patrick.net

Aphroman says

What about Hillary Clinton tho?

She is a lingering annoyance now, nothing more. Would be good if she retired to somewhere, completely disappeared from airwaves, and was forgotten so that her existence and past could not be used to justify what happens now

I didn't vote for Trump, but it would take a pretty scummy vile series of acts for him to reach Democrat levels of villainy at this point.

MrMagic says

Exactly... The Left REFUSES to listen, that's their whole issue. PERIOD.

My wife's on her period, and that's an issue.

dr6B says

that is rich - quantum Trump at the same time supports Session by appointing him to AG and does not support Sessions because of stupid stuff Sessions does

Teehee! What happens when the heel turns babyface at Trumpamania III?

Trump has the whole Left, the whole Media (but I repeat myself), and not a few Conservatives totally fooled using classic, basic Wresting Storylines.

"Lazy Sessions, hanging out in the locker room, leaving Trump Tremendous all alone in the ring."
"Whataminute, Gene, who is that?"
"My God, Sessions and Rosenstein have taken off their leather jackets. They've got MAGA shirts underneath it! They're going to help Trump Tremendous beat Soy Boy, Big Red, and Nacho Man!"

RafiMaas says

Haven't heard anything about marriage equality on p.net in a long while, does that mean there is nobody from the left left on p.net?

Marriage equality is in my logo and you can click through to the profile page which quotes President Trump on the topic. The issue might be associated with the left, but David Brooks and Ted Olsen and other supporters said it should actually be a conservative position, and the left has now embraced Islam, which opposes.

Interesting bit of history and symmetry on this point:

In 2005, Donald Trump congratulated Elton John and David Furnish on their marriage. At the time, Hillary Clinton opposed marriage equality.

In 2013, Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine decided to support marriage equality, after two years of polls showed majority support.

In 2014, the UK began recognizing same-sex marriage, and Elton John and David Furnish became legally married. In that respect, Donald Trump had been 9 years ahead of his time, congratulating them on a marriage that took 9 years to become legal.

In 2015, candidate Trump declared his opposition to marriage equality, and promised Pat Robertson that Trump's judicial appointees would reverse it. Thus we see "quantum Trump" and a type of super-symmetry: as Hillary changed her position presumably to get the Democratic party nomination, he changed his presumably to get the Republican nomination.

In 2017, President Trump said he's "fine with" marriage equality. Since then, he has nominated to SCOTUS two former clerks of Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion recognizing marriage equality. The current nominee was reportedly recommended specifically by Justice Kennedy. If even one of the two votes to uphold Justice Kennedy's decision, then marriage equality will remain law.

In 2018, polls show 2/3 of Americans support same-sex marriage.

Looking ahead, and returning to the OP topic, if both of President Trump's SCOTUS nominees oppose it, then he might lose some support.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

classic, basic Wresting Storylines

I'd give that less than 10% possibility

dr6B says

I'd give that less than 10% possibility

Has Trump EVER hesitated to fire somebody? They're still employed because Trump wants them employed.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Has Trump EVER hesitated to fire somebody? They're still employed because Trump wants them employed.

yes, and that is the problem with Sessions being Trump's AG - apparently Trump wants him while constantly complaining about things Sessions can do and will not do.

See for example this from Denninger (he rants, but he can be very logical):

Who is Jeff Session's Boss?
Donald Trump, POTUS.
Can Trump direct Sessions to fire Bruce Ohr and, if he refuses, fire Sessions? Absolutely.
Is there any Constitutional or other problem with doing so? Absolutely not.
Therefore, Bruce Ohr has a job only because The President wants him to have a job. He does not want him fired, despite calling his work "dirty, phony and discredited."
Think about that folks -- this is a President who wants and approves of phony, dirty and discredited work in the Federal Government; he not only likes it and approves of it he is both willing and explicitly pays people to perform "work" in that fashion.
This is the fraud all of those walking around with "MAGA" and "Trump Train" hats, and promoting same on social media and elsewhere, are not only supporting but demanding.

http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=234036

I agree with Denninger - Trump IS the swamp. The fact that he is better than Hillary does not change that.

dr6B says

Trump IS the swamp.

Actually, Sessions is the swamp. He was a Senator for 20 years, and has a bunch of buddies wandering around D.C.

I think Trump realized it after the fact of making him A.G., and now Trump is stuck trying to get rid of him while trying to save face that he made a bad decision.

MrMagic says

dr6B says

Trump IS the swamp.

Actually, Sessions is the swamp. He was a Senator for 20 years, and has a bunch of buddies wandering around D.C.

I think Trump realized it after the fact of making him A.G., and now Trump is stuck trying to get rid of him while trying to save face that he made a bad decision.

Sure, but I heard above that Trump has never hesitated in firing anyone. Also, how was it not clear that a 20-yr Washington Senator is not a swamp inhabitant?

Aphroman says

So Trump intentionally installed a Swamp Monster Prohibitionist as AG and continues to support him

At least Trump supporters will admit Sessions has been ineffective.

Democrats are deadly silent on guys like Keith Ellison, or Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. In fact Democrats actually RE-ELECTED Wasserman when she ran for the house AFTER she was exposed as an election rigger and kicked out as DNC head! You can't make this up!

dr6B says

yes, and that is the problem with Sessions being Trump's AG - apparently Trump wants him while constantly complaining about things Sessions can do and will not do.

I don't agree with Dennniger, this is his usual negative crap. Just more Trump toying with somebody until the optimal moment, as we've seen over and over again.

It's Wrestling and Drama Build Up until the Trumpamania III comes up. Then it's more Drama build up to Trumpamania IV. Strzok was Trumpamania II and Comey was Trumpamania I. BTW, each time there was complaining about Comey and Strzok for quite a while.

He gets the base all riled up, lets them percolate until keeping the Swamp Creatures is both indefensible for the Republican side of the Swamp AND a no-brainer base pandering move to jettison them. Isolate a protected deep stater and then remove.

He's done this his whole life with the tabloids, from his big deals to his divorces.

I think he's working with Congress, and especially Cruz, to threaten or actually regulate Social Media into better behavior, btw.

Aphroman says

When discussing Republicans with a Great American Independent, you lose the discussion by devolving instantly to “yea but muh Democrats!”

Not really. In the past couple of days, we've been hearing that every single possible positive economic chart is showing a boom, except one, that has been shitty for decades, and somehow that's the one that proves Trump sucked. Even though it sucked for almost all of Obama's presidency except a few quarters.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

this is his usual negative crap

True that Denninger is extremely negative, and he apparently thinks that everything can be solved by death penalties. Having said that, he is very logical if you remove the extreme language.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

It's Wrestling and Drama Build Up

That might be the problem - he tries to run govt as a soap opera. True, it is better than active idiocy which we would have with Hillary as he does not interfere with economics (e.i. does not strangle businesses, which is enough for economic success). And he is a breath of fresh air with respect to not being politically correct.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I think he's working with Congress, and especially Cruz, to threaten or actually regulate Social Media into better behavior, btw.

I am not quite sure how one could regulate, and if government SHOULD regulate private businesses. My approach to the fact that Facesucker ((c) Denninger) and Twatter SUCK is not to use them and to actively discourage people I know from using those. That is why I am on Patnet :)

I would love to be wrong about Trump, but we will just have to wait and see. I think many people project their ideals onto politicians they voted for, but we should all be critical towards them.

Aphroman says

More whataboutisms

Which you (and most democrats) will never address.

That's the difference I see between the modern Democrat party and the Trump GOP. The Trump GOP will examine it's own people in a negative light (such as Sessions or Bannon), the Democrat party will give a pass for just about any scummy action performed by its own party (like with Wasserman-Shultz or Ellison).

dr6B says

I would love to be wrong about Trump, but we will just have to wait and see. I think many people project their ideals onto politicians they voted for, but we should all be critical towards them.

I see him as a Medici or Machiavelli.

As I said before Trump was elected, some want some gravelly voiced President who will simply prosecute, fix, and fire on a Grand Scale with lightening speed. I don't think that's politically practical (without major problems that existentially threaten the Elite themselves like the Great Depression), because the Elite will feel overwhelmed and react with a coup or impeachment, or the Media will spin it as Tyranny or both.

If Trump went whole hog for the Deep State in one fell swoop, he'd be abandoned, isolated, and cut off. Instead he's cutting off little rotten pieces here and there.

So the whole "Drunken Style Kung Fu" ploy seems to be working so far.

I'm amazed that the mass of the Media, the Elites, and about half the public hasn't seen through the "Happy Go Lucky OrangeDouche who simply lucks his way into winning." when it's quite clear he prepares the battlefield long in advance. By the time the battle is held, it's already won. But then he feigns weakness somewhere else... and on and on it goes.

He will eventually make a mistake, however.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

I see him as a Medici or Machiavelli.

I see him as a bullying Yankee real estate speculator and sociopath. Sounds bad, but at least he has business experience and thus is better compared to Chicago community activists or screeching lawyers.

Aphroman says

What is the value in harping on Democrats 24/7 while giving Republicans a pass?

All politicians should be harped at and should have their feet held to fire at all times.

Aphroman says

Most importantly, he’s a deadbeat.

Just plain bad for business

Exactly...

Building a multi-billion dollar organization with over 22,000 employees and having business enterprises all over the world, make him a TRUE deadbeat.

How many employees do you have?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Not really. In the past couple of days, we've been hearing that every single possible positive economic chart is showing a boom, except one, that has been shitty for decades, and somehow that's the one that proves Trump sucked. Even though it sucked for almost all of Obama's presidency except a few quarters.

Please post those charts that show a boom. I'm assuming there are multiple ones or else it wouldn't be plural.

MrMagic says

Building a multi-billion dollar organization with over 22,000 employees and having business enterprises all over the world, make him a TRUE deadbeat.

How many employees do you have?

Seriously, I've spent my entire adult life working, investing, and I'm not even a double digit millionaire yet.

How can anyone call a multi-billionaire a dead beat who is bad for business?

Aphroman says

it doesn’t make any sense to harp on the 2016 Democrats. They lost, get over it

Exactly. So why the whole #Resist movement from the Democrats/left?

It seems like they have yet to agree to the "get over it" part, and have dedicated themselves to making things as difficult for Americans as possible instead of working with the party in power.

Well, when this supposed expert businessman was left hundreds of millions of $$ from Daddy, proceeded to bankrupt multiple companies and would have been personally bankrupt if it wasn't for Daddy, his most successful and rewarding role was a reality TV star, and even so his wealth is LESS than what it would have been had he simply put his inheritance in an S&P 500 fund, I call that an idiot.

Goran_K says

Aphroman says

it doesn’t make any sense to harp on the 2016 Democrats. They lost, get over it

Exactly. So why the whole #Resist movement from the Democrats/left?

It seems like they have yet to agree to the "get over it" part, and have dedicated themselves to making things as difficult for Americans as possible instead of working with the party in power.

Right. And while we’re at it, let’s not forget that they chose this idiot as their candidate:
www.youtube.com/embed/Y-H9BOIYhgc

Goran_K says

It seems like they have yet to agree to the "get over it" part, and have dedicated themselves to making things as difficult for Americans as possible instead of working with the party in power.

Pot, kettle, black.

Republicans spent 8 years making things as difficult for Americans as possible instead of working with the party in power.

OH, sorry--I forgot. Goran is not a Republican. lol.

LeonDurham says

even so his wealth is LESS than what it would have been had he simply put his inheritance in an S&P 500 fund, I call that an idiot.

Hmm. I'd like to see the analysis you did to come to this conclusion. Can you show ANY data/proof that what you just said was true?

LeonDurham says

Please post those charts that show a boom. I'm assuming there are multiple ones or else it wouldn't be plural.

I posted multiple ones the other day. Why are you ignoring them?

Goran_K says

Hmm. I'd like to see the analysis you did to come to this conclusion. Can you show ANY data/proof that what you just said was true?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

MrMagic says

I posted multiple ones the other day. Why are you ignoring them?

No, you didn't. The charts you posted didn't show a boom when Trump was elected at all.

LeonDurham says

Well, when this supposed expert businessman was left hundreds of millions of $$ from Daddy, proceeded to bankrupt multiple companies and would have been personally bankrupt if it wasn't for Daddy, his most successful and rewarding role was a reality TV star, and even so his wealth is LESS than what it would have been had he simply put his inheritance in an S&P 500 fund, I call that an idiot.

Oh Joey, you're just trolling again..

He took Millions and turned them into BILLIONS..

He filed bankruptcy on 4 businesses out of over 500 he's involved in.

and were back to the S&P crap again... what about the jobs he produced for over 22,000 people plus all the support companies that supply his businesses...

We know who the idiots are...

MrMagic says

and were back to the S&P crap again... what about the jobs he produced for over 22,000 people plus all the support compains that supply his businesses...

Does allowing a business to use his name really == creating jobs to you? These businesses were built by others. He had no part in it.

LeonDurham says

MrMagic says

I posted multiple ones the other day. Why are you ignoring them?

No, you didn't. The charts you posted didn't show a boom when Trump was elected at all.

Really??

The whole discussion about comparing Obama to Trump? Short memory or in need of trolling dollars?

MrMagic says

Really??

The whole discussion about comparing Obama to Trump? Short memory or in need of trolling dollars?

Yes, really. I remember the charts you posted and they don't say what you think they say.

LeonDurham says

Goran_K says

Hmm. I'd like to see the analysis you did to come to this conclusion. Can you show ANY data/proof that what you just said was true?

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-probably-better-investing-donald-233020366.html

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

That article, as I thought it would be, is based on pure fantasy, and not an actual life. As pointed out by commentators:

1. When a dividend is paid, taxes are due so the whole dividend is not available to be reinvested. You would know this if you have actually invested into dividend paying funds. Also, in a S&P fund, when stocks are rotated in/out there are Capital Gains to be paid. Trump is in a very high tax bracket especially in the early days of his accumulation.

2. He also needed money to live his extravagant life. The author claims all of his dividends would have to be reinvested. How realistic is that? Someone is going to live as a bum for 30 years while his dividends get reinvested? Get fucking real. There is something called LIFE and you can't BUY YEARS back. I'd rather spend "dividends" to live a good life, buying nice cars, fucking pretty models, while still being filthy rich.

That article, and the author is fucking retarded.

If you still can't figure it out, get a cheap flight to Columbus on Southwest for a weekend. Drive around, eat in some restaurants and just listen.

There is absolutely no penetrating that shield. Accept it and move on...but there's another element here no one's discussing. Going forward, the Presidency itself will be different. No longer will that office be the almost exclusive province of Washington pols and academics. It won't happen in 2020 because Trump's shadow is too great to overcome but beginning in 2024, we can expect to have serious candidates from the ranks of business executives capable of funding on their own or with ample access to those who can. Think Bob Iger, Jamie Dimon or Bob Rubin. Every one of these guys is a centrist Democrat or what we used to call DLC. If there's a lesson in this at all, it means party leadership has to bring the crazy kids to heel and they have to do it soon.

MrMagic says

LeonDurham says

Well, when this supposed expert businessman was left hundreds of millions of $$ from Daddy, proceeded to bankrupt multiple companies and would have been personally bankrupt if it wasn't for Daddy, his most successful and rewarding role was a reality TV star, and even so his wealth is LESS than what it would have been had he simply put his inheritance in an S&P 500 fund, I call that an idiot.

Oh Joey, you're just trolling again..

He took Millions and turned them into BILLIONS..

He filed bankruptcy on 4 businesses out of over 500 he's involved in.

and were back to the S&P crap again... what about the jobs he produced for over 22,000 people plus all the support companies that supply his businesses...

We know who the idiots are...

(sigh)

If facts mattered, Obama would never have been elected. We got Trump as a reaction to Obama.

Trump is doing precisely what I want him to do and I am quite sure he will be there for two terms. His Electoral total in 2020 will be somewhere in the neighborhood of 320-340.

We live in Danville and are anxiously awaiting the next bust which is probably about eighteen months away. We're long overdue.

BayArea says

Although these characteristics are unbecoming, you can’t seriously expect these to be enough for a conservative to flip? Flip to what?

As long as he’s for lowering taxes, pro 2nd amendment, tough on immigration, against bs socialist policy, then conservatives will support.

Don’t act so surprised folks. It matters little that he’s an asshole, matters little that he’s rude and offensive.

This is very interesting as it shows how conservatives are willing to compromise while progressives are ready to protest about anything that even slightly disagrees with them.

Who is generally more willing to compromise, adults or children?

LeonDurham says

and even so his wealth is LESS than what it would have been had he simply put his inheritance in an S&P 500 fund, I call that an idiot.

I'll put the final nail in that Liberal circle-jerk story that keeps getting recycled...

Now, take that narrative and and factor in all the 401K accounts of the 22,000 employees that Trump has in his organization. What's the total wealth of that combination with the market gains for all those employees in all their 401K, IRA accounts and private investment accounts?

Remember, Rachel Maddow isn't the best source for accurate Trump bashing information.

MrMagic says

I'll put the final nail in that Liberal circle-jerk story that keeps getting recycled...

Now, take that narrative and and factor in all the 401K accounts of the 22,000 employees that Trump has in his organization. What's the total wealth of that combination with the market gains for all those employees in all their 401K, IRA accounts and private investment accounts?

Remember, Rachel Maddow isn't the best source for accurate Trump bashing information.

No no. You have to reinvest 100% of your after tax dividends and sleep under a park bench. Who cares about driving a Ferrari while fucking Ms. Victoria's secret cover model? That's for people who don't know how to invest properly. You know, dumb ass multi-billionaires.

rootvg says

Oh Joey, you're just trolling again..

He took Millions and turned them into BILLIONS..

He filed bankruptcy on 4 businesses out of over 500 he's involved in.

and were back to the S&P crap again... what about the jobs he produced for over 22,000 people plus all the support companies that supply his businesses...

We know who the idiots are...

When someone buys a business like the Dorado golf course they don't "produce" jobs. The business is up and running already plus all the support companies were already supplying. The Grand Hyatt was the old Commodore Hotel remodeled. The jobs were already there. Etc., Etc., Etc..

Trump reports 500 LLC's. Since they are private there is no way of knowing how many actually own something, how much ownership there is, how much equity there is, how many are just licensing deals. or how many actually employ people. You can't do a licensing deal and say the people work for you and you created the jobs.

Stock index funds turn millions into billions also.

We know who the idiots are.