Republicans are smart and provide most of the food you eat.

She called half of all Republicans deplorable. I have read that already and her reasons for making that comment.

 

Politifact... fake news, fake "fact-checking" totally unnecessary here, just watch her actual comments. They are -plenty- damning. And so what if she didn't call -all- of Trump's supporters "deplorable?" she called half of them that, and your fake news did the rest with "whitelash," etc., and FALSE claims about Trump being elected by ignorant, poor whites.

1. Trump WON college educated whites.
2. Trump WON the top three income quintiles.

So tell us about "making it up as you go" again?

 

she was correct wasnt she. you said she called you a deplorable. Are you in that group?

 

I already pointed out your lie yet you keep coming back.

 

LOL, they sure don't do it without a lot of Democrat help! how do you spell "government hand-out" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy

"
The United States currently pays around $20 billion per year to farmers in direct subsidies as "farm income stabilization"[12][13][14] via farm bills. These bills pre-date the economic turmoil of the Great Depression with the 1922 Grain Futures Act, the 1929 Agricultural Marketing Act, and the 1933 Agricultural Adjustment Act creating a tradition of government support.

The beneficiaries of the subsidies have changed as agriculture in the United States has changed. In the 1930s, about 25% of the country's population resided on the nation's 6,000,000 small farms. By 1997, 157,000 large farms accounted for 72% of farm sales, with only 2% of the US population residing on small farms. In 2006, the top 3 states receiving subsidies were Texas (10.4%), Iowa (9.0%), and Illinois (7.6%). United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) subsidies from farms in Iowa totaled $1,212,000,000 in 2006.[15] From 2003 to 2005, the top 1% of beneficiaries received 17% of subsidy payments.[15] In Texas, 72% of farms do not receive government subsidies. Of the close to USD$1.4 billion in subsidy payments to farms in Texas, roughly 18% of the farms receive a portion of the payments.[16]

The Environmental Working Group states:

The 1996 Freedom to Farm Act envisioned a move away from subsidized farming and into a free-market system. As a transition, the 1996 farm bill established a direct payment program to wean farmers off the government dole. Payments are based on a formula involving the historic production on a given plot of land in 1986. This set payment went to the current landowner or farm operator every year. The program has been maintained beyond its intended lifetime and became a federal entitlement program for farmers that cost the government about $5 billion per year.[17]

Top states for direct payments were Iowa ($501 million), Illinois ($454 million), and Texas ($397 million). Direct payments of subsidies are limited to $40,000 per person or $80,000 per couple.[18]

The subsidy programs give farmers extra money for their crops and guarantee a price floor. For instance, in the 2002 Farm Bill, for every bushel of wheat sold, farmers were paid an extra 52 cents and guaranteed a price of 3.86 from 2002–03 and 3.92 from 2004–2007.[19] That is, if the price of wheat in 2002 was $3.80, farmers would get an extra 58¢ per bushel (52¢ plus the 6¢ price difference).

Corn is the top crop for subsidy payments. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 mandates that billions of gallons of ethanol be blended into vehicle fuel each year, guaranteeing demand, but US corn ethanol subsidies are between $5.5 billion and $7.3 billion per year. Producers also benefitted from a federal subsidy of 51 cents per gallon, additional state subsidies, and federal crop subsidies that can bring the total to 85 cents per gallon or more. However, the federal ethanol subsidy expired December 31, 2011.[20] (US corn-ethanol producers were shielded from competition from cheaper Brazilian sugarcane-ethanol by a 54-cent-per-gallon tariff; however, that tariff also expired December 31, 2011

here is a great article on farm subsidies.
"Why not reform the program?
Congress tried that in 1996, with the Freedom to Farm Act, which removed price supports and grain management in an attempt to let the free market dictate prices. That reform didn't last long. As commodity prices fell and farmers began to complain, lawmakers caved in and introduced several new programs that continue today. They include the much-criticized "direct payments" to farmers — checks written regardless of market conditions or the farmer's crop yields — and the controversial crop insurance program, which critics say has encouraged widespread fraud. In that program, taxpayers pick up 62 percent of any farmer's insurance premiums and help fund payouts if a claim for crop damage is made.
http://theweek.com/articles/461227/farm-subsidies-welfare-program-agribusiness

Want to know what they do with their government checks? why feed, clothe, and shelter the illegal immigrants and their families, republicans claim they want to remove!
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...984-illegal-immigrants-benefit-the-us-economy
"
U.S. Department of Agriculture states that, “about half of the hired workers employed in U.S. crop agriculture were unauthorized, with the overwhelming majority of these workers coming from Mexico.” The USDA has also warned that, “any potential immigration reform could have significant impacts on the U.S. fruit and vegetable industry.” From the perspective of National Milk Producers Federation in 2009, retail milk prices would increase by 61 percent if its immigrant labor force were to be eliminated.

Echoing the Department of Labor, the USDA, and the National Milk Producers Federation, agricultural labor economist James S. Holt made the following statement to Congress in 2007: “The reality, however, is that if we deported a substantial number of undocumented farm workers, there would be a tremendous labor shortage.”

In terms of overall numbers, The Department of Labor reports that of the 2.5 million farm workers in the U.S., over half (53 percent) are illegal immigrants. Growers and labor unions put this figure at 70 percent.



.

 

You are the only person who has posted a -lie- in this whole thread. YOU admitted to it here in print and apologized for it. Good for you to admit your mistakes! Builds character.

 

Wow I can't even calculate what a small percentage of 4 trillion annual spending that is... what .5%? What a giant pot of ill-gotten gains that is for farmers. Every American benefits from the stabilizing effect those subsidies have on commodity agriculture prices (must have been an oversight that you didn't mention that), but sure, cut it, just so long as we keep our baby-vote farms up and funded in the big cities, right? That's the kind of "farming" Democrats do best, permanent misery and dependence farming.

 

So you are arguing that the welfare check, we give to farmers and agribusiness, has a stabilizing impact on the economy and represents an investment of sorts in our overall economy. Not a lot different from the arguments made for corporate welfare in a variety of industries from oil, to construction. Matter of fact, its not a lot different from arguments others make about individual income, housing and food subsidies we send to households all across this country.

I haven't heard you argue these subsidies do not create an agricultural dependence. I will try not to laugh if you do.

 

What part of "cut it" didn't you understand? Admittedly I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but the point I was attempting was essentially, "sure, let's cut LOTS of things."

 

Hillary didn't call YOU a deplorable...unless you are one of the racist scum she as talking about. I assume you are not so don't include yourself in that group

 

There are actually very few small family farms any more - there is Agribusiness - ConAgra - and California outproduces any other state for food.

 

That is not true.

 

A largely pointless rant.

Iowa is a great farm state.

It would be more diverse agriculturally if it were not for the corn syrup subsidy. There should be a statue of Earl Butz in Iowa somewhere!

What Iowa grows, and how much has nothing to do with education.

States with populations higher in advanced degrees voted for Clinton. Those less so voted for Trump.

Period. That's not a controversy. That's a fact.

That does not mean that people without college degrees are stupid. Nor does it mean the folks with them are either.

All it means is that there are enough people in those states and counties that voted for Clinton that are aware enough and informed enough to see through Donald Trump's fraudulant give-the-world-the-finger act.

 

Well, then I got a BA and an MBA

 

Yeah, it is true.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...s-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

"Trump won whites with a college degree 49% to 45%. In 2012, Romney won college whites by a somewhat wider margin in 2012 (56%-42%). Trump’s advantage among this group is the same as John McCain’s margin in 2008 (51%-47%)."

I won't bother waiting for you to be honorable and admit your mistake because you aren't.

 

Tax breaks and Monsanto. Of course yahoo redneck farmers will go for that, they might produce something akin to food but they're always going to be more interested in profits. Not to mention that farming circa 2017 is the single biggest despoiler and polluter on planet earth but is so powerful no-one even dare mention that fact.

Still, enjoy your stuffed full of drugs greasy chickens which give you cancer and tasteless veggies with no goodness inside.

 

If you read the full story she first calls Trump deplorable and one of her reasons is for Trump wanting to deport 16 million people. She calls them people but they are illegals. So when she called half of Trumps supporters deplorable for being racist I know exactly what she meant. My family is all for deporting illegals so we are in the deplorable half. So I am not racist but in the eyes of Hillary I am and thus I am a deplorable. We have no problem with people from other countries as long as they come her legally. She clearly stated Trump was deplorable for wanting to deport 16 million illegals. It's not that hard to figure out. Then she went on to say half of all Republicans are deplorable for being racist. What Hillary sees as racist and what is racist are two different things.

Here is the full story for you guys and it comes from a liberal website.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/polit...n-s-full-remarks-as-1473549076-htmlstory.html

 

California is los angeles and san francisco bay area, with a whole bunch of conservatives being held hostage in the sticks. Not much food being grown in the tenderloin.

 

There is more to California than just those 2 areas. When I drove through California the eastern half seemed to be mountains with forests, barren mountains near the dessert in the south eastern part and big cities along the coast. The central parts of the state did have farms in between cities but I did not see a lot of them. I did see fruit tree orchards and lot's of them right next to the mountain range. California is over populated and it's hard to believe it is a big producer of food but they do have fruit trees and dairy farms. The farming areas are mostly in the red areas that voted for Trump and are probably mostly conservatives.

Liberals need conservatives more than conservatives need liberals yet the liberals act like they contribute more to this country than anyone else does and that's a lie. Having a college degree is nice but it does you no good if you can't eat.

My wife was born and raised in California and loves her state and I love California too.

 

So what do you eat? Vegetables? Farmers grow vegetables.

We have chickens that are not fed drugs and are cage free.

 

I disagree. Those states just have more access to bigger universities and colleges. Many with degrees voted for Trump and most farmers don't need a degree to grow corn or beans. Farmers are smart and self sufficient. Look at the Amish. They have big farms and they do just fine without degrees. There are many smart people with no degrees.

So how do you know who with a higher degree voted for Hillary or Trump? Was there a poll done on everyone with a higher degree to see who voted for who? I know we had a thread on this but it was so long ago. I will go look for it.

A degree still means nothing if you can't eat.

 

Yeah but you forget a lot of California including most of the rural areas voted for Trump so what is your point? Most farmers voted for Trump regardless of the state they live in.

 

Iowa is still ranked #2 for the biggest food producing states in the country.

In 2015, the top 10 agricultural producing States, in terms of cash receipts were (in descending order): California, Iowa, Texas, Nebraska, Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Indiana. These and related statistics can be found in ERS's Farm Income and Wealth Statistics.

 

you are one of the most childish posters on these forums.

 

the point is you just a classic right wing hater