do you explain Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's come up? She refused to take any pac dough I think & won handily... He raised & spent significantly more than she did & she still won.

If you think the party leadership has done a solid job than we'll agree to disagree then...

 

[frink85]

any image/post/meme that starts with "the media wont share/show you this..." is automatically right wing BS lies and that person gets the block

 

[frink85]

I've been confused on just what this amendment was proposing, especially with the way it's been advertised, guess I know why. I thought this type of amendment bundling was illegal?

https://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/...t-lurks-on-ballot-within-floridas-amendment-6

but for real,

https://ballotpedia.org/Florida_Ame...rpretation_of_Laws_and_Rules_Amendment_(2018)

even the summary of it is confusing as hell

 

[IATT]

 

[Kimchi Papi]

Racists aren't nice people...

 

[gry60]

Racists aren't nice people...

Racists have an unhealthy relationship with power. They want all of it, and will not willingly give up an inch of control. That becomes a problem in cooperative endeavors like marriage.

 

[rexanglorum]

Bernie Sanders likely would have won the electoral college but not by very much and his popular vote margin would probably have been smaller than Clinton’s. Bernie would have averted the calamity of a Trump Presidency but the Democratic Party would have structural issues stemming from voter suppression.

The very first priority has to be attacking voter suppression at the state legislative-gubernatorial level and hopefully if we can get a governing majority, there will be a brand new and enhanced VRA along with a packed court and a slew of newly created States and, for the love of God, Card Check.

I know that many liberals are uncomfortable with these fights, that involve shaping the terrain of future elections, but when your opposition uses revolutionary methods, you must match and exceed that zeal and intensity. There really are no liberal, institutional “guard rails” all there is wave elections and changing the rules in your favor.

 

[RustyShackleford]

You won’t get an argument from me about the great barrier gerrymandering, voter suppression, & ID law changes has caused. But I'll argue a lot of the responsibility for this happening is the poor organization on the part of the democratic party dating back to 2010 midterms where dems took a "shellacking". Here in MD, which is historically a blue state, I saw huge deplorable presence in the state that was highly organized with heavy presence from the national front. I'd imagine that's what happened in other states where they Dems ceded control which paved the way for states to make the changes necessary to what we're seeing today. Wouldn't you agree?

You also won’t get an argument from me about Bernie. I agree with you in fact, but his message worked & resonated enough with a good number of Democrats & independents. I don't see a convincing effort on the part of Dems to connect with non-white voters (who didn't turn out for hillary in droves) & white working class voters.

You say your skeptical if the Dems refused to take any corporate pac dough wondering if that would appears enough voters to turn up. How do you explain Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's come up? She refused to take any pic dough I think & won handily... He raised & spent significantly more than she did & she still won.

If you think the party leadership has done a solid job than we'll agree to disagree then...

I lived in MD in 2010, in College Park, stone's throw from DC. I saw the Tea Party wave build up close. It was not lacking organization that caused 2010. The Dems were still working with the apparatus that delivered wins in 2006 and 2008.

2010 was the combination of a natural response from voters of the opposite party, then mix in tons of dark money, Obama approval ratings being at its worst because the economy was still sluggish, and what really added fuel to the fire was the white nationalism in the Tea Party. White Supremacy came for Obama, and liberal voters stayed home at the worst possible time. 2014 I put more on party organization than 2010. But then again, when you have the leader of your party being apologetically liberal, one of the majors thing they claimed was an issue in 2010, and they still stay home, Like good grief, that is frustrating to me.

Bernie's message only took hold with a subset of people. If appealing to minorities is the goal, then we can't go by Bernie's blueprint because the minority vote is the reason he got massacred. And while a do agree that Hillary is a ****** salesman, the people in the rust belt did what they did because of cultural issues. So I don't see how being more like Bernie helps with minorities when he was so trash at appealing to them. The Bernie would have won thing hinges on the assumption that Bernie could have convinced enough white swing voters in the Rustbelt to identify as being a worker foremost, instead of identifying as being white. Maybe it could have work, but I seriously doubt it would be that easy.

AOC proves little to nothing when it comes to this topic, in the context being discussed. She is in a heavy liberal district, she basically won her seat when she won the primary. She won her primary because of grassroots campaigning, the demographics of the area becoming more Latino, and a completely incompetent incumbent. If she was running in a statewide race in a swing state, against a median Republican, she would get washed. I love her, but she would get washed. Partly because the electorate, she would face would be much older, whiter, a conservative than she sees in her district.

Finally, stop. Don't put words in my mouth. I have criticized Dem leadership. This whole exchange started with my saying Schumer needs to go. What I am arguing is that you are not giving an accurate analysis of the leadership's shortcomings given the hurdles they face.

More generally.....

I want a better Democratic Party too, that is why I believe that nitpicking about certain issues, to the point of being apathetic, is counterproductive. When people withhold votes and demand the Democratic Party become this better entity first, before they are will to vote for them is just helping the GOP. So while the left bickers, the right is entrenching the structural barriers that keep all kinds of Dems out of office in any place that is not already deep blue.

So if people wait for the Dems to become this perfect leftist party, when they finally run these progressives in even more rigged elections, they will get washed. And clowns like Mike Bloomberg now have an angle to say the Dem need to go back to centrist policies.

Liberals of all kinds need to worry about seizing power now, right now, before it is too late and when the left has majorities and can unrig elections, we can have a civil civil war that pushes the party gradually more and more left. Hopefully quickly

 

[RustyShackleford]

Since she is also a racist piece of ****, and hates PC culture, I will turn back into pre-woke Rusty for a second to make this joke....

I bet Bigot **** was hitting ole girl with only left hooks and jabs, but no straights. Because even when it comes to beating his wife, Spencer does not beleive in equal rights.

May Socialist Jesus forgive me.

 

[blastercombo]

1. You married him you ******* idiot

2. Show me the calander or ****

 

[blastercombo]

Racists have an unhealthy relationship with power. They want all of it, and will not willingly give up an inch of control. That becomes a problem in cooperative endeavors like marriage.

Naw that ***** and every ***** that marries a racist is one themselves. She was all good with it before. **** her and all of them.

 

[aepps20]

Since she is also a racist piece of ****, and hates PC culture, I will turn back intiinti pre-woke Rusty for a second to make this joke....

I bet Bigot **** was hitting ole girl with only left hooks and jabs, but no straights. Because even when it comes to beating his wife, Spencer does not beleive in equal rights.

May Socialist Jesus forgive me.

Excellent breakdown of the fight. Rust Jones Jr.

 

[Based Jesus]

Since he's not running for Supreme Court, Soros isn't paying me to care.

Seriously though this is terrible.

 

[blastercombo]

Don’t believe a word she’s saying either.

 

[gry60]

It's funny how @dwalk31 and @cocainepriest literally disappeared in the last few days.

I thought we would hear more about that caravan to deflect from the increasingly autocratic statements of their champ.

Speaking of dumb Republicans, I was listening to a report on NPR about the Florida gubernatorial race, and one of those dumb *** Villagers said that Trump "chose" DeSanctis to run for governor. Even the journalist had to remind the audience that elections still exist within the Republican party.

 

[RustyShackleford]

It's funny how @dwalk31 and @cocainepriest literally disappeared in the last few days.

I thought we would hear more about that caravan to deflect from the increasingly autocratic statements of their champ.

Speaking of dumb Republicans, I was listening to a report on NPR about the Florida gubernatorial race, and one of those dumb *** Villagers said that Trump "chose" DeSanctis to run for governor. Even the journalist had to remind the audience that elections still exist within the Republican party.

The gonna be back soon to fear monger about that caravan. Their buffoonery is so predictable

 

[Belgium]

The DOJ has recently submitted a court filing in this case that contradicts Wilbur Ross' testimony to Congress on the matter.
WaPo article from October 11th on that DOJ court filling is linked further below.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/10/22/supreme-court-wilbur-ross-929497
Supreme Court halts Wilbur Ross deposition
The Supreme Court has effectively halted a ruling requiring Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross to testify in suits challenging his decision to add a question on citizenship to the 2020 census, but most of the justices declined for now to grant the Trump administration's other requests to limit the challengers' access to information about Ross' action.

Two of the high court's conservative GOP appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, signaled that they would have gone further to halt a trial planned to begin in two weeks in a federal court in Manhattan.


In an emergency stay application, the Justice Department has argued that the planned depositions of Ross and a senior official in Justice's civil rights division represented an unwarranted intrusion into the internal decision-making of the executive branch. Federal government lawyers have also fought orders to turn over documents related to the move to add the citizenship question, which last appeared on a nationwide, decennial census in 1950.

Lawyers for states, localities and civil rights groups objecting to Ross' move say there was no legitimate reason for his action. U.S. District Court Judge Jesse Furman said there were "strong" signs that the decision may have been made in "bad faith" and for reasons other than the official ones described by the federal government.

In the ruling Monday night, the Supreme Court said Ross' planned deposition would remain on hold as long as the Justice Department files a formal petition within a week asking the justices to review the case.

It was not immediately clear whether the ruling meant the trial would go forward as scheduled Nov. 5. Language in the high court's order suggested it was possible that the justices might take further steps in the case that might avert the trial.

However, Gorsuch wrote a partial dissent, joined by Thomas, saying the court should have blocked all the efforts by Ross' critics to seek testimony or other records about his decision.

"There’s nothing unusual about a new Cabinet secretary coming to office inclined to favor a different policy direction, soliciting support from other agencies to bolster his views, disagreeing with staff, or cutting through red tape. Of course, some people may disagree with the policy and process. But until now, at least, this much has never been thought enough to justify a claim of bad faith and launch an inquisition into a Cabinet secretary’s motives," Gorsuch wrote.

DOJ spokeswoman Kelly Laco said the court's decision was a "win" for protecting the rights of the executive branch.

"The intrusive and improper discovery in this case disrupts the orderly functioning of our government and is, as Justices Gorsuch and Thomas noted, 'highly unusual,'" Laco said. "The Department of Justice is committed to protecting the rule of law and looks forward to further proceedings before the Supreme Court."

Ross has said he added the citizenship question in order to provide the Justice Department with more data for enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. However, opponents of his decision say it will prompt many in immigrant communities to fail to return their census forms, resulting in an undercount that reins in the political strength of urban areas with large immigrant populations and bolsters the representation of areas with largely white, older residents.

The citizenship-census dispute has been closely watched as one of the first tests of how the high court's newest member, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, will rule on cases involving executive power. During his confirmation hearings, many Democrats portrayed him as inclined to be overly deferential to the Trump administration's assertions of authority.

What role he played in Monday night's decision was unclear. He was not recorded in partial dissent like Gorsuch and Thomas, but justices are not required to reveal whether they agreed with the court's ruling on a stay application. Further action by the court seems possible before the scheduled trial, so there may yet be a chance for Kavanaugh's views on the case to be clarified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/loca...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b25df971c926
New document contradicts Ross’s congressional testimony on census citizenship question
Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross recalled talking with former White House adviser Stephen K. Bannon and Attorney General Jeff Sessions about adding a citizenship question to the 2020 Census, according to a document filed Thursday by the Justice Department, though he testified to Congress that he had not done so.

The document, part of a multistate lawsuit against the Trump administration over the question, said Ross recalls Bannon calling him in the spring of 2017 to ask whether Ross would speak to Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach about ideas for a possible citizenship question on the census.

The document appears to contradict Ross’s testimony to Congress this year. When asked at a hearing on March 20 by Rep. Grace Meng (D-N.Y) whether the president or anyone in the White House had discussed the citizenship question with him, Ross said, “I am not aware of any such.”

 

[AEA18]

The orange clown telling his supporters cult members that dems want to give undocumented immigrants Rolls-Royce