patrick.net

AllTruth says

Patrick strikes me as an intelligent person, in terms of both raw intelligence IQ and emotional intelligence IQ, which is why it's ABSOLUTELY perplexing to see him as a seeming willing, vocal booster of Trump,

Patrick reminds me so very much of one of my best friends - a guy both extremely smart and naive.
(It's probably why I like Patrick and feel like I know him even though we've never met.)

Tim Aurora says

Ironman is now a thought process critique. Well looking at your 30000 useless comments, t

He probably has over 100 comments just like that one. It's one of his go to time wasting hobbies. I thought about creating a bot to experiment with scraping tools and associated scripting, and to respond to ironman, so real people didn't have to bother. The first type of post that came to mind was this type.

You forgot destroying NATO. With the election in France coming up, it looks like one of the primary NATO partners might rather just pull out. In some cases, it's because the US is no longer seen as a trusted partner. In another case (Le Pen), it used to be because she wanted to create another world power axis in Russia, France, and the US. lately, she's been poking fun at Trump, though, so it might not be politically favorable to align herself with him so much anymore.
So despite Trump's recent claim that NATO is no longer obsolete, his earlier rhetoric and general lack of predictability might have already doomed it.

which shows "naivety" is not coupled to intelligence, but more to one's education on the subject matter.
If someone doesn't agree with you, but has been exposed to the same set of facts you are making judgement on, that does not constitute "naivety".
That just means they've come to an alternate conclusion, based on prioritizing the relevant facts in a different order.
Running this site for the time it's been online, being exposed to the subject matter on a daily basis, I doubt Patrick is anywhere near 'naive'.

FP says

Patrick reminds me so very much of one of my best friends - a guy both extremely smart and naive.

Not even close, especially with the russkies projecting power...

YesYNot says

So despite Trump's recent claim that NATO is no longer obsolete, his earlier rhetoric and general lack of predictability might have already doomed it.

Tenpoundbass says

NO it's not he had that before he got in office.

That's called evidence of what motivates him. Only republitards can see the wealth that Obama and Clinton gained as a conflict. Those were legit. Writing books ? Speaking fees ? (after).Are you kidding ?

I'm not talking about anything like that with TRump. He doesn't put it in a blind trust. But this is even worse. All of Trumps wealth is tied up in highly leveraged real assets.

FACT: Inflation inflates Trumps wealth BIGTIME !! You know he knows that. We all know that. This is an example of what conflict of interest really means. You're either honest enough to acknowledge that, or you aren't. IRonman says no, since he's alreasdy a billionaire, it proves he doesn't care about his net worth or finacial legacy.

Hahahahah ! SOme of you guys are amazing.

MAybe what you guys are thinking is that if OBama's net worth goes from 100K to 10 million, then that's much worse than if TRumps net worth goes from 3 BIllion to 15 billion
(in ways that very directly make all of us very much poorer). YOu know, becasue that's only a 5 fold increase for TRump (and even less really since he cut the value of the dollar by so much).

Ironman says

I think his 22,000 employees would disagree with you.

I own a few stocks. Does that mean I have thousands of employees too ?

BlueSardine says

which shows "naivety" is not coupled to intelligence, but more to one's education on the subject matter.

I view it as an involuntary suppression of judgement.

AllTruth says

Patrick strikes me as an intelligent person, in terms of both raw intelligence IQ and emotional intelligence IQ, which is why it's ABSOLUTELY perplexing to see him as a seeming willing, vocal booster of Trump, who can objectively be said to be a genuine con-artist, a divisive individual (and for ulterior, political motives, not those of true beliefs based on a desire to improve things - he has switched positions on wars, abortion, etc., hell , he even has switched political parties and those he donates to) a flame-baiter who uses unnecessary and inflammatory rhetoric of the worst kind that sets a terrible example for future generations (never mind the existing ones), and who has so many deep, intractable character flaws (and well-established psychological pathologies) that make him genuinely unfit to serve as a mayor or governor, let alone POTUS.

And to the very core of Patrick's main point in starting this thread and what's included in his essential contention,Trump has ach...

Your mistake is assuming that intelligence will lead one to choose a particular political path rather than another.

An intelligent person will reject a leader who is going down the WRONG PATH regardless of Her otherwise exemplary qualities and degrees and certificates of merit. Wrong is wrong. That same person would also follow an unsavory person down the RIGHT PATH.
Aside from this point, you're failing to make a distinction between intelligence and wisdom. Intelligence is raw brain power, how many concepts one may be able to hold at once, the speed of ones thoughts, or the organization ability of cognitive process.
Wisdom is knowing how and when to make the right choice.
True wisdom can't be measured in degrees. It must be measured in choices and most importantly, the outcomes of those choices. It tends to go against the opinions of highly pedigreed intelligentsia, confounding these elites when they (for all their intelligence) are proven wrong again and again, while those with wisdom prevail.

The problem is that figuring out say the right or wrong economic path is not clear cut and may take a very long time. For instance it took the Soviet Union decades to economically collapse, although there was also ample evidence of communisms failure far sooner than the economic collapse.

To take it a step further, capitalists use the soviet economy as proof positive of non viability as an economic system while socialists explain it away for various reasons. Yet there are intelligent people on both sides of that argument.

The whole reason for this is people who post here, almost entirely individuals who STAUNCHLY support the Democrat party, seem insistent on labeling anyone who doesn't conform with their politics view as lacking intelligence. It's an incorrect view, and it's extremely counterproductive unless you believe in following Rules For Radicals.

I remember discussions about moral relativity when I was in college. Nobody could ever put a logical finger on what defines morality by defining the definition. Given that the definition was so variable, how could anyone determine if an action was moral or immoral?

But the answer was always there. Morality is not determined by intent, good wishes, feelings, SJWs, popular opinion, or even necessarily laws.

Morality is determined by outcomes of choices. Was the outcome of a particular choice good or bad? And for whom? And was it good for society? Morality is the sum total of these quantifications, a complex algorithm we do almost unconsciously every day. As such, it may be defined on a situational basis, codified, and made into laws. It's not a "thus saith the Holy Bible or the Koran or the Talmud." Although at least two of those books are quite instructional on understanding it. The first is full of object lessons from which interpretation may be made. The second is the ravings of a diseased pedophile. The third is a school boy's primer on what to do and not to do and when.

What I'm discussing isn't relativity though. There's a clear outcome to most political decisions, but it may take a very long time to be evident, and even then you have to sift through the propaganda and biased studies to reach the best conclusion. Calling people stupid in the meantime for their opinions based on incomplete information is simply demeaning the person who takes a different point of view.

We finally got a businessman into a White House and not some social justice warrior from the left. It's a good change in direction.

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

joeyjojojunior says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

Its a good thing from the perspective that Trump campaigned on that and stuck with his promise to do so.

Your dislike of Trump's stated accomplishments is irrelevant to this thread.

joeyjojojunior says

And you think that's a good thing?

Hell yeah conservative judge is a good thing. This country doesn't need anymore Obama appointed special snowflakes.

Marvel fan? I don't get that.

Sure, Trump the person is not the greatest guy, but he represents something Obama completely failed at: hope and change. Obama instantly got on his knees and aggressively sucked banker dick for 8 years straight. Trump is outside the current elitist leftist cult that runs the mainstream press and DC and systematically divides all of us by identity every day so that we don't ever get united as mere citizens and start talking about who is running off with all the productivity gains of the last 30 years.

Trump is even outside of the Republican Party really. You knew when you saw pictures of GW with Elen DeGeneres that really GW was in on the whole "two party" scam, and there is really just one party, and both sides of that one party represent Capital alone, and both say fuck Labor because being working class always means that it's personally your fault that you're not the boss. Everyone can be the boss, all at the same time, if they all just try hard enough! Right?

So what it came down to for the country was a choice between stinky Hillary and more of the same old shit, or a kinda sleazy real estate billionaire who definitely cares more about his reputation than anything else. Uh, choice number two please! No brainer. The Democrats ran someone that no one on earth actually likes, so it was pretty much just suicide on their part.

joeyjojojunior says

And you think that's a good thing?

Big fan of Citizens United, are you?

He promised and accomplished it, that is all.

I'm not a big fan of racial discrimination either, something that Leftish Courts have pushed in the last few decades via anti-merit Affirmative Action, and just upheld again last year.

rando says

So what it came down to for the country was a choice between stinky Hillary and more of the same old shit, or a kinda sleazy real estate billionaire who definitely cares more about his reputation than anything else. Uh, choice number two please! No brainer. The Democrats ran someone that no one on earth actually likes, so it was pretty much just suicide on their part.

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after.

Yes, that's a good way to put it.

Trump doesn't need the money. He wants more than anything to be remembered as the president who helped America become great again. And he's got a whopping huge chance to do that from his bully pulpit. I'm not sure he will follow through, but signs look reasonably good.

Trump could do more to contain health care costs in 10 minutes on TV than anything Obama did (did Obama do anything at all to limit health care costs?) by simply demanding that all bills for non-emergency medical care be presented in advance of treatment. C'mon Trump! Do it!

Fucking White Male says

Its a good thing from the perspective that Trump campaigned on that and stuck with his promise to do so.

Your dislike of Trump's stated accomplishments is irrelevant to this thread.

Actually the thread is about whether he's doing a good job. And nominating Gorsuch isn't a good job, IMO.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm not a big fan of racial discrimination either, something that Leftish Courts have pushed in the last few decades via anti-merit Affirmative Action, and just upheld again last year

Both sides push racial discrimination--just in different ways.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

That is a not a very good argument as rich people often are the most greedy. Trump has already shown that he is extremely interested in increasing his and his family's wealth via the Presidency. Trump was born into money and fully intends on using this office to increase it exponentially.

rando says

He wants more than anything to be remembered as the president who helped America become great again

That may be what you want to believe, but objective evidence tells a different story. Amazingly, China granted him and Ivanka 3 trademarks immediately after his visit. You think that's a coincidence?

http://money.cnn.com/2017/04/18/news/ivanka-trump-trademarks/index.html

How much money has poured into his coffers from all the Mar-a-Lago visits? I honestly don't think he cares about America or the Presidency at all. He ran for his ego and now he's just going to let others do whatever they want as long as his brand stays strong.

rando says

Trump could do more to contain health care costs in 10 minutes on TV than anything Obama did (did Obama do anything at all to limit health care costs?) by simply demanding that all bills for non-emergency medical care be presented in advance of treatment. C'mon Trump! Do it!

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

joeyjojojunior says

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

YEP! I prefer a politician who made his money before he took office, rather than after. Right Clinton and Blair?

That is a not a very good argument as rich people often are the most greedy.

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.
Trump has a big ego. He wants fame and fortune. He has a fortune, but what better way to get fame than by being the world's most powerful man. Even better if he goes down in history as someone who achieved major change for the better.

rando says

but he represents something Obama completely failed at: hope and change. Obama instantly got on his knees and aggressively sucked banker dick for 8 years straight.

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Who knows, considering the amount of debt he has defaulted on and borrowed agiain, I'm not convinced that he's not beholden to citibank at an entirely different level than we've ever seen before.

The extent to which the banks own our government has not changed the slightest bit under Trump.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/business/dealbook/trump-congress-financial-regulations.html?_r=0

President Trump on Friday moved to chisel away at the Obama administration’s legacy on financial regulation, announcing steps to revisit the rules enacted after the 2008 financial crisis and to back away from a measure intended to protect consumers from bad investment advice.

After a White House meeting with executives from Wall Street, Mr. Trump signed a directive aimed at the Dodd-Frank Act, crafted by the Obama administration and passed by Congress in response to the 2008 meltdown. He also signed a memorandum that paves the way for reversing a policy, known as the fiduciary rule, that requires brokers to act in a client’s best interest, rather than seek the highest profits for themselves, when providing retirement advice.

The executive order affecting Dodd-Frank is vague in its wording and expansive in its reach. It never mentions the law by name, instead laying out “core principles” for regulations that include empowering American investors and enhancing the competitiveness of American companies. Even so, it gives the Treasury the authority to restructure major provisions of Dodd-Frank, and it directs the Treasury secretary to make sure existing laws align with administration goals.

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

Booger says

joeyjojojunior says

How would that do anything? Patients only care about what insurance won't cover, copays, etc.

People would go to the lower cost providers. Most people do pay a percentage of the cost.

The lower cost providers are all out of the country. You can go to Singapore, Thailand or India to have elective surgeries done at 10% of the cost.
I had a torn meniscus removed and the total cost was a ridiculous $20,000 or something. My share was a ridiculous $3,000. We would all save money if healthcare was allowed to be outsourced.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Another one of Trump's Kept Promises: Get a Conservative SCOTUS judge appointed.

Yeah, but that's not a good promise.

Strategist says

Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are the richest and they are giving away almost everything they have.

Unfortunately, we didn't elect either of them.

marcus says

Trump sucks corporate and banker dick better than any President ever.

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8190

Word document of potential nominees for Froman's feedback under the attachment tab. Keep in mind the date, a month before the election -- and on the heels of the financial crisis which was Fresh at the time.

So beautiful that Citigroup's American Family Fucking TPP is up in smoke.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Really? Obama had Citigroup Executives vet it's cabinet picks. That same executive - Michael Froman - went on to become Chief Trade negotiator. Including of TPP.

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means?

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:
Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Who was Obama's Treasury Secretary and Chief of Staff?

Was it Ralph Nader?

Nefarious? Why is Honest Obama Staffers even talking with Citigroup about cabinet members a month before the election?

Did he ask Occupy Wall Street's opinion? Ask the public generally? LOL.

joeyjojojunior says

Do you know what the word "vet" means? He absolutely did not have Citigroup vet anything. Froman made a list of people that had been suggested by others. Whoop di doo. That fact that you attribute something nefarious here shows how far off the reservation you are.

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

I'm sorry, I put it backwards, my bad. Here's the correction:

Froman was giving lists of Citigroup approved potential cabinet members, after considering Diversity requirements, to John Podesta.

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

Speaking of off the reservation, how many special elections to Congress have the Democrats won?

Let's see, lost a 4 way race in Georgia, lost by 7 points big league in Ohio, lost in Kansas....

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

joeyjojojunior says

Nope. He was summarizing a list of people that had been suggested by others and putting it on paper so the Obama team could look it over.

... on his official Citigroup email.

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes? Unless, of course, it's part of his job description.

Who are these "Others"? Most likely bankster colleagues. He's not hanging out with janitors and cops.

joeyjojojunior says

Actually, the Dems won the 4 way race in Georgia by like 30 pts. Dems have outperformed by about 20 pts over 2014. If all Dems perform as well in 2018 as the last special elections, they will take over the house in the midterms. There are 46 districts with Republican incumbents that are more Dem friendly than the GA district where Dems just won by 30 pts.

They lost all the races. They will lost the final Georgia contest by several points, despite big money contributors pouring in millions from NY and California banks and insurance companies and Hollywood. I think in Kansas they lost by a wider margin than normal.

The number of Governors and legislatures controlled by Democrats is at a major low and keeps dropping.
They have no talent pool, no farm team stars.

I also heard this was the first time since WW2 that no County that voted Republican for President voted for a Democrat Representative in the South.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

They lost all the races

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

Lashkar_i_Trumpi says

What's Citigroup's email policy on using corporate email for political purposes?

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

joeyjojojunior says

Last I checked, 48 is more than 19 unless they've changed the numbering system. That is called a huge win. Yes, there will be a run-off, but you are delusional if you think it's a more than a 50/50 shot for Rs. Dems got 48% of the vote with 4 opponents. You think it's impossible that they peel off 2% of one of the losing Reps voters? And, like I said, that's a solid R district. There are 46 districts that are much less solid for Reps.

This was a special election. Now there will be a runoff. Everybody expects Ossoff to lose by at least 3 pts, if not more. Had there been a primary first between party nominees, Ossoff would have been beaten, I think, by about 5-7 points.

Democrats failed to win in seats that were far more purple in Ohio and Kansas than almost 40 years of unbroken republicans in GA-6 from Newt Gingrich in 1979 to Tom Price who just resigned to be in the Trump Administration.

Middle America is turning it's back on Democrats. Throwing money from richy-rich Coastal city donors to suburban, rural, and rustbelt towns is not going to solve the problem.

What are the Democrats doing to change their platform?

joeyjojojunior says

Yes, I'm sure that's the first time a personal email was ever sent from a work account. Give it up.

Yeah, okay. If you're so gullible as to believe he wasn't the Citigroup point of contact with the Obama Campaign. There's more than one email from Froman, including working with an Obama legal team to assess FEC, SEC, CFTC, and other regulators and assessing Department Leadership candidates. And it's clear this isn't personal : The focus of most of his emails is on Financial Regulators.

"Oh, I'm going to send personal political emails to my friends in the Obama campaign and provide suggestions and feedback on Financial Regulators just for fun. It has NOTHING to do with Citigroup."

Real individuals would be like "Podesta, thank you for your email thanking Citigroup and myself for our big donations. Just wanted to say I love Obama's abortion stance."

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3560

Who was Obama's Treasury Sec. and Chief of Staff again?

Jack Lew, former Citigroup Executive.

And that man replaced whom? Oh, another Obama Chief of Staff, another executive, but that one connected to JP Morgan.

Hate to bust your bubble but the Democrats are deep in the stink with Wall Street. It's no surprise Obama failed to regulate the big Wall Street donors who put him in.

Also, what a surprise Froman becomes US chief negotiator on Trade Deals, all of which have serious benefits for Citigroup. Pure Coincidence!

Here are the 352 emails mentioning Froman in Podesta's Emails from 2008 to 2016. Pretty much an email a week regarding Froman. The oldest one is detailing thank you acknowledgements to be sent by the Campaign for assisting in a NY Breakfast Meeting with many Wall Street Players. Froman gets a handwritten one from Podesta and the suggestion to send a signed book from Campaign-affiliated Authors.
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/?q=Froman&mfrom=&mto=&title=&notitle=&date_from=&date_to=&nofrom=&noto=&count=50&sort=2#searchresult

Here's the second oldest email, with Froman being given a detailed timetable for transition and other personnel picks for the Obama administration:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/57036

Click on the attachment tabs. A sample:

If Froman is just a donor, why is he getting all this "sensitive" insider info?

And if he was just a donor, why was he soon appointed Chief Trade Negotiator?