• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

SayHeyDeac's Thread For Serious Political Discourse Only--Trolls Need Not Apply

You didn't specify that. The implication seemed to be he paid a ton.

There is an estate tax and the Republicans want to get rid of it. So what the hell does your response mean?
 
It was a test. You failed; you know nothing about estate taxes.

Ya I'm being snarkey. Just couldn't resist.
 
It was a test. You failed; you know nothing about estate taxes.

Ya I'm being snarkey. Just couldn't resist.

No you are once again showing how much of an idiot you are. The person on this thread who knows the most about estate taxes (and usually isn't my ally) said I pretty got it right:

"ChrisL68 ChrisL68 is online now
Alphonso Smith


ChrisL68's Avatar Join Date
Mar 2011
Posts

Actually what rj said is pretty much true.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

so, Silk, it's not that your are "snarkey". It's that you are a total moron, but we all knew that.

P.S. Antics like you are the opposite of this thread's purpose.
 
Last edited:
I'm curious.
C68 is an accountant/lawyer?
 
No you are once again showing how much of an idiot you are. The person on this thread who knows the most about estate taxes (and usually isn't my ally) said I pretty got it right:

"ChrisL68 ChrisL68 is online now
Alphonso Smith


ChrisL68's Avatar Join Date
Mar 2011
Posts

Actually what rj said is pretty much true.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

so, Silk, it's not that your are "snarkey". It's that you are a total moron, but we all knew that.

P.S. Antics like you are the opposite of this thread's purpose.

"We". Who dat? Or maybe you are royalty.
 
??

His estate paid NO estate tax due to our elected representatives inability to accomplish anything.

Saved his heirs around 500 mil

When you say elected representatives, you should really say republicans. They had no interest in doing anything a far as compromise and were ticked pink that a year went by where a bunch of super wealthy people transferred unrealized gains tax free to their heirs.

Yes, I am a corporate tax consultant.

at the end of the day, I don't see any significant tax reform. Government will be too divided. She is trying to appeal to the more progressive Bernie voters. Funny how this gets all of the noise from the right when other aspects of her tax plan would actually impact a material % of americans unlike this, which would impact almost nobody.
 
Last edited:
When you say elected representatives, you should really say republicans. They had no interest in doing anything a far as compromise and were ticked pink that a year went by where a bunch of super wealthy people transferred unrealized gains tax free to their heirs.

Yes, I am a corporate tax consultant.

at the end of the day, I don't see any significant tax reform. Government will be too divided. She is trying to appeal to the more progressive Bernie voters. Funny how this gets all of the noise from the right when other aspects of her tax plan would actually impact a material % of americans unlike this, which would impact almost nobody.

True. But the refusal to compromise was the Dems And the Dems compromised the following year. I don't know about tickled.. Pubs and blue dog( thats the title I think) dems have railed against the "death' tax for years.
 
So, yes, they were tickled that a year existed with no death tax.

And if you don't have an estate tax mechanism, then you shouldn't have a basis step up either.

If I own a start up that I built myself, and the company value was $10 million when I started it and my stock FMV at my death had grown to $500 million, should that $490 million gain be allowed to avoid taxation altogether? What is fair about that?
 
No you are once again showing how much of an idiot you are. The person on this thread who knows the most about estate taxes (and usually isn't my ally) said I pretty got it right:

"ChrisL68 ChrisL68 is online now
Alphonso Smith


ChrisL68's Avatar Join Date
Mar 2011
Posts

Actually what rj said is pretty much true.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

so, Silk, it's not that your are "snarkey". It's that you are a total moron, but we all knew that.

P.S. Antics like you are the opposite of this thread's purpose.

I'm confused. Am I an idiot or a total moron?
 
So, yes, they were tickled that a year existed with no death tax.

And if you don't have an estate tax mechanism, then you shouldn't have a basis step up either.

If I own a start up that I built myself, and the company value was $10 million when I started it and my stock FMV at my death had grown to $500 million, should that $490 million gain be allowed to avoid taxation altogether? What is fair about that?

"Fair" is the heart of the political disagreement.
 
David Plouffe, the brains behind Obama 2008 & 2012, is the brighest political operative since Ken Mehlman. He's been calm, matter of fact, and has avoided pretending Hillary doesn't have issues.

Conservatives will go nuts that Plouffe claims there's a 100% chance that Hillary will win, but he has an intimate understanding of swing states that nobody in the Trump campaign and RNC can match. Plouffe thinks GOTV adds 1 to 3% depending on the state. Matters most in PA and FL. Believes that Trump will take IA & OH, but has problems in PA, FL, CO, and NH. Claimed that Mehlman's GOTV activities alone carried OH in 2004.

Plouffe noted that Obama carried FL by 1% in 2012, but voter changes give Dems a net 2.5% advantage in FL since 2012. Trump will have to overcome that with a skeleton organization.

Expects Johnson support to collapse and Stein/Johnson combined will be 7/8%. Said an 8 point convention lead was unnatural, acknowledges the race is close now, but could potentially move to 4-6%. Believes Hillary will be above 300 EVs (538's @ 283 and Princeton's @ 290).

Conway's way sharper than Rove, but she fillibusters way too much about Trump's most blatent lies and has never had access to the same data and/or swing state experience as Plouffe.
 
David Plouffe, the brains behind Obama 2008 & 2012, is the brighest political operative since Ken Mehlman. He's been calm, matter of fact, and has avoided pretending Hillary doesn't have issues.

Conservatives will go nuts that Plouffe claims there's a 100% chance that Hillary will win, but he has an intimate understanding of swing states that nobody in the Trump campaign and RNC can match. Plouffe thinks GOTV adds 1 to 3% depending on the state. Matters most in PA and FL. Believes that Trump will take IA & OH, but has problems in PA, FL, CO, and NH. Claimed that Mehlman's GOTV activities alone carried OH in 2004.

Plouffe noted that Obama carried FL by 1% in 2012, but voter changes give Dems a net 2.5% advantage in FL since 2012. Trump will have to overcome that with a skeleton organization.

Expects Johnson support to collapse and Stein/Johnson combined will be 7/8%. Said an 8 point convention lead was unnatural, acknowledges the race is close now, but could potentially move to 4-6%. Believes Hillary will be above 300 EVs (538's @ 283 and Princeton's @ 290).

Conway's way sharper than Rove, but she fillibusters way too much about Trump's most blatent lies and has never had access to the same data and/or swing state experience as Plouffe.

Thanks, do you have a link?
 
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wa...s-winning-and-she-can-finish-the-job-tonight/

Interview I saw was on today's Morning Joe. Video's not up yet, but this article covers many of the same topics. Get that Trump honks believe there's a monster vote out there, but early voting may be as much as 40%. Enthusiasm's great, but having the data on who you need to get out early is much more valuable. Not like the Romney campaign is sharing data with Trump.
 
So FMR why are all the polls crashing for Clinton if there's not a serious trend moving towards trump? Is it simply voter fatigue? Willingness to answer polling? Flawed polls? Nothing but internal optimism shows anything but a move towards trump. I mean silver has it essentially 50-50. Is this just where races turn at this cycle, Romney tied with before and then up on Obama after first debate?
 
So FMR why are all the polls crashing for Clinton if there's not a serious trend moving towards trump? Is it simply voter fatigue? Willingness to answer polling? Flawed polls? Nothing but internal optimism shows anything but a move towards trump. I mean silver has it essentially 50-50. Is this just where races turn at this cycle, Romney tied with before and then up on Obama after first debate?

What I don't get is that the same people that put the race within the margin of error also say:

Hillary is within 1-3% of Obama's lead with blacks
She is ahead more with Hispanics
He is only up 1-2% with non-college educated whites
She is up 1% with college educated whites versus Romney winning that demographic by something like 14%

One set of numbers has to be way off.
 
What I don't get is that the same people that put the race within the margin of error also say:

Hillary is within 1-3% of Obama's lead with blacks
She is ahead more with Hispanics
He is only up 1-2% with non-college educated whites
She is up 1% with college educated whites versus Romney winning that demographic by something like 14%

One set of numbers has to be way off.

Well, for one thing it is not a zero sum game. The numbers don't have to add up the way you might expect because of the "likely voter" factor. Just for example, if far fewer Latinos vote this time around, Hillary could have 5% more of the Hispanic vote than Obama did, but still accrue fewer total Latino votes.
 
So FMR why are all the polls crashing for Clinton if there's not a serious trend moving towards trump? Is it simply voter fatigue? Willingness to answer polling? Flawed polls? Nothing but internal optimism shows anything but a move towards trump. I mean silver has it essentially 50-50. Is this just where races turn at this cycle, Romney tied with before and then up on Obama after first debate?

Deplorables certainly didn't help, but do think Hillary's collapse and not disclosing her illness hurt her. Plouffe certainly could be bullshitting, but find it hard to believe many people in America know swing state polling and GOTV better than he does.

Question for birdman: 538's model looks like it's stabilized, but for weeks the EV probability distribution peaks were between 340 & 350, but the model was claiming it expected ~ 320 EVs. Much cleaner now since the peaks correlate almost exactly with the expected EVs, but was weird that model expected EVs and the probability distribution were out of whack for several weeks. Thoughts?
 
All indications are the Latino vote is going to be big. Another key is people with college degrees. Here's a study from 2009 that states :Well-educated citizens vote more frequently than the poorly educated in some countries, including the USA. "

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379409001176


This also shows that some college and post grads vote more than non-college people http://www.electproject.org/home/voter-turnout/demographics

If this is true, then the dramatic swing from Romney to Hillary would have a great impact.
 
The other things about the polls that shifted right around the Clinton collapse was the change from registered voters to likely voters. It greatly changes things if you include a subset that is registered but doesn't plan to vote because they aren't excited or tired of the bullshit, while at the same time adding people that say they are going to vote but may not be registered or actually not likely to vote despite what they say.
 
Back
Top