Kansas Crimson

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:19 am**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:30 am
Paul1 wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:34 am I felt in my bones that if Biden ran in 2016 Donald Trump would not be our President today.
I understand and respect why he chose not to run in 2016 and my hope today is that he's not running 4 years too late.
I can't pinpoint why but I have a bad feeling he is. I am trying hard not to believe something/s is/are going to happen that is/are going to doom him and the Dems. Sure hope I am wrong.
One of my main genuine concerns is his age. We are still more than a year away from the election and then an additional 2+ months until the inauguration.
Then 4 years in office. Followed by a possible 4 more years? I like Joe. I don't like the thought of a 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86 year old Joe Biden running the country. Just being brutally honest.
Do any of you share the same concern?
He's only 3 years older than Trump. If he was running against a 50 year then it would concern me as an issue but he is not so it does not.

I'm looking/thinking long term.
Donald Trump will never be an 80 year old President. It's conceivable that Biden could be an 86 year old President.
Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of 86 year old people who have brains that work well.
I just figure 9 years down the line there is going to be plenty of wear and tear on Joe if he should be President.
If he should be elected in 2020 - who is the 50 year old Republican he is going to run against in 2024 that we could/should be concerned about?
I guess we'll cross that bridge if/when we get to it.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:30 am**

I would rather not have Biden as my choice. He is safe and centrist but he doesn't move the needle as an actual person who is going to progress the country forward. But he is good enough to beat Trump and end this ridiculous B-rate reality show.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:43 am**

Isn’t the history of farm subsidies like just to make sure farmers can make a living so the keen farming for the benefit of the greater good? Everybody’s gotta eat.

Some other big business subsidies seem like more of a gray area.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:44 am**

2020, much like 2016, will be another lose lose situation. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:50 am**

MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:44 am 2020, much like 2016, will be another lose lose situation. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork.

Not for me. If no Trump then WIN. None of the likely Dem nominees have horrible baggage to my knowledge.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:52 am**

ousdahl wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:43 am Isn’t the history of farm subsidies like just to make sure farmers can make a living so the keen farming for the benefit of the greater good? Everybody’s gotta eat.

Some other big business subsidies seem like more of a gray area.

Too much volume of crops means prices would be so low that farmers could not afford to be farmers. It is basically government funded price fixing.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:07 pm**

Actually CRP land is an environmental control to help preserve soil, water and wildlife resources. The government "rents" the land from the farmer for a contract length of x years (think its 10-15) at a government dictate rental rate of x per acre per year. Around here its $65 per acre per year in crp contracted land.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:34 pm**

That’s like saying reservoirs are only for flood control

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:35 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:50 am
MICHHAWK wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:44 am 2020, much like 2016, will be another lose lose situation. Unless someone comes out of the woodwork.
Not for me. If no Trump then WIN. None of the likely Dem nominees have horrible baggage to my knowledge.

Have you not been paying attention?

Simply being a Dem is horrible baggage in itself!

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:41 pm**

Oh, no doubt. Especially with Liar In Chief blatantly lying about pretty much anything. The stories he comes up with about his opponent next year will be...... memorable.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:46 pm**

DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:34 pm That’s like saying reservoirs are only for flood control

Agreed. And since when did farmers tolerate the government telling them what they can and can't do with their land over a bunch of "bugs and bunnies" environmental reasons? I have been told that was a big driver of farmers problems with Obama's overreaching environmental policies.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:49 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:55 am
TDub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:49 am It's a bullshit statement
What's "it"? Feral's comment? Hey, sorry to tell you but my in-laws LOVE CRP. They get a check for that acreage and dont have to worry about if the farmer they lease to gets seed in on time, applies the amount of weed killer they bill for and doesn't steal a portion of their harvest. They complain about people "cranking out kids for bigger govt checks" while using the proceeds of their CRP check to buy up more acreage.

LOL

You're so full of shit. CRP land is not farmed and is frequently put in CRP to protect water sources.

And I work in Ag RE and you can't buy a single fucking acre with most CRP checks. For hundreds of acres it's typically a couple grand at most. Check what Ag RE sells for. CRP checks aren't funding land purchases.

For someone who constantly spazzes over the environment, you'd think you would understand and support CRP. It's not created so that farmers don't have to farm. It's created to protect the environment.

(Conservation reserve programs)

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:51 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 10:02 am
Feral wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:17 am the farming community's preference for collecting welfare to actually planting and harvesting crops to sell.
To that I say you can kindly fuck off.

Ya. Clearly someone who has never met a farmer.

I don't know a single farmer who didn't plant crops this year. I've valued over 5k acres worth of land this year for banks. The tillable parcels all were planted.

And LOL at people thinking CRP replaces grain sales. CRP checks don't amount to shit most of the time.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:52 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:07 pm Actually CRP land is an environmental control to help preserve soil, water and wildlife resources. The government "rents" the land from the farmer for a contract length of x years (think its 10-15) at a government dictate rental rate of x per acre per year. Around here its $65 per acre per year in crp contracted land.

Ding ding ding. We have a winner who actually has an idea about what they're speaking on.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:54 pm**

Illy’s back!

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:55 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:15 am The hardworking farmers who own and work their land yet still need CRP checks to make ends meet are no different than the many folks who need SNAP to make ends meet. I dont understand how people on the right dont see that they are essentially the same.

CRP is required to keep prices up so that those farmers can make enough money to survive. SNAP is required to keep some people GED enough to survive. It's no different, yet only one is vilified by those on the right. Is it because those farmers are the ancestors and family members of some of those on the right who are OK with CRP while SNAP recipients are primarily non-white lower income urban dwellers who have no ties to the folks on the right who treat them like freeloaders? Not sure.

Sounds like you don't have the slightest clue what CRP is and what it's utilized for.

Shocker.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:05 pm**

twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:46 pm
DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:34 pm That’s like saying reservoirs are only for flood control
Agreed. And since when did farmers tolerate the government telling them what they can and can't do with their land over a bunch of "bugs and bunnies" environmental reasons? I have been told that was a big driver of farmers problems with Obama's overreaching environmental policies.

Wtf are you talking about. Do some research on the dustbowl and see what happens when improper dryland farming techniques are used. More than anybody the farmer who is reliant upon that land for their income wants to use best practices to protect their investment and potential future earnings.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:08 pm**

He doesn't know wtf he's talking about, as per usual.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:13 pm**

IllinoisJayhawk wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:55 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 11:15 am The hardworking farmers who own and work their land yet still need CRP checks to make ends meet are no different than the many folks who need SNAP to make ends meet. I dont understand how people on the right dont see that they are essentially the same.

CRP is required to keep prices up so that those farmers can make enough money to survive. SNAP is required to keep some people GED enough to survive. It's no different, yet only one is vilified by those on the right. Is it because those farmers are the ancestors and family members of some of those on the right who are OK with CRP while SNAP recipients are primarily non-white lower income urban dwellers who have no ties to the folks on the right who treat them like freeloaders? Not sure.
Sounds like you don't have the slightest clue what CRP is and what it's utilized for.

Shocker.

My wealthy white urban farm owning in-laws utilize it in this manor. I doubt they are the only ones.

Posted: **Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:16 pm**

TDub wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 1:05 pm
twocoach wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:46 pm
DrPepper wrote: ↑Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:34 pm That’s like saying reservoirs are only for flood control
Agreed. And since when did farmers tolerate the government telling them what they can and can't do with their land over a bunch of "bugs and bunnies" environmental reasons? I have been told that was a big driver of farmers problems with Obama's overreaching environmental policies.
Wtf are you talking about. Do some research on the dustbowl and see what happens when improper dryland farming techniques are used. More than anybody the farmer who is reliant upon that land for their income wants to use best practices to protect their investment and potential future earnings.

My family was told they could not farm a portion of their land due to it possibly being "native wetlands" ( due to Obama era environmental overreach). The ruling was total BS and my family fought it for years before winning their case. The govt didnt count on one of the farmers they rules against being a retired civil engineer and a retired law library researcher with plenty of time on their hands to prove the govt wrong.

Kansas Crimson

who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?

Re: who ya got?