Epstein Files | Patel: Trust us

[hedge]

I support steeply progressive taxation, serious inheritance taxes

I hope you don't think I'm badgering you about this (not my intent) but do you have any specific ideas (or even concepts of plans, LOL) in regard to these? Maybe you don't, I'm just curious...

 

[Paine]

Sounds like the Supreme Court...

Exactly. An unaccountable elite group that makes decisions affecting everyone. A lot of liberals will acknowledge the problem with the Supreme Court but not with concentrations of private power.

That’s why reforming institutions to increase accountability and public control is essential if we want a truly democratic system.

 

[Paine]

I hope you don't think I'm badgering you about this (not my intent) but do you have any specific ideas (or even concepts of plans, LOL) in regard to these? Maybe you don't, I'm just curious...

Not badgering at all, I appreciate the thoughtful questions.

To be honest, I don’t see myself as the architect of specific tax plans. That’s the job of economists, policy experts, and lawmakers working in tandem with public input. Emphasis on that last part.

My concern is with the political project: making sure that ideas like steep progressive taxation and inheritance taxes are on the table and part of a broader agenda that serves the many, not the few.

We need a clear moral and political stance that concentrated wealth is a danger to democracy. We can build coalitions around that. The precise brackets and mechanisms can follow.

 

[superrific]

Yes, gravity is non-negotiable. But in politics, the forces shaping capital flows aren’t natural laws, they’re human-made. Tax codes, labor rules, public investments, trade agreements. These shape the “gravity.”

Saying “you can’t make water flow up” masks a political choice as a natural limit. That’s the ideological trick of neoliberalism: it treats constructed systems as immutable facts.

Is that so? You're talking to a finance professor right now, but sure -- go ahead and explain finance to me. In fact, impress everyone with your finance knowledge. Walk us through the process of financing a factory, and explain how it is all a constructed system. Go on, step by step. Show us the constructs.

Or maybe you can stop dismissing me with your stupid neoliberalism shit. I thought you were interested in a fruitful discussion, not talking out of your ass when you have no concept of how capital actually works. It's easy to tell when people don't have a clue but try to pretend that they do. You're going full Zen Mode right now.

 

[Paine]

Is that so? You're talking to a finance professor right now, but sure -- go ahead and explain finance to me. In fact, impress everyone with your finance knowledge. Walk us through the process of financing a factory, and explain how it is all a constructed system. Go on, step by step. Show us the constructs.

Or maybe you can stop dismissing me with your stupid neoliberalism shit. I thought you were interested in a fruitful discussion, not talking out of your ass when you have no concept of how capital actually works. It's easy to tell when people don't have a clue but try to pretend that they do. You're going full Zen Mode right now.

You’re proving my point better than I ever could.

When I say these systems are constructed, I’m not denying the existence of financial mechanisms. I’m saying those mechanisms are built within legal, regulatory, and political frameworks. These are frameworks created by people. They are not natural laws.

Factories don’t get financed in a vacuum. They get financed based on interest rates set by central banks, tax incentives passed by legislatures, labor costs shaped by union power or lack thereof, and global trade rules negotiated by governments. All of that is political. All of it is designed. And all of it can be redesigned.

What I’m pushing back against is the idea that this entire setup (how capital flows, who benefits, who doesn’t) is somehow inevitable. That’s not finance, that’s ideology.

I respect technical expertise. But I reject the idea that expertise gives someone the final word on what’s politically possible. That kind of thinking turns democratic debate into something closer to a professional monopoly. Finance, like every other part of our economy, is shaped by laws and institutions. Those laws didn’t fall from the sky. They were written by people, and they can be rewritten.

 

[Paine]

I’m not ZenMode, and comparing me to him is a way of avoiding what I’m actually saying. My critiques aren’t rooted in reaction. They’re rooted in a long-standing political tradition that asks who benefits from the current arrangement and whether that arrangement is truly democratic.

I’m not pretending to be an expert on capital flows, I’m pointing out that policy decisions and institutional structures shape the environment in which those flows happen. That’s not denial of reality, it’s a recognition that politics is upstream of economics. You don’t have to agree, but let’s argue on the merits, not through caricature.

 

[superrific]

You’re proving my point better than I ever could.

All of it is designed. And all of it can be redesigned.

What I’m pushing back against is the idea that this entire setup (how capital flows, who benefits, who doesn’t) is somehow inevitable. That’s not finance, that’s ideology.

I respect technical expertise. But I reject the idea that expertise gives someone the final word on what’s politically possible. That kind of thinking turns democratic debate into something closer to a professional monopoly. Finance, like every other part of our economy, is shaped by laws and institutions. Those laws didn’t fall from the sky. They were written by people, and they can be rewritten.

1. Go fuck yourself. I'm not proving any point of yours.

2. It is all designed ***to make capital investment possible. *** When I said that big factories couldn't be built without corporate structures or entities, that was not hyperbole. I'm not going to waste my time explaining this to you. It's quite obvious you think you have all the answers here.

Equity capital is not ideology. It is an economic necessity for large scale development. It simply cannot be done without binding some investors to the project in some capacity. You can't do it through tax breaks; you can't just pay cash; you can't do it with subsidies.

But if you'd like to explain to us your take on equity and why you think it's ideology, I'd love to hear it. Please, dazzle us.

 

[superrific]

You don’t have to agree, but let’s argue on the merits, not through caricature.

I can't argue with you on the merits any more than I can argue with Zen Mode about a Supreme Court decision. You don't know enough to have an argument with. You are really pissing up the wrong tree here.

 

[heelinhell]

Exactly. An unaccountable elite group that makes decisions affecting everyone. A lot of liberals will acknowledge the problem with the Supreme Court but not with concentrations of private power.

That’s why reforming institutions to increase accountability and public control is essential if we want a truly democratic system.

I think you are 25yo and you are so far more informed than I was at your age. And I will concede that you are very likely much more intelligent than I am which is why I would like for you to respond to the points that Super and I raised earlier.

You may not have been born when Nader voters handed the 2000 election to GWB, but Super and I have pointed out the history that unfolded and is still unfolding when your "leftist" predecessors eschewed voting for continuing incremental change and chose to waste their votes in support of a utopian "truly democratic system".

And what does a truly democratic system mean. Are you talking about a Greek democracy where males would gather in the public square to vote upon and enact Athenian laws ?

I've been day drinking so forgive me and let me go back to ask your take on the repercussions of the 2000 election and the havoc that result hath wrought upon our democratic republic.

 

[Paine]

I think you are 25yo and you are so far more informed than I was at your age. And I will concede that you are very likely much more intelligent than I am which is why I would like for you to respond to the points that Super and I raised earlier.

You may not have been born when Nader voters handed the 2000 election to GWB, but Super and I have pointed out the history that unfolded and is still unfolding when your "leftist" predecessors eschewed voting for continuing incremental change and chose to waste their votes in support of a utopian "truly democratic system".

And what does a truly democratic system mean. Are you talking about a Greek democracy where males would gather in the public square to vote upon and enact Athenian laws ?

I've been day drinking so forgive me and let me go back to ask your take on the repercussions of the 2000 election and the havoc that result hath wrought upon our democratic republic.

Thanks for your honest message and for wanting to engage seriously on this.

I wasn’t around to witness the 2000 election or its immediate aftermath, so I’m cautious about speaking as if I fully lived through that moment. But looking back from 2025 with everything we now know, it’s clear how devastating that election was and how it shaped the political landscape we have today.

I do get why many people blame Nader voters for handing the election to Bush, but it’s also important to understand the deeper context: why so many on the left felt alienated and frustrated with the Democratic Party’s shift away from working-class concerns. The tension between pushing for incremental change versus demanding a more transformative, genuinely democratic system is real and ongoing.

When I talk about a truly democratic system, I don’t mean some idealized version of ancient Athens. I mean a system where everyday people have real power and influence over the decisions that affect their lives. That means strong labor rights and unions, so workers aren’t powerless against corporations. It means robust public institutions that serve communities rather than private interests. It means local control over schools, housing, and policing. It means transparency and accountability at every level of government, so officials answer directly to the people, not to donors or lobbyists.

A truly democratic system is one where participation isn’t just a once-every-four-years vote but ongoing: through community assemblies, worker councils, referenda, and other forms of direct engagement. It’s a democracy that recognizes and actively fights against systemic inequalities based on race, class, gender, and more.

The damage caused by 2000 was huge, but if we only focus on avoiding those kinds of spoilers without addressing why people felt compelled to look elsewhere, we risk repeating the same cycle of frustration and political failure. Just look at 2016.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how we can move forward as well. How do we build a democracy that’s both pragmatic and inclusive. What do you think is the best way to balance those tensions?

 

[heelinhell]

Thanks for your honest message and for wanting to engage seriously on this.

I wasn’t around to witness the 2000 election or its immediate aftermath, so I’m cautious about speaking as if I fully lived through that moment. But looking back from 2025 with everything we now know, it’s clear how devastating that election was and how it shaped the political landscape we have today.

I do get why many people blame Nader voters for handing the election to Bush, but it’s also important to understand the deeper context: why so many on the left felt alienated and frustrated with the Democratic Party’s shift away from working-class concerns. The tension between pushing for incremental change versus demanding a more transformative, genuinely democratic system is real and ongoing.

When I talk about a truly democratic system, I don’t mean some idealized version of ancient Athens. I mean a system where everyday people have real power and influence over the decisions that affect their lives. That means strong labor rights and unions, so workers aren’t powerless against corporations. It means robust public institutions that serve communities rather than private interests. It means local control over schools, housing, and policing. It means transparency and accountability at every level of government, so officials answer directly to the people, not to donors or lobbyists.

A truly democratic system is one where participation isn’t just a once-every-four-years vote but ongoing: through community assemblies, worker councils, referenda, and other forms of direct engagement. It’s a democracy that recognizes and actively fights against systemic inequalities based on race, class, gender, and more.

The damage caused by 2000 was huge, but if we only focus on avoiding those kinds of spoilers without addressing why people felt compelled to look elsewhere, we risk repeating the same cycle of frustration and political failure. Just look at 2016.

I’d be interested to hear your thoughts on how we can move forward as well. How do we build a democracy that’s both pragmatic and inclusive. What do you think is the best way to balance those tensions?

Let's look at the 2016 election. For me, that election was whether we wanted to continue to build upon the Obama 8 years following the GWB debacle.
Under Obama ( who leftists mocked as centrist ) :

No scandals as president
Saved us from the Great Recession
Saved the auto industry
Passed health care reform
Passed Wall Street reform
Ended the Iraq War
Repealed don't ask don't tell
Increased funding for HBCUs

I could go on and on...

So perhaps the most experienced and qualified candidate ever to be president was defeated by leftists voting for Jill Stein or disaffected Bernie Bros sitting home and pouting.

I've posted this before about a discussion I had with my 28yo daughter and her friends back then. I implored them to vote for Clinton because the Supreme Court was at stake. They just rolled their eyes and told me Clinton was no different than Trump which was essentially what Bernie Sanders conveyed to young voters during the campaign.

Seeing Bernie Bros booing Clinton during the 2016 convention reminded me of the 1968 convention.

In !968 I feared that Nixon was going win
In 2016 I was pretty sure Trump was going to win

I submit that pragmatic liberals have furthered political progressive change, and idealistic utopian pie in the sky all or nothing "progressives" have muted the furtherance of progressive change.

What say you ?

Just realized I did not address your question about how to move forward, but I did say I have been day drinking.

Your question is a good one. I will think about my thoughts to offer and respond after I finish my last vodka and tonic.

 

[Paine]

Let's look at the 2016 election. For me, that election was whether we wanted to continue to build upon the Obama 8 years following the GWB debacle.
Under Obama ( who leftists mocked as centrist ) :

No scandals as president
Saved us from the Great Recession
Saved the auto industry
Passed health care reform
Passed Wall Street reform
Ended the Iraq War
Repealed don't ask don't tell
Increased funding for HBCUs

I could go on and on...

So perhaps the most experienced and qualified candidate ever to be president was defeated by leftists voting for Jill Stein or disaffected Bernie Bros sitting home and pouting.

I've posted this before about a discussion I had with my 28yo daughter and her friends back then. I implored them to vote for Clinton because the Supreme Court was at stake. They just rolled their eyes and told me Clinton was no different than Trump which was essentially what Bernie Sanders conveyed to young voters during the campaign.

Seeing Bernie Bros booing Clinton during the 2016 convention reminded me of the 1968 convention.

In !968 I feared that Nixon was going win
In 2016 I was pretty sure Trump was going to win

I submit that pragmatic liberals have furthered political progressive change, and idealistic utopian pie in the sky all or nothing "progressives" have muted the furtherance of progressive change.

What say you ?

Just realized I did not address your question about how to move forward, but I did say I have been day drinking.

Your question is a good one. I will think about my thoughts to offer and respond after I finish my last vodka and tonic.

You make a strong case for pragmatic liberalism and the concrete achievements of the Obama years. There’s no doubt those policies and moments of stability mattered a great deal. Saving the country from the Great Recession, passing health care reform, Wall Street reform, and other advances were real, tangible wins that had a meaningful impact on millions of people. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, increased funding for HBCUs, and ending the Iraq War were also important steps forward. And yes, the stakes in 2016, especially the Supreme Court, were enormous, making that election absolutely critical.

At the same time, we have to be honest about the limits and failures of that era as well. The slow pace of economic recovery left many working-class communities behind, especially in rural and post-industrial areas. The opioid epidemic exploded in many parts of the country without an effective federal response for years. The criminal justice system saw some reforms but continued to disproportionately punish Black and brown communities. Immigration reform stalled despite promises, leaving millions in limbo. And the financial reforms, while necessary, didn’t go far enough to break the hold of Wall Street and big banks.

This mix of progress and frustration helps explain why many on the left felt alienated, seeking alternatives beyond the Democratic Party’s centrist establishment. That sense of a party too cozy with corporate interests and too slow to address deep-rooted inequalities was a real and lived experience for millions.

Where I think we might differ is on how to balance pragmatism with the need for politics that actually inspires and mobilizes people who feel left behind or ignored. Is it possible that without a compelling vision that feels transformative and relevant to everyday people, even pragmatic gains risk being fragile or reversed? That’s a real tension, and it’s one I think we have to wrestle with honestly.

Your point about “all or nothing” idealism muting progress is well taken. We’ve seen time and again how purity tests and internal divisions can hurt movements and lead to missed opportunities. But I also think it’s worth acknowledging that what looks like utopian idealism to some is, for others, a matter of fundamental justice and survival; a refusal to settle for scraps when whole communities continue to suffer.

The real challenge, it seems to me, is how to build broad coalitions that can both win tangible, pragmatic reforms and push for systemic change without fracturing or alienating crucial parts of the electorate. That might mean finding new ways to connect policy with people’s lived experiences, and building a politics that’s both aspirational and grounded.

Looking forward to hearing your further thoughts once you’re done with that last drink. Cheers!

 

[finesse]

Your point about “all or nothing” idealism muting progress is well taken. We’ve seen time and again how purity tests and internal divisions can hurt movements and lead to missed opportunities. But I also think it’s worth acknowledging that what looks like utopian idealism to some is, for others, a matter of fundamental justice and survival; a refusal to settle for scraps when whole communities continue to suffer.

Let the wake and bakers weigh in.

Acknowledging that is one thing but that's as far as it gets until there is a clear and obvious plus in going that way. No matter how good it sounds, no matter how logical it is and ,unfortunately how just it might be, the people in power aren't going to buy it until it's field tested. They aren't going to risk the middle, who has voted for them, to chase after something that hasn't worked in local and state elections.

 

[heelinhell]

You make a strong case for pragmatic liberalism and the concrete achievements of the Obama years. There’s no doubt those policies and moments of stability mattered a great deal. Saving the country from the Great Recession, passing health care reform, Wall Street reform, and other advances were real, tangible wins that had a meaningful impact on millions of people. The repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, increased funding for HBCUs, and ending the Iraq War were also important steps forward. And yes, the stakes in 2016, especially the Supreme Court, were enormous, making that election absolutely critical.

At the same time, we have to be honest about the limits and failures of that era as well. The slow pace of economic recovery left many working-class communities behind, especially in rural and post-industrial areas. The opioid epidemic exploded in many parts of the country without an effective federal response for years. The criminal justice system saw some reforms but continued to disproportionately punish Black and brown communities. Immigration reform stalled despite promises, leaving millions in limbo. And the financial reforms, while necessary, didn’t go far enough to break the hold of Wall Street and big banks.

This mix of progress and frustration helps explain why many on the left felt alienated, seeking alternatives beyond the Democratic Party’s centrist establishment. That sense of a party too cozy with corporate interests and too slow to address deep-rooted inequalities was a real and lived experience for millions.

Where I think we might differ is on how to balance pragmatism with the need for politics that actually inspires and mobilizes people who feel left behind or ignored. Is it possible that without a compelling vision that feels transformative and relevant to everyday people, even pragmatic gains risk being fragile or reversed? That’s a real tension, and it’s one I think we have to wrestle with honestly.

Your point about “all or nothing” idealism muting progress is well taken. We’ve seen time and again how purity tests and internal divisions can hurt movements and lead to missed opportunities. But I also think it’s worth acknowledging that what looks like utopian idealism to some is, for others, a matter of fundamental justice and survival; a refusal to settle for scraps when whole communities continue to suffer.

The real challenge, it seems to me, is how to build broad coalitions that can both win tangible, pragmatic reforms and push for systemic change without fracturing or alienating crucial parts of the electorate. That might mean finding new ways to connect policy with people’s lived experiences, and building a politics that’s both aspirational and grounded.

Looking forward to hearing your further thoughts once you’re done with that last drink. Cheers!

I decided to pour one more, but here are my alcohol muddled thoughts that I promote within the constraints of our democratic republic.

The old guard leadership for Dems need to retire and pass the torch to Chris Murphy in the Senate and leadership roles with thoughtful Congressional young folks like Martin Frost, AOC , and Jasmine Crocket . They are the young pragmatics... unlike the flame throwers like Omar ,Pressley, and Tlaib.

 

[Paine]

I decided to pour one more, but here are my alcohol muddled thoughts that I promote within the constraints of our democratic republic.

The old guard leadership for Dems need to retire and pass the torch to Chris Murphy in the Senate and leadership roles with thoughtful Congressional young folks like Martin Frost, AOC , and Jasmine Crocket . They are the young pragmatics... unlike the flame throwers like Omar ,Pressley, and Tlaib.

I’m totally with you on the need for generational change. The old guard simply doesn’t speak the language of this moment, and if 2024 taught us anything, it’s that trying to replay the Obama-era playlist on repeat isn’t going to cut it anymore.

That said, I’m not sure I buy the division between “pragmatic” and “flamethrower” as neatly as you frame it. AOC and Tlaib vote the same the vast majority of the time. The difference is tone, rhetoric, and sometimes geography. Omar and Pressley represent deeply engaged constituencies. What looks like “flamethrowing” to some is often just people naming realities that have gone unacknowledged for too long.

To me, the party needs both kinds of voices: those who can play the inside game and those who can pressure from the outside. Movements need tension to grow. It’s not either-or.

Curious though, who do you think the GOP runs if Trump actually steps aside?

 

[heelinhell]

I’m totally with you on the need for generational change. The old guard simply doesn’t speak the language of this moment, and if 2024 taught us anything, it’s that trying to replay the Obama-era playlist on repeat isn’t going to cut it anymore.

That said, I’m not sure I buy the division between “pragmatic” and “flamethrower” as neatly as you frame it. AOC and Tlaib vote the same the vast majority of the time. The difference is tone, rhetoric, and sometimes geography. Omar and Pressley represent deeply engaged constituencies. What looks like “flamethrowing” to some is often just people naming realities that have gone unacknowledged for too long.

To me, the party needs both kinds of voices: those who can play the inside game and those who can pressure from the outside. Movements need tension to grow. It’s not either-or.

Curious though, who do you think the GOP runs if Trump actually steps aside?

My only concern about both kinds of voices is that in today's world the folks who pressure from the outside are characterized as somewhat similar to the flame throwers today in the Los Angeles protests. My contention is that progressive inflammatory rhetoric and action does not move us forward

If Trump decides to step aside, then I think it comes down to whether Trump anoints Vance, Rubio, or Donald Jr.

Ok, I have finished my last vodka tonic and ready to watch my girlfriend, Nicole Wallace hoping I don't pass out before dinner

I'm up for further discussion and exchange of ideas tomorrow if you are