VakAttack

BAC, my friend, this is a lot of sturm and drang over nothing. I'll go point by point. 1. Most of this is fiction you have written in your head. Also, Penn State, the current gold standard, quite literally took Max Dean when they had an actual AA/high end recruit in Beard. Neither Siebrecht nor Glazier were high end recruits, and they both got opportunities. Siebrecht went 14-8 and then 1-2 at NCAAs. Then he got suspended for a year (unfairly, IMO, but still). His best win is his OT win over Will Lewan, who goes to OT with everybody. Glazier was 20-4 at a relatively weak weight, but his best wins were over non-AAs SIlas Allred and Jaxon Smith. Almost nobody has a guaranteed spot at a high end D1 school, certainly not those resumes. Tough wrestlers that vastly improved during their time, which is a testament to the coaching staff and the athletes own hard work, but this isn't "disloyalty." Neither of these guys was a high AA threat based on everything we've seen, and Iowa got two title threats in their stead. All the other athletes that left were depth guys. Pretty sure that Penn State had similar guys to them when they brought in Messenbrink, Nagao, Truax, etc. OKlahoma State the same by bringing in Hendrickson and Hamiti. 2. This is, again, just made up. Hell, Cobe Siebrecht, one of the leaving wrestlers, hardly wrestled a traditional "Iowa style." Iowa has already become a school with more varied styles on the roster than they get credit for. Kids are going to come to the school if the athletes succeed, not because Iowa just "stayed loyal" to some low AA threat wrestlers. Iowa's goal is to close the gap with Penn State at 2025 NCAAs, and they did that. 3. Again, this is just made up. You have no idea what the internal dynamics of the team is. Gabe Arnold's dad just posted a picture with a bunch of the team, and I saw at least Parco there. Maybe everybody hates Glazier (I don't think this, but you also have no idea)? Maybe the Siebrecht's only hang out with each other? Or maybe the kids know that athletes transfer, and they don't get too fussed one way or the other, and wish the departing teammates well but root for the new teammates. 4. Again, this is all complete supposition. You admit you have no idea how much anybody is actually getting, then you just assume that Ayala is getting a fraction of that. This is all basically fanfic. 5. Comparing this to the Ferrari thing is insane. Ferrari was a timebomb (and I said so at the time) and they never should have brought him in. There's NOTHING like that about Buchanan or Teemer, and Iowa would have been stupid to not bring them just to make sure that Zach Glazier and Cobe Siebrecht stayed happy. Seriously, on what planet should guys at that level just be treated as if they were set it and forget it starters? I know you're not a Brands fan. I get it. I was one of the people advocating for bringing Taylor in this year. But this was absolutely the right thing for them to do, bringing in Teemer, Buchanan, and Parco. It would have been malpractice not to. I'm not super happy, but this was also said prior to Iowa winning the team title three years ago.

No strawman can stand before the mighty Tom Cotton!

Nope. https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2024/aug/30/tweets/heres-how-a-biden-ad-that-featured-arlington-natio/

Lol. Trump's first marriage ended because he brought his mistress on a family vacation and she confronted his wife. She also had a front page story on the NY Post about it being the best sex she's ever had...the story was printed while he was still married. That doesn't even touch on Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels.

Who said this person needs it? Super wealthy people don't necessarily need any more money, but they still want it and so they go and get it.

Households worth over $100 million have no income.

How is trying to get taxation commensurate with their actual income punishment?

It's also not a liquid asset, as you yourself acknowledged, which makes it a strawman in this argument.

No. If they were paying the percentage of their income they should be under the tax code, I wouldn't care. They're using things like unrealized gains to hide their income.

It's a problem, to me, that the wealthiest (or one of the wealthiest) people in the world is paying a much lower percentage on their income than I do. That's just my opinion, you may not share it. I'm interested. I do think this is an issue, as I mentioned to Ionel above, but this is far outside my area of expertise as to how to attack it. So I appreciate the idea of what the policy is designed to attack, but I fully admit, I have no idea if it will actually be effective in doing so.

This is, of course, not something that has been shown at all. This appears to be tied to the fact that she didn't list working at McDonald's on her resume for a legal job, and is apparently the complaint of people who have never drafted a resume. Spoiler alert, I've never listed my time working at Winn Dixie, Burger King, Friendly's Ice Cream Shop, or Outback Steakhouse on a resume, either.

Just a continuance of his previously held belief. He's been pretty openly anti-Iowa for years.

Since you didn't quote me, I didn't know you had responded, and given some personal life stuff (birthday into a surgery for my wife), I haven't been checking the threads that diligently so I missed this. Actually, no, your claim is false. That's what started this whole thing. You said he would debate because he always does. I pointed out that he in fact did not do that at all during the GOP nomination process. Then you took the conversation other directions, rather than admitting you were wrong, and now you're trying to parse semantics on the exact phrasing of how he said things when it was pretty clear to most people given the multiple different, conflicting things he said that he had no interest in debating Kamala at the time, probably for the same reason he didn't debate during the nomination; he felt like he had it locked up given the polling at the time. However, I will concede that he never directly said "I will not debate Kamala." Regardless, this all started with a false statement you made, which you haven't admitted to, but is a verifiable fact. He would not "debate, no matter what". It's not "what he does". He does what he sees as politically necessary at any given time.

It's an attempt to go after a very real issue of how the uberwealthy avoid taxation. They allow an asset to grow in value but never sell, and instead take out loans against that value increase. It's a real problem, but I am not knowledgeable enough to know if this will be an effective attack on that. I don't think the "capital flight" argument is likely to be real, stuff like that is always said when some new tax is imposed but very rarely comes to fruition. I do agree with the first line of attack that there is a certain inertia to these things where it starts at $100 million and the slowly works it's way down, but that's a problem for future policy, not this policy, i.e. when someone tries to shift it downward, it should be attacked. Frankly, none of the arguments made here particularly move me, though I admit I'm not the world's smartest investor guy. A lot of your attacks on the idea seem to be about downstream "I think this could happen in response to this policy" not actual demonstrable direct effects from the policy itself. It's also undeniable that extremely wealthy people are abusing the system in the way that this tax is designed to attack. So how would you propose attacking this method of tax avoidance? Taxing the loans themselves as income?

The reason this is an issue is not the fact that he entered the cemetery.

To be clear, I wasn't saying that T. Boone was donating gobs of cash to the Okie State wrestling team. I was saying that wrestling doesn't have a donor on that level of wealth, anywhere. I know most of his money went to football.

A billionaire sports nut. I don't believe any of the donors in the wrestling world have THAT level of net worth with that level of sports fandom.

At some point, it will calm down, because none of the guys throwing money at the programs are THAT wealthy, I don't think. It's not like a T. Boone Pickens situation. These numbers being thrown around are great for the current athletes that happen to have been in college when this boom happened, but it will taper off.

Nothing on my laptop, but I have a pretty strong pop up blocker. EDIT: Like @BobDole's ghost, I'm an Android user, so I haven't notice an issue in my brief sojourns on here with my phone. I typically access from my computer.

What an interesting time to retire, I think it's distinctly possible that Dake moves up to 79 for a year or two.

Pretty sure there's a whole thread on it on this here forum.

Trump also said he wasn't going to debate Kamala at first. So why is that not a true statement? It's literally the same logic he used in the Republican primary when he, you know, didn't debate any of the other challengers. You're the one making claims here and then just hand-waving away things. You're the one who said "Because everyone knew he was not afraid and would debate no matter what. It is what he does." when I just gave you exhibit A of when it was not "what he does." He thought the switch to Harris wouldn't change things and he'd comfortably cruise to a win, and now the polls show that's not true, and now he's changed his position. You're being logically inconsistent to prop up your preferred major party candidate.

...dude, you're the one who said he would "debate no matter what" when he literally did NOT debate when he was comfortably winning the primaries. He wasn't going to debate Harris either...until the polls turned.