this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2025
150 points (99.3% liked)

politics

25422 readers
2452 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Historically, China has been the top buyer of US soybeans by “a staggering margin,” says the American Soybean Association. This year, with US soybeans facing retaliatory tariffs amid the ongoing trade war, China is going elsewhere.

In a letter urging President Trump to cut a deal with China that removes China’s retaliatory duties and includes “significant soybean purchase commitments,” the ASA says China “currently has zero new crop export orders for US soybeans on the books for marketing year 2025/26.”

all 36 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Octavio@lemmy.world 2 points 26 minutes ago

Welp. They sure voted for one, based on all the trump billboards in soybean fields I observed last fall while driving through us farm country.

(And also based on exit polling, which I imagine is more reliable, but going by my sign in field gauge gives me that folksy touch).

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 9 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

Farmers vote for this orange idiot, and if you remember last time, he (we) subsidized the farmers for their losses caused by his monumental stupidity and asinine policies.

[–] CatDogL0ver@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

He is going to subsidize his base by using public money. This just make ~~zero~~ perfect sense.

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 4 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder how many of these brain surgeons voted for Taco?

[–] sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz 5 points 11 hours ago (1 children)

America’s most farming-dependent counties overwhelmingly backed President-elect Donald Fuckhead in this year’s election by an average of 77.7%. - source

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

It figures. SMH.

[–] SoftestSapphic@lemmy.world 16 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Too late lmao

China is already buying its soybeans elsewhere

Rural Americans are getting what they voted for

[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 2 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Too bad they are also sending icestapo into the cities.

[–] reddit_sux@lemmy.world 3 points 12 hours ago

I read incestapo.

Wondering why would they send invest police, I read it correctly the second time.

[–] inclementimmigrant@lemmy.world 4 points 23 hours ago

Yup. Brazil is eating that lunch now.

Too fucking bad, soybean farmers, because that’s what you’re getting.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 15 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Has anybody ever won a trade war?

I guess sometimes one side loses, which might have been the desired outcome, but that's not exactly the same as the other side winning.

[–] Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 15 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean, just take a look at that graph of comparative exports from the US and Brazil in the article. There's your answer right there. Not only did Brazil massively leap ahead during Trump's last go at this in 2017, you also see that US imports never really recovered afterwards. Brazil took a commanding lead and held it. Even when the tariffs were gone, the damage was permanent.

The damage from this will be permanent too. Why take the risk that your whole supply chain will get thrown out of whack because some morons in Kansas elect an even bigger moron to lead their country? It's not worth it.

I'll bet dollars to donuts you can find similar versions of that chart for lots of other industries. Between his two terms, I think we're only just beginning to see the full scope of the damage Trump has done, and will do, to the US economy.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I mean, just take a look at that graph of comparative exports from the US and Brazil in the article. There's your answer right there. Not only did Brazil massively leap ahead during Trump's last go at this in 2017, you also see that US imports never really recovered afterwards. Brazil took a commanding lead and held it. Even when the tariffs were gone, the damage was permanent.

What damage? This oversimplified, "trade deficit bad" shit is so fucking stupid. We live in a global economy. This isn't a zero sum game.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I try to explain it people really carefully.

First ask them "what makes a country wealthy". The idiots always reply with "it's having lots of money".

Me. "Money is just numbers or pieces of paper that governments say is worth something. Real wealth is having the use of and control of resources. Resources are things like goods, labor, materials, production facilities, etc. So in trade if one country gets more money and other country gets more resources, the one receiving more resources wins."

I usually lose them at the first sentence, they are after all idiots.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago)

Cool so what's the damage? How and why is it zero sum?

(It's not)

Britain, we call it the opium wars.

But usually to win a trade war you need actual war on some level.

[–] Rambomst@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Idk, I'm sure some business or corporation will make a pretty penny out of it...

[–] PowerCrazy@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 day ago

Good. It's good national policy not to grow food for foreign markets. There should be 100% export tariffs for all food/plants/animals leaving North America.

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 day ago (5 children)
[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 17 points 1 day ago (1 children)

All those MAGAts are going to turn into tofu eating soy boys ? Lol.

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Beef flavored soy burgers.

[–] thanksforallthefish@literature.cafe 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Bwahaha. Eye aint eetin' that shit son, id'll turn ya gay, an i don' wanna be no homo

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 8 points 1 day ago (1 children)

That’s not what you said in the barn, Cletus.

[–] lost_faith@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago

Wha happen in da barn, stay in da barn

[–] Lembot_0004@discuss.online 8 points 1 day ago

You have corn at home!

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Interesting proposal. Even assuming you could get people to switch their protein intake from animal sources (until literally all the cows and pigs have died, that's never going to happen in significant numbers), would the USA have the infrastructure? Processing factories and such?

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 7 points 1 day ago

It would be easier to make those than to make factories for microchips and… nearly everything else.

[–] The_v@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Soybeans are overwhelming used to feed pigs. China has over 400 million of them. This is more than the rest of the world COMBINED.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263964/number-of-pigs-in-selected-countries/

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 1 points 1 day ago

I guess more US Bacon? I’m not sure that’s a good thing

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Oh god please no. The soy usage in everything is bad enough as it is.

I already dread grocery shopping with a soy allergy, please don’t make it worse 😭

[–] marsza@lemmy.cafe 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I suppose we could always use that land to grow other vegetables. But more likely they will just put cows on it

[–] Broadfern@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago

Sustainable crop growth would definitely be preferable, instead of monocrop hell but yes you’re probably right unfortunately.

[–] A_norny_mousse@feddit.org 5 points 1 day ago

The derision with which the Orange Baby spits out the word China, every single time - I wish those farmers my heartfelt good luck.

[–] myfunnyaccountname@lemmy.zip 1 points 1 day ago

Let’s go Donnie!!!