Left leaning in the US has not meant international trade friendly, historically it’s the opposite. The Clinton/Obama branch of the democrats who were pro free trade are really the exception.
That the Republicans sold out their business branch for cronyism and populism with MAGA may end up being the negative outcome of that movement with the longest negative ramifications (my thinking being administrations can change immigration policy easily and Trump is more the final nail in the rules based international order than the initiator of its demise)
What % of farms in your area are small family farms (either by count or economic %)?
In the country it’s like 40% of the farms and 20% of the value. That stat alone shows the real problem, big agricultural is wildly more efficient (without wading into the externalities). And big agricultural gets the lions share of the benefit of the subsidies.
I’m not even sure that’s a bad thing but half the reason these conversations are so circular is that small family farms are not what most agriculture in the US is yet we vote like it is.
I'm not sure the definition of "family" farms, you can have a family name corporation that is still $100M+ in value. Even then I have no idea who all of them are.
My family farm is small enough they alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle, but the land is still worth millions. But they all have notes, good years mean the crop pays the bank and maybe some supplies for next year.
> My family farm is small enough they alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle, but the land is still worth millions.
This makes no financial sense to me. I call this: "asset rich, but cash poor". It is like living in a house that you inherited worth "millions", but working a job that "alone cannot support a entire family upper-middle class lifestyle". Simple solution: Sell the house. Cash out and invest in the stock market or rental real estate. You should do the same. If what you say is really true, then call Dave Ramsey (or someone similar) and ask for their advice. They will say the same.
Small farmers are generally aware that this makes no financial sense. They're participating in a multigenerational family tradition. There are also typically relatives urging those still farming to sell the farm so they can get their share (which may not be that huge, when all is divvied up).
The USDA where I pulled that stat defines it as farms that have less than 1M in income (gross) per year. A farm that makes that much is going to only support at most 1 full time farmer. The further subdivide farms under 350k which clearly falls into some terrible definition of hobby.
Which tracks with my experience. I don’t know any family farmers where farming is their only, or even primary, occupation.
You can’t invest in EU sovereign debt though, only the constituent countries.
The problem is that US treasuries have a bunch of features that can’t be replicated because of the size of the US economy. The only choice that comes close is China whose bonds are too illiberal to trade the same (and China has no interest in liberalizing them).
It’s not just that the market isn’t deep enough. The current incarnation of EU bonds are not secured the same way typical sovereign bonds are. And they sort of can’t be without the member states ceding more sovereignty.
We’ll see if the EU member countries can approve a framework for bonds that are closer to a treasury in its guarantees, I’m skeptical but it could happen, but they don’t exist right now.
As they say: under enough pressure everything becomes a liquid. The current situation is in many ways unprecedented and I think that Trump may well be the antagonist that forces the EU to band together more effectively.
So the EU should issue more volume and establish a strategy to start rotating from US debt to EU debt. No one is calling for dumping $8T of treasuries on the market overnight; it's entirely reasonable to start issuing Euro debt and communicating the expectation to start selling down US treasuries to European entities that hold them.
Yes, they should. The interesting bit here is that the USA has been an endless sink for funds simply because they have been spending way above their means, and that this worked in large part because there was trust. Breaking that trust is super risky from a US point of view. Europe has been more conservative in their spending and as a result needs a place to park their excesses, because there are not enough ways to spend those internally. I think that this is a luxury problem to have, but at the same time I realize that financing the USA any further is something that is not responsible from an EU perspective.
It’s also part of the reserve currency dynamics. It’s not clear how the modern bond market will work in a post dollar world, we frankly don’t have an example.
It’s entirely possible that the EU can overcome the political struggles that a true EU bond brings about (I’d love to see how a bond would work that both the Hungarian and Danish and French and Greek governments would back long term) but it seems just as likely that each country will hold bonds in lots of countries, probably in some similar relationship to their trade imbalance.
But this is not some unmitigated win for the EU, there is just as likely to be really inefficient and riskier outcomes for everybody as there is some karmic punishment for the States for allowing Trump to run amok.
Indeed, this is both complex and risky, but it is fairly clear by now that we need to do something concrete rather than just yak about it. Hungary is indeed a problem (and has been for a long time) but I'm actually impressed with the restraint shown by the bloc to let Hungarians deal with this on their own terms as long as it does not stop the EU from handling foreign policy.
The trade imbalance angle is exactly the one that I think they will pursue because that is the one that can be made to work numerically, but great care should be taken to ensure that Germany does not end up with a disproportional amount of power. In a way the EU being fragmented but forced to work together is the best recipe for a fair outcome though the larger entities will probably always have some minor advantage in such constructs.
Macron says €300 billion in European savings flown to the US every year will be invested in Europe from now on. All 27 EU states agreed to establish the S&I Union, a step toward the full Capital Market Union - https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1qjtvtl/macron_says... - January 22nd, 2026
Umm. The best physics work in the world was being done by European academics and admitting them then and earlier was perhaps the best thing that happened both for American science & tech as well as the ability to wage war.
I don’t think that video proves anything definitively fwiw. It doesn’t capture any harm to the officer nor any heightened or escalating behaviors afterwards. Nor does it show an officer in a using force inappropriately.
If you think it does you are overlaying your own biases onto the video.
like I said before, I agree that its unfortunate event and how it ends but you must also understand why this is happening in the first place
she is obstructing the law enforcement. for what ???? defending illegal that defrauding tax payer billions of dollar ???? like if you still defending that shit then I guess there is treason that happening
She had a car across a single lane of a state road.
Traffic was not obstructed as footage shows vehicles passing before the shooting.
She was not obstructing ICE in detaining an immigrant.
At the worse it was state traffic offense. Something ICE has no, nada, zero, jurisdiction over.
Traffic infringements are not treason, and ICE _should_ have deferred to state LEOs.
They did not.
They acted like untrained clowns. One officer told her to leave, a second told her to get out of the car while reaching into her car w/out authority to do so.
In countries that are serious about public law and order it is clear that the fault lies with the ICE agents.
> At the worse it was state traffic offense. Something ICE has no, nada, zero, jurisdiction over
And to underline: the historic problem with thuggery is the delegitimization of law enforcement.
Good was given conflicting instructions, none of which seem to have been legally issued. If you’re going to be shot and cursed out when stopped by the cops, at a certain point, the rational action becomes disarming by any means your security threat and then dealing with the legal consequences later. (If I’m being held up at gunpoint for no reason, I’m not considering the law when weighing my options for escape or disarming my opponent.)
Miller wants to invoke the Insurrection Act. The ICE agents are just as stupid and pawnish in this game as the left-wing agitator.
One of the problems is the idea that "motivated" or even "capable" is some sort of intrinsic property of a person. Those things ebb and flow based on tons of variables, from stuff going on at home to decisions made by management.
But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well. It’s perfectly legal to tell a soldier they do not have to obey unlawful orders, in fact in many cases it’s a requirement. But the us military started court martial proceedings against a sitting congressman person for doing it.
It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.
This government brought sham charges against the Fed president, what are they going to do to a run of the mill federal employee?
> It’s frequently not illegal to talk to a reporter. Let’s not kid ourselves, this isn’t about classified material it’s about loyalty, so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.
It is not illegal to talk to a reporter, it is illegal to share classified intel with someone who doesn't have a clearance and a need-to-know.
Do I think they should have raided this persons house? Absolutely not. Is it illegal to share classified information, absolutely.
"For my friends everything, for everyone else, the law" or whatever the saying is, applies here. In this case, the reporter did nothing wrong, but the raid on the home of the reporter can be justified according to the law, so it isn't illegal. Should it be? Probably.
Legislation is good, rules are good, the classified rules seems to make sense if you subscribe to Hanlons Razor at the least. Sometimes though, laws just don't make sense and shouldn't be codified.
For example:
MCL 750.335 - "Any man or woman, not being married to each other, who lewdly and lasciviously associates and cohabits together, and any man or woman, married or unmarried, who is guilty of open and gross lewdness and lascivious behavior, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00."
You've misunderstood the parent. They're saying watch out what happens to anyone in the Journalist's book who did not share classified information.
You seriously think this administration is going to get a list of 1,200 government employees who are (legally) informing reporters of the goings-on and just... Let it go? Those people are about to get punished.
And since we're at the point of an unaccountable, unidentifiable Gestapo going door-to-door and arresting / murdering citizens openly in the streets...
You are responding to a thread with the exact quotes:
> But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well.
...
> so watch what happens to sources that didn’t do anything illegal.
So we, in this thread, are talking about what happens to the majority of her sources that are NOT sharing confidential information or committing any crime.
Aren't you arguing against a straw man here? It seems that you can't address the concerns of the comment and are instead saying obvious truths as if that is somehow counter to the person you replied to.
I didn't intend to. When he said "But also note the government is punishing people for legal acts as well." I read this as "the government is breaking the law"
I think instead what that poster meant is was "people who didn't share classified information will be targeted and prosecuted as well."
That the Republicans sold out their business branch for cronyism and populism with MAGA may end up being the negative outcome of that movement with the longest negative ramifications (my thinking being administrations can change immigration policy easily and Trump is more the final nail in the rules based international order than the initiator of its demise)
reply