Trump is Bankrupting his Base.

[pjohns]

So that means it's even worse for you. Instead of 20% switching their votes to the Democrats, the number could end up as high as 38%.

You really do not strike me as being truly serious in your analyses (and one uses the word rather loosely here).

A serious analyst might suggest that it is possible that the Democrats will re-take the House in 2018--it would require a net gain of 22 seats; but that is not impossible--although they almost certainly will not re-take the Senate, since 26 Democrats are up for re-election, as opposed to just nine Republicans.

However, all you can appear to do is to throw around the hate-filled word, "cultists"...

[Dr. Who]

I implied no such thing. I simply said the prices of soybeans have been dropping since 2012. Plan, simple fact. And a fact that obviates your and your fellow traveller's repeated fiction that prices have suddenly crashed.

And now you repeat your fiction that "Tariff fears wiped out all of the price gains for 2018." Post #91 showed that to be utterly false. Where did you even come up with it? Out of thin air? Read #91 as it makes nonsense of everything you're making up.

Unbelievable.

Soybeans have fallen for five straight sessions, with most actively traded months notching contract lows in the past two sessions as the tariff increase grew increasingly certain."If China does indeed hit soybeans hard, the prices you see will be your new lows for a while - and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the bean contracts start with a 7," said EFG Group analyst Tom Fritz, referring to sub-$8-per-bushel prices.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/reut...iffs-loom.html

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/art...g-export-sales

[Chris]

Soybeans have fallen for five straight sessions, with most actively traded months notching contract lows in the past two sessions as the tariff increase grew increasingly certain."If China does indeed hit soybeans hard, the prices you see will be your new lows for a while - and I wouldn't be surprised to see some of the bean contracts start with a 7," said EFG Group analyst Tom Fritz, referring to sub-$8-per-bushel prices.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/reut...iffs-loom.html

https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/art...g-export-sales

Now you're basically arguing what I argued, that soybean prices have been trending down--5 decades, no 6 years. It's another nice ruse on your part as you seek desperately to be right about something.

The point is you were wrong, the downward trend did not happen because of Trump.

In fact post #91 above demonstrates a recent rise in prices, not a crash--you were wrong again.

Why not just admit you were wrong, that you fabricated a fictional narrative to try and attack Trump.


No, I don't care about Trump, I care about true facts and conclusions.

[Dr. Who]

Now you're basically arguing what I argued, that soybean prices have been trending down--5 decades, no 6 years. It's another nice ruse on your part as you seek desperately to be right about something.

The point is you were wrong, the downward trend did not happen because of Trump.

In fact post #91 above demonstrates a recent rise in prices, not a crash--you were wrong again.

Why not just admit you were wrong, that you fabricated a fictional narrative to try and attack Trump.


No, I don't care about Trump, I care about true facts and conclusions.

Five sessions is five days, not years. The graph ends in June - it got worse during the 1st week of July. The first article is talking about the period from June 30 to July 5.

[Chris]

Five sessions is five days, not years. The graph ends in June - it got worse during the 1st week of July. The first article is talking about the period from June 30 to July 5.

Makes no difference, the drop in soybean prices started before Trump did anything.

It does even make sense to point at Trump. One, its Chinese tariffs. Two, Trump imposed tariffs on other countries for the very same reason you support them for your country Canada. IOW, Trump was reacting to previous tariffs and quotas and other protectionist policies of other countries. History doesn;t start with Trump.

it got worse during the 1st week of July.

You seem to be having trouble reading your own graph.



The decline in your narrow graph began in JUNE. But JULY it was rising again, which, BTW, conforms with the picture described in post #91 above about today's sontinued rise in prices.

And if you proden your myopic view, you would see the downward tend goes back much further:



And that is consistent with the OP's source that showed a downward trend since 2012:



Once again, history did not begin with Trump.


What we have here are facts vs fiction.

[Dr. Who]

Makes no difference, the drop in soybean prices started before Trump did anything.

It does even make sense to point at Trump. One, its Chinese tariffs. Two, Trump imposed tariffs on other countries for the very same reason you support them for your country Canada. IOW, Trump was reacting to previous tariffs and quotas and other protectionist policies of other countries. History doesn;t start with Trump.




You seem to be having trouble reading your own graph.



The decline in your narrow graph began in JUNE. But JULY it was rising again, which, BTW, conforms with the picture described in post #91 above about today's sontinued rise in prices.

And if you proden your myopic view, you would see the downward tend goes back much further:



And that is consistent with the OP's source that showed a downward trend since 2012:



Once again, history did not begin with Trump.


What we have here are facts vs fiction.

Whatever Chris. You would argue that the sun revolved around the earth, if it suited your purposes. The source of most of the links is dedicated to crop futures and they are saying that tariffs are affecting the market. Go argue with them.

[Chris]

Whatever Chris. You would argue that the sun revolved around the earth, if it suited your purposes. The source of most of the links is dedicated to crop futures and they are saying that tariffs are affecting the market. Go argue with them.

You would earn greater respect, Who, admitting you were wrong than ridiculously attacking me for arguing a point.

Those links go to speculative opinion pieces if you would read them more closely. The few facts you and the OP have presented here have all worked against you. Again, facts vs fiction.

[Dr. Who]

You would earn greater respect, Who, admitting you were wrong than ridiculously attacking me for arguing a point.

Those links go to speculative opinion pieces if you would read them more closely. The few facts you and the OP have presented here have all worked against you. Again, facts vs fiction.

I'm not worried Chris.

[mamooth]

You really do not strike me as being truly serious in your analyses (and one uses the word rather loosely here).

And yet you won't say why. Based on your behavior, you strike me as a typical Trump supporter. You get upset when facts intrude on your reality.


The poll I referenced in the OP said 20% of farmers switched away from being Trump supporters. The Trump fans don't want to address it. They'd rather insult me. No problem. If Republicans are in denial, that make it easier for Democrats to win elections.

Now, I don't think that 20% will hold. Tribal identity -- that is, cult membership -- is everything for the average Trump supporter. The majority of that 20% will stick with their Trump cult/tribe, no matter how badly they're getting screwed. However, a significant number won't, and that's enough to swing many elections.

A serious analyst might suggest that it is possible that the Democrats will re-take the House in 2018--it would require a net gain of 22 seats; but that is not impossible--although they almost certainly will not re-take the Senate, since 26 Democrats are up for re-election, as opposed to just nine Republicans.

No, that's not a serious analysis. That's just you changing the topic. A serious analysis relevant to this thread would be talking about how many seats flip because of Trump screwing his base and losing votes.

However, all you can appear to do is to throw around the hate-filled word, "cultists"...

Reveling in their victimhood is a way for authoritarian-followers to display their tribal/cult identify. Authoritarian-follower, of course, is the most common personality type among the Trump supporters. Most of them aren't actual sociopaths, they're just sheep.

[Chris]

And yet you won't say why. Based on your behavior, you strike me as a typical Trump supporter. You get upset when facts intrude on your reality.


The poll I referenced in the OP said 20% of farmers switched away from being Trump supporters. The Trump fans don't want to address it. They'd rather insult me. No problem. If Republicans are in denial, that make it easier for Democrats to win elections.

Now, I don't think that 20% will hold. Tribal identity -- that is, cult membership -- is everything for the average Trump supporter. The majority of that 20% will stick with their Trump cult/tribe, no matter how badly they're getting screwed. However, a significant number won't, and that's enough to swing many elections.




No, that's not a serious analysis. That's just you changing the topic. A serious analysis relevant to this thread would be talking about how many seats flip because of Trump screwing his base and losing votes.



Reveling in their victimhood is a way for authoritarian-followers to display their tribal/cult identify. Authoritarian-follower, of course, is the most common personality type among the Trump supporters. Most of them aren't actual sociopaths, they're just sheep.

Please, stop trolling. Arguing, as you do, from popular opinion is fallacious. Opinions are ephemeral. You also claimed in the OP that "Soybean farmers are getting hammered." But your own source proved that wrong by showing prices dropping since 2012, and I in post #91 on the "Morning Market Review for July 9, 2018" and your fellow traveller, Dr Who, proved the opposite is true, prices are now rising: