Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

FBG26

Members
  • Content Count

    1,113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

463 Excellent

About FBG26

  • Rank
    Footballguy

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

7,705 profile views
  1. At first blush, I kinda wondered about that statement too because of course we'd have a new president-elect in 2016. But I think we need to consider the whole quote. For completeness, Joe's quote was "God willing, we're going to have a new President-elect next week" (emphasis mine). I would have interpreted that as "Hopefully the elections results are final and not locked up in court battles by next week". I guess my takeaways are: 1) I need to read more slowly and 2) I need to be more charitable in my interpretations rather than assuming somebody meant something they may not have. Edit to add: I think Snorkelson is saying something similar about Joe's comment could have been interpreted as saying hopefully it's not all locked up in the courts.
  2. In MN in 2016, Gary Johnson had 3.8% and Evan McMullin had 1.8% of the vote, and 3.0% of the vote went to others. That's 8.6% of the vote that went to a third-party candidate. In 2012, less than 2% went to a third-party candidate, which was similar in 2008 and 2004. Kerry (04) got 51%, Obama (08) got 54%, and Obama (12) got 53% of the MN vote. Point is, MN isn't likely to turn red. People just didn't like Hillary. People don't dislike Biden in the same way. Not saying all of that 8.6% third-party vote from 2016 will go to Biden, but enough of that 8.6% will go to Biden to take MN. I personally think Biden will win MN by 5+ points (51-46 is my guess strictly based on the presidential elections from 2004 to date). Edit to add: Trump could still win the electoral college, but I'd be shocked if he wins MN.
  3. I liked this, but am not sure if "dislike" would be a better emoji. The point is I agree with what you are saying. Too much "journalism" is click-bait stuff designed to catch eyes and get people riled up. Totally agree with your point on asking whether something is a good representation or an extreme view. Instead of projecting an extreme view on an entire group of people, we'd all be better off if we were a little more charitable in our views and discussions with one another. Sidenote, this reminds me why I dislike emojis sometimes. They are not that great in expressing what we want to say in situations where it'd be a lot better/clearer if we just used a few more words.
  4. That was a great thread. It probably died in a purge. I seem to remember some unlucky SOB had an issue while at the pool with his kids and had to run from the pool while his kid yelled something about a bloody butt so loud the entire pool heard it.
  5. Remember the days we used to live vicariously through Righetti's shenanigans at another wedding? Or making fun of Woz? Oh how old we've become.
  6. I'm still not sure what to make of this. Could be an innocent question or a brilliantly executed joke. When you say trimester, are you talking about grading periods (we have semesters here) or talking about being preggers?
  7. Gianmarco's chart isnt accurate. It shows the rich in 1950 paying 70% in taxes. The top marginal rate in the 1950s was 90% but there were so many exemptions and deductions that the rate paid was significantly lower. Groot's article points out that the effective tax rate for the top 1% in the 1950s was 42% and by 2014 that same income cohort was paying 36.4%. Which isnt nearly as dramatic a decline as shown in Gianmarco's graph. In part because many of the deductions and exemptions that were available in the 50's were eliminated during the Reagan administration when the marginal rates were reduced. So you can reduce the marginal rate, eliminate deductions and still generate as much or more tax revenue as before. To be fair, the chart in Gianmarco's link clearly says its showing the total tax rate (Federal, State, and Local taxes), so it's not looking solely at federal income tax rates (which seems to be what you're talking about, admittedly I didn't look at Groot's link).
  8. Increasing the number of judges is just another partisan land-grab unless we phase things in under future administrations. For example, the winner of the 2028 election gets to add two justices, and the winner of the 2036 election gets to add two more. That's far enough out that we don't know which party will be making those appointments, so there's a semblance of fairness there. People who are asking for four new justices appointed specifically by the Biden administration are just being tools. I really like the idea of justices being term-limited. That would need to be grandfathered in, but it would hugely help out with the luck and ghoulishness involved in the current system. Unlike court-packing, term limits make the process predictable and turns down the volume on the whining. Interestingly, individual states occasionally change the size of their highest courts (I don't say Supreme Court because NY is weird and the "Supreme Court" is actually the lowest court). For example, in 2016, Republicans in AZ and GA changed their state laws to add seats on their Supreme Courts, which allowed each of their Republican governors to appoint two more people. Link
  9. Regarding the bolded, obviously the Senate elections are a little different in that only 1/3 of the Senate is elected at a time, whereas the entire House is up for election every time. So, depending on which states have open Senate seats, it's entirely possible for one party to pick up seats in the Senate while the other party picks up seats in the House. I think it's more accurate to say that the House is a better indicator for how the country feels about a given political party given that the entire House gets voted on each election.
  10. That last part is overruling the Wisconsin Supreme Court I believe. This means they are rejecting a bedrock concept that State Supreme courts have any roll in state elections. kind of a big deal. I think we could a likely will see some full tilt boogie radical decisions with this court. And that decision was without Barret even on the court. Actually, that's not correct Jack. From CNN (first link I found):
  11. At the rate Californians are moving from CA to TX, it could happen sooner than you think.
  12. Thought this could be an interesting read, but unfortunately it's behind a paywall and I only have access to the first paragraph. Anybody know of a way to read the entire article (the old Incognito trick doesn't work anymore)? WSJ: China Trade War Didn’t Boost U.S. Manufacturing Might
  13. We're not doing anything different. It's like a 5 second interaction at each stop and we only stop at 8-10 houses since the kids are so little. Chances of breathing in too many germs are pretty low. As far as handing out candy at our house, I will probably wear a mask (halloween inspired) like I would if I was grocery shopping or something, but otherwise nothing different on that side either. But we only get a dozen or so kids most years.
  14. Just to make sure I understand, this is early voting numbers being surpassed and not overall vote numbers, right? Correct. Link. As one example, MN had 568k early votes in 2016 and 3.0M total votes. So far, MN has received 1.2M early votes.