Trump Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

On that note...
"largest point drop in history"
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...eek/306400002/

---

It dropped because the economy is doing well. Wall street logic is not common wisdom.

Very low unemployment coupled with the best wage growth in years might lead to just a bit more inflation. This would cause the fed to make money more expensive to rent. So some of them are panicking that the gravy train won't have quite so much suet in it.

They'll get over it, and the drawback is probably healthy so that it doesn't bubble over too much. A few more investors in bonds etc. will be a good thing. There are too many strengths for this to be more than a correction.

Discussing the Trump budget proposal is rather pointless since it won't be taken up, but this:

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/13/whit...od-stamps.html

Quote:

---

A proposed food delivery program would replace about half of food stamp benefits for households who qualify for the boxes.
The plan would put the U.S. government directly in charge of what goes on the dinner plates of more than 16 million low-income households.

---

HA HA HA HA HA HA nanny state

Would actually support this under two conditions though:

1. Rationally constructed for healthfulness and divorced from contractors' pork needs
2. Opt-in and complementary to, not in displacement of, a SNAP-like program

Well, yes, if this is forced onto people it just reminds me of slavery because slaves get their only food from their master.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Well, yes, if this is forced onto people it just reminds me of slavery because slaves get their only food from their master.

---

Slaves generally had to work. Those who get money for nothing are called children. I doubt it is forced on to them - they could choose to accept it or choose not to accept it.

Making something"opt in" means it is even more complicated to undertake.

A flat rate of free money at the very least lets them pretend to be adults where they have to make grown up decisions of where to spend the money.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Slaves generally had to work. Those who get money for nothing are called children.

---

*have to work, let's not forget that actual slavery still exists.

As for being forced to work, depends on your definition. The whole point is to force them to work on getting a job. However, if there simply is no job for them to get, it's a bit much to blame them. And if they just get food and shelter, the things they can actually do become quite limited since even going somewhere beyond what can be reached on foot or bike can become expensive. Taking a minimum wage job in the next city can be impossible unless the government subsidizes the commute.

To get it out of the way, it seems like the administration is claiming 'lol I troll you' wrt the proposal, just the standard desire to eliminate the welfare program entirely.

Quote:

---

Instead, the idea, according to two administration officials who worked on the proposal, was a political gambit by fiscal hawks in the administration aimed at outraging liberals and stirring up members of the president’s own party working on the latest version of the farm bill. The move, they said, was intended to lay down a marker that the administration is serious about pressing for about $85 billion in other cuts to food assistance programs that will be achieved, in part, by imposing strict new work requirements on recipients.

---

Now let's clarify what SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) is.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/policy...e-program-snap

Quote:

---

SNAP provides important nutritional support for low-wage working families, low-income seniors, and people with disabilities living on fixed incomes. Close to 70 percent of SNAP participants are in families with children; nearly a third are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. After unemployment insurance, it is the most responsive federal program providing additional assistance during economic downturns.

The federal government pays the full cost of SNAP benefits and splits the cost of administering the program with the states, which operate the program.

---

You get a debit card with the prescribed monthly balance and you head to most (eligible) grocery stores or supermarkets to use it. Most recipients work, are often obliged to meet work requirements, are restricted from using benefits to purchase :luxury" goods such as tobacco, alcohol, and in harsher environs even seafood and red meat, yadda yadda.


Taking the Trump admin proposal at face value, instead of permitting SNAP recipients to choose what food to buy for themselves (and conservatives fetishize "choice"), it would simultaneously make applying for SNAP more difficult, reduce the benefits across the board, and replace them substantially with government-selected and assembled items. To be delivered in a monthly package.

And that really is what's at the root of welfare chauvinism: 'To hell with all these regulations and taxes affecting me, I'm a good, honest, hardworking person who doesn't need their hand held or progress restrained. All my virtue deserves to be rewarded with the benefits and entitlements of government - as opposed to those lazy, stupid, immoral people, the undeserving parasites leeching my tax dollars, those ni-BOING. They are the ones who the government needs to monitor and interfere with, for our collective prosperity and security.'


But more than anything, the reason this proposal is/would have been DOA, and why SNAP is a relatively-secure welfare administration, is because it counts as a substantial subsidy to food producers and retailers.

This highlights the way we all subsidize "entrepreneurs".
When work does not pay the cost of living gov't steps in to provide "supports"; public housing, food stamps, welfare...etc.
A common trope is "the poors are picking my pocket!"; when it's just the way we chose to allow the economy to operate.
Is the "welfare state" a necessary outcome of capitalism?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

*have to work, let's not forget that actual slavery still exists.

As for being forced to work, depends on your definition. The whole point is to force them to work on getting a job. However, if there simply is no job for them to get, it's a bit much to blame them. And if they just get food and shelter, the things they can actually do become quite limited since even going somewhere beyond what can be reached on foot or bike can become expensive. Taking a minimum wage job in the next city can be impossible unless the government subsidizes the commute.

---

Mea culpa - yes, slavery still exists. It always has and it probably always will. And the slavery-lite options called crofting / serfs / bondsman.

I'm not blaming anyone. I accept that amongst both employed and unemployed there are angels (who are genuinely trying whilst life has dealt them a really bad hand / are doing a decent job and declaring all their money) and daemons (who are taking everything they can, whilst also working but not declaring).

Although the view that it is "impossible" to get to the next town / city has changed with time. It used to be something you just had to do as the alternative was probably to starve / become a full time criminal; and of course joining the armed forces was another escape but standards have been increased to such a degree many are excluded when so many places would benefit from some cannon fodder. Having some sort of bus pass as part of the unemployed benefit would be a good idea.

~:smoking:

Replacing SNAP with boxes of food (which would presumably be filled with simple grains and sugars) is an affront to these dignity.

Wealthy progressives pay big buxxx to not have a choice in the food they get from Blue Apron-style deliveries and/or their local farm CSA program. Setting aside for a moment that government cheese won't be at that level of quality, is there anything about a CSA subscription that lacks dignity if it was part of a government welfare program?

We're talking about people who's kids already get breakfast and lunch at school. Is the lack of a deep and refined menu for those government meals an affront as well?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Wealthy progressives pay big buxxx to not have a choice in the food they get from Blue Apron-style deliveries and/or their local farm CSA program. Setting aside for a moment that government cheese won't be at that level of quality, is there anything about a CSA subscription that lacks dignity if it was part of a government welfare program?

We're talking about people who's kids already get breakfast and lunch at school. Is the lack of a deep and refined menu for those government meals an affront as well?

---

First of all, Hello.

School lunches are absolute trash. We fail feeding kids nearly as bad as we do preventing them from getting shot.

Let's set aside the dignity comment. I'll wheel back around to it.

This is a supply chain nightmare. The USDA has made assumptions that it would be cheaper for the states to pick and ship these goods rather than have people make their own food choices. Warehouses are expensive, labor is expensive, Trucks are expensive, Drivers are expensive. So instead of using the existing corporate supply chains, the USDA thinks it will be cheaper to make and maintain these things out of whole cloth. Good luck to them. They mentioned blue apron in their press release, blue apron is having massive supply chain problems right now. It won't work but that's about par for the course for this presidents business ventures.

Every reputable study on SNAP spending habits has shown it to be roughly in line with American spending on food as a whole. It absolute right wing propaganda the propagates the myth of steak and lobster being charged to the EBT card. 65 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are under 18, over 60, or disabled. That is hardly the picture of the able bodied on the dole.

These boxes will be filled with simple carbs, simple sugars, and chock full of grains. This is food that makes people sick. It is not designed to be healthy. It is designed as form of control. It is designed to shame those who partake in the welfare system. It is not feasible to kick out the illegal immigrants, starve the poor, or kill the sick. However, you can shame and shackle them until their voices are crushed and that is the goal of the actors bankrolling both sides of the aisle.

Even from a purely self interested stand point, it should be noted, Ideas don't start revolutions, hungry people do.

The idea is not bad in itself. FDIPR is a federal program that does just the same thing for Native Americans on reservations, and at a glance here and in other studies it seems to work... decently, at least.

However, this program is complementary to SNAP, rather than a replacement for it. It exists because on some isolated reservations (or reservations in general, because frankly the rez be dirt-poor) families in need of food assistance may not have ready access to quality food in the market.

As an official suggestion, gutting SNAP and replacing it with curated commodities because the poors can't be trusted to shop for themselves is an obvious asshole move. It's a restriction and a diminution. Public school breakfast and lunch, meanwhile, is subsidized because children may have nothing else available. Children, as far as I know, are not ever mandated to forswear their parents' baloney sandwich and obtain school lunch.

Quote:

---

It absolute right wing propaganda the propagates the myth of steak and lobster being charged to the EBT card.

---

Then again, why shouldn't SNAP recipients get to eat steak and lobster? In line with what you're saying, the underlying assumption either way is that poor people should only partake of the shittiest food and be grateful for it. It's the same sentiment underlying the snide comments when a food bank distributes donations of premium items: isn't it more efficient to give food bank customers the absolute cheapest canned food?

Quote:

---

Even from a purely self interested stand point, it should be noted, Ideas don't start revolutions, hungry people do.

---

"One day the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich" is a satisfying thought, but the poor as a group will not be allowed to want for calories until the time to die is at hand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

The idea is not bad in itself. FDIPR is a federal program that does just the same thing for Native Americans on reservations, and at a glance here and in other studies it seems to work... decently, at least.

---

The reservation boxes are literal jokes to those who receive them. If by works decently you mean "gets there" sure.

Quote:

---

However, this program is complementary to SNAP, rather than a replacement for it. It exists because on some isolated reservations (or reservations in general, because frankly the rez be dirt-poor) families in need of food assistance may not have ready access to quality food in the market.

---

They get powdered milk, white bread, and processed cheese, hardly quality.

Quote:

---

Then again, why shouldn't SNAP recipients get to eat steak and lobster? In line with what you're saying, the underlying assumption either way is that poor people should only partake of the shittiest food and be grateful for it. It's the same sentiment underlying the snide comments when a food bank distributes donations of premium items: isn't it more efficient to give food bank customers the absolute cheapest canned food?

---

It is simply to deflect the most common brought up argument against SNAP. As a whole people do not suddenly try to game the system.

Quote:

---

"One day the poor will have nothing to eat but the rich" is a satisfying thought, but the poor as a group will not be allowed to want for calories until the time to die is at hand.

---

Everything is impossible until it happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

The reservation boxes are literal jokes to those who receive them. If by works decently you mean "gets there" sure.

They get powdered milk, white bread, and processed cheese, hardly quality.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by US DepAgr link

. Although FDPIR is intended to be a supplemental food package program, it
was the sole or primary source of food for 38 percent of households

---

Quote:

---

Participant satisfaction with FDPIR was overwhelmingly positive. Of the 15 household survey questions
that asked respondents to rank satisfaction on food packages, facilities, and the operation of the program,
respondent satisfaction rates on 12 items were over 90 percent. Strikingly, 99 percent of survey
respondents indicated that they would recommend FDPIR to family and friends

---

Quote:

---

The process for ordering produce was different from that for ordering other USDA Foods. Nearly all
sites ordered produce to be delivered once per week to ensure the availability of fresh produce to
participants throughout the month.

---

Quote:

---

Participants commonly suggested adding back to the food package products that had been removed,
including lunchmeat or spam, tuna, and syrup. Other products that participants would like to see, in no
particular order, included spices, garlic, frozen vegetables, baking soda or baking powder or yeast, fresh eggs
(currently being piloted), sugar, frozen fish, whole milk, bread, alternative grains and flours (barley, quinoa),
and coffee and tea.
Other participants requested a greater variety of frozen meats, canned beans, and canned soups. In the
discussion groups, households in one program indicated that they would like more meat and to be able to
receive both oil and butter. Staff noted that the amount of butter offered has decreased since its
reintroduction into the food package, and recipients would like more of it. For a detailed discussion of
participants’ food preferences, see chapter 8.

---

Quote:

---

Some participants in discussion groups raised issues about the availability of all food items. For example,
they mentioned food being out of stock when they arrived or not available that month. Unavailability of
products and inconsistency of inventory were mentioned as key reasons why people might leave the
program

---

By "decent", I mean useful. Maybe it's more reflective of the quality of reservation life than the quality of the food or the process, but still. My point is just that a distinct and well-funded program of curated packages isn't an inherently bad idea as long as it isn't presented as a replacement for anything. If really ambitious, assemble and distribute to all comers (i.e. without special enrolment) on a local basis.

:shrug:

More fake news.
Mueller and the grand jury have indicted 13 Russians and 3 Russian entities for the interference that didn't happen.
Charges include attempting to defraud the U.S., wire fraud, bank fraud and identity theft.
For something that never occurred this is certainly leaving quite a trail:

https://www.npr.org/2018/02/16/58650...lectionhttp://

While the administration might wish to sow doubt about the election interference, there is no doubt that Russia is actively engaging in an information war at present:

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...discord-online

Denial while under attack is not a winning strategy.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/...94780088033282

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Donald J. Trump

Russia started their anti-US campaign in 2014, long before I announced that I would run for President. The results of the election were not impacted. The Trump campaign did nothing wrong - no collusion!

12:18 PM - 16 Feb 2018

---

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-t...for-president/

Quote:

---

May 27, 2013, 2:55 PM

Trump thinking - again - about running for president

Serial presidential campaign explorer Donald Trump is at it again, spending $1 million researching a 2016 run, according to his executive vice president.

"The electoral research was commissioned," Trump's executive VP and special counsel Michael Cohen first told the New York Post and confirmed to CBS News. "We did not spend $1 million on this research for it just to sit on my bookshelf," he said.

"At this point Mr. Trump has not made any decision on a political run, but what I would say is that he is exactly what this country needs. The turnout at these political speeches indicates his following remains very strong and is growing."

[...]

"Everybody tells me, 'Please run for president. Please run for president.' I would be much happier if a great and competent person came along," Trump said, according to the Source Newspapers. "I'd be happy if President Obama did a great job. I'm a Republican, but before anything, I love this country. I would love to see somebody come in who is going to be great."

He also said that Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee and the GOP "has to pick the right candidate because it will not be an easy election in three years."

---

https://www.politico.com/story/2016/...niverse-223173

Quote:

---

When Donald Trump brought Miss Universe to Moscow
How a 2013 beauty pageant explains Trump's love for Russia and obsession with Vladimir Putin.

On June 18, 2013, Donald Trump had some exciting news: He would soon be whisking dozens of the world’s most beautiful women to Russia.

“The Miss Universe Pageant will be broadcast live from MOSCOW, RUSSIA on November 9th,” Trump tweeted that day, referring to the beauty pageant he owned at the time. “A big deal that will bring our countries together!”

---

Oops

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

First of all, Hello.

School lunches are absolute trash. We fail feeding kids nearly as bad as we do preventing them from getting shot.

Let's set aside the dignity comment. I'll wheel back around to it.

This is a supply chain nightmare. The USDA has made assumptions that it would be cheaper for the states to pick and ship these goods rather than have people make their own food choices. Warehouses are expensive, labor is expensive, Trucks are expensive, Drivers are expensive. So instead of using the existing corporate supply chains, the USDA thinks it will be cheaper to make and maintain these things out of whole cloth. Good luck to them. They mentioned blue apron in their press release, blue apron is having massive supply chain problems right now. It won't work but that's about par for the course for this presidents business ventures.

Every reputable study on SNAP spending habits has shown it to be roughly in line with American spending on food as a whole. It absolute right wing propaganda the propagates the myth of steak and lobster being charged to the EBT card. 65 percent of SNAP beneficiaries are under 18, over 60, or disabled. That is hardly the picture of the able bodied on the dole.

These boxes will be filled with simple carbs, simple sugars, and chock full of grains. This is food that makes people sick. It is not designed to be healthy. It is designed as form of control. It is designed to shame those who partake in the welfare system. It is not feasible to kick out the illegal immigrants, starve the poor, or kill the sick. However, you can shame and shackle them until their voices are crushed and that is the goal of the actors bankrolling both sides of the aisle.

Even from a purely self interested stand point, it should be noted, Ideas don't start revolutions, hungry people do.

---

All I have to say is Blue Apron = Scam Apron. I'm looking at the Beef Medallion meal. Four beef medallions likely each the size of a pack of cards, two potatoes, broccoli, a lemon, an onion and minor amounts of garlic and green onion... all for $20.
If you are middle class and don't live in a food desert...take the 25 min trip to Ralphs and buy it yourself.

Mueller Indictment (full text via bbc):

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43091945

As always, Americans are so lonely on top of their hill that they don't understand this is something that happens all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

Wealthy progressives...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

...It is not feasible to kick out the illegal immigrants, starve the poor, or kill the sick. However, you can shame and shackle them until their voices are crushed and that is the goal of the actors bankrolling both sides of the aisle...

---

I like how Americans have been convinced that there are two sides, and either one sees the other as rich and trying to profit off of them, while they are poor, righteous and hardworking.

So the indictments dropped: So what?
Somehow it's a little hard to believe Russia will extradite anyone.
If it's for domestic consumption fine, most people will realize that it is practically meaningless.
As as solution? Absolute zero.

It does make clear that Russian interference happened. It won't change anyones mind about it, and deniers will likely double down on denial.
While there may be comfort in the clear illustration of investigatory prowess, the clear lack of a penalty should instill no confidence.

https://slate.com/technology/2018/02...sequences.html

Oh it happens, it's just much more subtle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny

So the indictments dropped: So what?
Somehow it's a little hard to believe Russia will extradite anyone.
If it's for domestic consumption fine, most people will realize that it is practically meaningless.
As as solution? Absolute zero.

It does make clear that Russian interference happened. It won't change anyones mind about it, and deniers will likely double down on denial.
While there may be comfort in the clear illustration of investigatory prowess, the clear lack of a penalty should instill no confidence.

---

True, chances are no Russians will face jailtime. But buried in the indictment are mentions of conspiracy with persons "known and unknown to the grand jury". This set of indictments has two purposes: highlight what the Russians did, and tie in any coordination to other targets of the probe. Mueller has internal documents from the troll farm, how he got them is the real story...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by drone

True, chances are no Russians will face jailtime. But buried in the indictment are mentions of conspiracy with persons "known and unknown to the grand jury". This set of indictments has two purposes: highlight what the Russians did, and tie in any coordination to other targets of the probe. Mueller has internal documents from the troll farm, how he got them is the real story...

---

It underscores that obstruction of the special counsel is in fact a matter of sedition and treason, as well as an impeachable offense on its face.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

It underscores that obstruction of the special counsel is in fact a matter of sedition and treason, as well as an impeachable offense on its face.

---

I think the criteria for impeachable offenses has already been met. What does this add to it, except for maybe convincing a few more radical centrists that perhaps we did in fact elect a bad man.

The "political class" would rather put up with a leader they dislike than try to fix a system that might lead to them not, y'know,having the cushy job that they've come to like - and in the meantime, Trump means almost all the rest of them get a free ride.

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I think the criteria for impeachable offenses has already been met. What does this add to it, except for maybe convincing a few more radical centrists that perhaps we did in fact elect a bad man.

---

Yes, but this restrains Trump's alternatives more than ever. It gives Mueller security. Now it's not just a matter of an "anti-Trump witch hunt", but of national security.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r09WtKVwaMU

Give me a better metaphor, sports people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

The "political class" would rather put up with a leader they dislike than try to fix a system that might lead to them not, y'know,having the cushy job that they've come to like - and in the meantime, Trump means almost all the rest of them get a free ride.

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

~:smoking:

---

Possibly, but it might short-circuit this loop. We don't need Vichy Democrats.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

https://i.imgur.com/lSSMkuk.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If the Dems got in, would they start impeachment? Might they too prefer to have Trump wreck as much as possible with the eye on the next major election?

---

Even though there are grounds for various actions and reprimands on the president, anything happening is next to zero. What will most likely happen is they will simply obstruct him or even.. persuade him to pass some democrat policies.

I think Beskar is correctly summing up the practical strategy being applied. He doesn't mention that the Dems and progressives are seeking to oust him in the next election, but that really doesn't need much mention as it is obvious. Trump's being an asshat certainly makes this less difficult.

The indictments of Russians for attempting to influence the elections are clear evidence in support of what most of us were sure of from the get go. Trump's public flailings about could have been China and the like during the campaign were his effort to keep the focus on Hillary. Apparently it worked, at least just enough. Did Russian media manipulation make a difference in swaying the minds of some voters? Mayhap.

The indictments, however, do not yet mean that Trump or persons working for him knowingly colluded to get Russian support to beat Hillary. Did the Russians try to do so? Very probably. Would Trump personnel have been dumb enough to be played by them? Very Probably. Knowing collusion? We shall see. That requires evidence of active effort to do so by both halves of the equation.

I skimmed through the indictment, didn't read it thoroughly, but it could be summed up with "much ado about nothing".

There were some people who used faked and/or stolen identities to set up pages on social media. Russian government is not explicitly mentioned. No amounts of money were mentioned, except in one case - 1.25 million $ monthly, but that was not the amount spent but rather monthly budget of an organization that operates in many countries of the world. Even if the entire budget was spent on influencing American elections for two years without spending anything elsewhere and not paying a cent for staff and infrastructure, it's not even 30 million. Double or triple or quadruple that and it is still a drop in the ocean compared to the money spent on the elections by just two candidates.

And, still, even journalists can't draw conclusions and are still sticking with the story "Russia supported Trump" even when the indictment says that the same people who tried to rally support for Trump, also helped promote "not my president" when he won. The goal was never supporting Trump, but promoting political instability. Only now are some picking up on that. The problem is, the mass hysteria created about Russian support for Trump is now proving detrimental to serious discourse on the issue.

New York Times today had an editorial mentioning US meddling in the elections over the world. They had experts counting both overt and covert meddling in various elections since the WW2. They came up with 81 for USA and 39 for USSR/Russia, and at least in my humble opinion, those are quite conservative figures. This is nothing new, this is same old, same old, just digital instead of analog.

When you have mainstream media that's more interested in click bait qualities of an article rather than its substance, you're gonna get stories like this.