DarterBlue Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 9 hours ago, dbcaptiron said: Your conjecture here....is the biggest piece of gibberish false tripe in this thread..... aaaaand considrin da tred.........dat's sayun' sumptin.... congratulations! You, sir, are full of it; as what I posited is not conjecture. I happen to know something about taxes. And i already know several individuals that will be affected negatively. But it will be after the mid terms. How convenient. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 5 hours ago, noonereal said: a 3rd party candidate can take no Trump votes, only Dems. Trump has 38% locked, LOCKED. so if a 3rd party runs you only assure a Dem or 3rd party does not win at best, no one gets the 270 and it goes to the house if the decision goes to the House, Trump wins Not necessarily. 2018 may swing the house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, DarterBlue said: Not necessarily. 2018 may swing the house. No it won’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, zulu1128 said: No it won’t. It could. Electionbettingodds.com has the house switching to democrats and the senate staying with the republicans but who knows until November. Anything is possible. Depends on what base is fired up more and actually vote Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stanscript Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 15 hours ago, zulu1128 said: Rasmussen called the 2016 popular vote almost exactly, FWIW. They’ve been the #1/#2 most accurate poll for 3 of the past 4 election cycles. That's a bunch of baloney. This link compares practically all the polls in the 2016 Presidential Election and Rasmussen gets a "C+" rating and evidence as to why it got that rating. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, stanscript said: That's a bunch of baloney. This link compares practically all the polls in the 2016 Presidential Election and Rasmussen gets a "C+" rating and evidence as to why it got that rating. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/ Sorry, it’s not. Those ratings are from three months before the election. Nate’s ratings are cumulative, and are skewed by Rassmussens admittedly horrible showing in 2012. The fact remains that they were either #1 or #2 in the 2004, 2008 and 2016 presidential races...and their final 2016 poll hit the final popular vote tally almost exactly. Them’s the facts. Sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 11 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: It could. Electionbettingodds.com has the house switching to democrats and the senate staying with the republicans but who knows until November. Anything is possible. Depends on what base is fired up more and actually vote The GOP will lose the standard number of off-year seats...probably in the 10-12 range. My track record is a little better than electionbettingodds.com, FWIW. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, zulu1128 said: The GOP will lose the standard number of off-year seats...probably in the 10-12 range. My track record is a little better than electionbettingodds.com, FWIW. How much of a majority would that leave the republicans with?? In the house the republicans have some wiggle room. In the Senate there is no room for any missteps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: How much of a majority would that leave the republicans with?? In the house the republicans have some wiggle room. In the Senate there is no room for any missteps They’d still have a 10+ seat cushion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 Just now, zulu1128 said: They’d still have a 10+ seat cushion. ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mjd33 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 5 hours ago, noonereal said: 100 or so would be my guess Delusional. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarterBlue Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 12 hours ago, dbcaptiron said: Your conjecture here....is the biggest piece of gibberish false tripe in this thread..... aaaaand considrin da tred.........dat's sayun' sumptin.... congratulations! For your benefit: https://www.paychex.com/articles/compliance/irs-delays-form-w4-revisions The W-4 has not been redesigned. Therefore, the changes made to employee withholdings has no basis in the new tax law which eliminated the Personal and Dependent exemptions. Now, I am betting that the new withholding are based on the supposed benefit individuals will get from the near doubling of the Standard Deduction adjusted for the loss of personal and dependent exemptions. Of course this presupposes that you took the Standard Deduction to begin with and did not itemize. Now if you itemize or if you under reported your personal and dependent exemptions in order to receive a big refund when you file your taxes, you will probably be in for a very big negative surprise when you file and find out you owe taxes at the end of 2018 or get a much smaller refund than you did in years past. The deviousness of this move is a think of beauty to behold if you are not screwed in this process, as many individuals will think they really are paying less taxes when they go to the mid term elections, but will find out when they file that they are not. I will grant the GOP this: they are way more adept at sleight of hand than the Democrats. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 hours ago, DarterBlue said: Not necessarily. 2018 may swing the house. @zulu1128 is right in this case, (he has no clue about athletic re-sellers) the house is not going Dem any time soon although some gains will be made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 hours ago, Mjd33 said: Delusional. I agree, you do seem as such. Tell me just why and how these millions of illegals voted. I dare you to post whatever your wild hate speech radio told you. I double care ya. I triple dog dare ya! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 hours ago, HSFBfan said: How much of a majority would that leave the republicans with?? In the house the republicans have some wiggle room. In the Senate there is no room for any missteps The GOp should never lose the Senate given the ridiculous two senators from each state set up., Our forefathers really screwed up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: The GOp should never lose the Senate given the ridiculous two senators from each state set up., Our forefathers really screwed up... I have no idea what your talking about Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: I have no idea what your talking about It's insane giving two senators to each state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 8 minutes ago, noonereal said: It's insane giving two senators to each state. No it makes sense. It's equal representation for every state in matter how big or small your state is. So as usual I disagree with you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbcaptiron Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 6 hours ago, DarterBlue said: You, sir, are full of it; as what I posited is not conjecture. I happen to know something about taxes. And i already know several individuals that will be affected negatively. But it will be after the mid terms. How convenient. Yes I am (it's called knowledge)...and by the negative conjecture here, your buttressed 'proof' is... 2 hours ago, DarterBlue said: For your benefit: https://www.paychex.com/articles/compliance/irs-delays-form-w4-revisions The W-4 has not been redesigned. Therefore, the changes made to employee withholdings has no basis in the new tax law which eliminated the Personal and Dependent exemptions. Now, I am betting that the new withholding are based on the supposed benefit individuals will get from the near doubling of the Standard Deduction adjusted for the loss of personal and dependent exemptions. Of course this presupposes that you took the Standard Deduction to begin with and did not itemize. Now if you itemize or if you under reported your personal and dependent exemptions in order to receive a big refund when you file your taxes, you will probably be in for a very big negative surprise when you file and find out you owe taxes at the end of 2018 or get a much smaller refund than you did in years past. The deviousness of this move is a think of beauty to behold if you are not screwed in this process, as many individuals will think they really are paying less taxes when they go to the mid term elections, but will find out when they file that they are not. I will grant the GOP this: they are way more adept at sleight of hand than the Democrats. Dude I thought you would at least be realistic, given the great planner vs preparer quip....(very, very good advise) But as far as conjecture goes, I'm quite certain that there are 'some effected'.... Maybe you could just share with the class the income level of anyone (you know these actual cases your working on) who actually loses one red cent on the year total and pays more overall taxes....say straight salary family of four...by my calculations it's about the 24 K Thousand range in itemized write-offs right? Sure some get much more than that......what's the top line on those?.... Mind you, I live in NJ and have paid that in property tax, so I know 'some' numbers.... Like I said trashy BS tripe....I did particularly like this one tho.... 2 hours ago, DarterBlue said: if you under reported your personal and dependent exemptions in order to receive a big refund when you file your taxes, you will probably be in for a very big negative surprise... ROFL.....DUDE you're an ass.. No one is in for 'any big surprise' when they 'under report' in order to frontload their receivables, in order to squeeze a few more shillings out of the new 'additional' money gained, and gain quicker access to their funds...LOLOLOLOL If they are surprised that they screwed up, and withdrew too much, too soon from the game, then obviously they have been listening to some very very poor 'financial planner's' BS tripe ....wouldn't you say? Blah blah conjecture bullshit tripe.....now proven intentionally 'led to deceive'....how quaint... BTW: still waiting (from the other tax thread) on any recommendations for tax planners that, you know, stand behind their work (with their own $) with the guarantee if it's not right, it's on them.... Everyone I talk to says I'm still $ responsible.....You got any willing to back up their work? tongue in cheek rhetorical i know.... Hmmm, i don't know.......gonna have to vote.... on which one...... A ^^^^ .........or B vvvvv..... really......... too many to choose from here... Told you tho....best in the thread..Winner! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 2 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: No it makes sense. It's equal representation for every state in matter how big or small your state is. So as usual I disagree with you and why should a state with 500,000 people have the same representation as a state with 40,000,000? That is 80 times as much representation. As the sparsely populated states tend to "backwards" it's gives the GOP a tremendous advantage. It has created minority rule which we are under now. Ask you political brother drummer how "healthy"minority rule has been throughout history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, noonereal said: and why should a state with 500,000 people have the same representation as a state with 40,000,000? That is 80 times as much representation. As the sparsely populated states tend to "backwards" it's gives the GOP a tremendous advantage. It has created minority rule which we are under now. Ask you political brother drummer how "healthy"minority rule has been throughout history. Because that's the whole point. That's the way it works and again it makes complete sense. It's equal representation at the federal level. It doesn't give anyone an advantage. If you want advantage win the 2 chambers. Both parties have had it at some point or another. This conversation will not go anywhere as usual. Have a good night. Please stop quoting me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 1 minute ago, HSFBfan said: Please stop quoting me LOL Being the social liberal that I am, I feel compelled by conscience to educate those that would benefit. Most your posts fall into this category. Do you know why our founders set things up like this? (no you don't, I do, you just run with the propaganda dribble) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HSFBfan Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 4 minutes ago, noonereal said: LOL Being the social liberal that I am, I feel compelled by conscience to educate those that would benefit. Most your posts fall into this category. Do you know why our founders set things up like this? (no you don't, I do, you just run with the propaganda dribble) Again I'm just very glad I have you on ignore. It makes my days so much nicer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noonereal Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 3 minutes ago, HSFBfan said: Again I'm just very glad I have you on ignore. It makes my days so much nicer. ignore is not doing very good for you, maybe a different site? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zulu1128 Posted February 28, 2018 Report Share Posted February 28, 2018 20 minutes ago, noonereal said: and why should a state with 500,000 people have the same representation as a state with 40,000,000? That is 80 times as much representation. The country is a union of states, not individuals. The founders wisely wanted all states equally represented in one branch of government. In the HOR, the more populous states are significantly more represented. It's basic Civics 101 stuff. 20 minutes ago, noonereal said: As the sparsely populated states tend to "backwards" it's gives the GOP a tremendous advantage. It has created minority rule which we are under now. Again with the elitist claptrap. Since 1855, the GOP has held the Senate for 82 total years, and the democrats have held it for 80. Doesn't sound too much like "minority rule" to me. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.