WOMEN BAILING ON THE GOP-'I hung on until I couldn't'. Kavanaugh put me over the top!

[Vastator]

Well you'd lose that bet. You clearly don't understand the modern "no fault" divorce. The entire process is automagically carried out at the stroke of a pen. It isn't a voting issue.

If it was a 'no fault' divorce, then both sides should have been in agreement.

Again, your story has less credibility the more you tell it.

Credibility! Lol!!! It’s probably best you learn how this works, first hand. And as long as you choose to remain willfully ignorant, it’s all but certain that you will. I’m rootin’ for ya!

If a no fault divorce involves an equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, then how did your friend get screwed? Did they both get screwed because of a ton of debt? Just curious.

Their child came down with an illness two years later. During the course of treatment it was revealed that the child was not actually my friends. Debt skyrocketed for the mother, and he was being forced to pay for the medical of a child that wasn’t his own. Including the funeral arrangements...

 

[Erinwltr]

Well you'd lose that bet. You clearly don't understand the modern "no fault" divorce. The entire process is automagically carried out at the stroke of a pen. It isn't a voting issue.

If it was a 'no fault' divorce, then both sides should have been in agreement.

Again, your story has less credibility the more you tell it.

Credibility! Lol!!! It’s probably best you learn how this works, first hand. And as long as you choose to remain willfully ignorant, it’s all but certain that you will. I’m rootin’ for ya!

If a no fault divorce involves an equitable distribution of assets and liabilities, then how did your friend get screwed? Did they both get screwed because of a ton of debt? Just curious.

Their child came down with an illness two years later. During the course of treatment it was revealed that the child was not actually my friends. Debt skyrocketed for the mother, and he was being forced to pay for the medical of a child that wasn’t his own. Including the funeral arrangements...

Wow, that is terrible, sorry to hear that.

 

[JoeB131]

Their child came down with an illness two years later. During the course of treatment it was revealed that the child was not actually my friends. Debt skyrocketed for the mother, and he was being forced to pay for the medical of a child that wasn’t his own. Including the funeral arrangements...

Oh. So whose name was on this child's birth certificate again?

Oh, that's right. It was your friend's. As a matter of law, this isn't an issue. The time to dispute paternity was when the child was born, not when it got sick.

Another point. So essentially, he got screwed because of our wonderful capitalist system of treating health care as a consumer commodity instead of a right.... In a single payer system, the state would have picked up those expenses.

 

[Vastator]

At least you’ve finally come clean. Albeit in a cowardly, mealy mouthed way you admit that you know nothing about marriage; less still about divorce. I knew we’d get you there...
And now you’re 0-4, State interference in private business is directly to blame for the subsequent fallout, and its desire to make money off of the victims of divorce. Which is in no way related to Capitalism.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Sure, women and Hispanics were going to make your ***** president, remember?

Thank god for the ELECTORAL COLLEGE? Hillary, +3,0000 votes.

Hillary Popular Vote win was because of her lopsided win in California which she won with four million more votes than Trump.

Now do the math and realize without California Hillary Clinton would have lost the Popular vote in 2016.

The reality is Clinton was unpopular in the majority of States and that is why she lost the Election and you can complain about the Electoral College all you want but it made sure a person that was unpopular in most states dis not win the Election.

 

[JoeB131]

Hillary Popular Vote win was because of her lopsided win in California which she won with four million more votes than Trump.

Now do the math and realize without California Hillary Clinton would have lost the Popular vote in 2016.

The reality is Clinton was unpopular in the majority of States and that is why she lost the Election and you can complain about the Electoral College all you want but it made sure a person that was unpopular in most states dis not win the Election.

Dude, you're babbling.

Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Orange Shitgibbon. The People said "No", loudly to this nonsense... but because we have a racist system that gives more credence to white states, we are stuck with a buffoon Americans plain old didn't want.

 

[JoeB131]

At least you’ve finally come clean. Albeit in a cowardly, mealy mouthed way you admit that you know nothing about marriage; less still about divorce. I knew we’d get you there...
And now you’re 0-4, State interference in private business is directly to blame for the subsequent fallout, and its desire to make money off of the victims of divorce. Which is in no way related to Capitalism.

It wasn't a matter of "Divorce". It was a matter of him taking responsibility for a child he admitted was his. He put his name on the birth certificate. Was he so dense he didn't know his wife was catting around?

The law is written to protect children from deadbeat fathers. Once he put his name on the birth certificate, he was liable. (And he would have been if they had been married or not.)

Frankly, what kind of complete asshole would say to a child who thought that was his father and say, "What, you are costing me money? I'm out of here!"

But hey, wouldn't have been a problem if we were like every other major Democracy and had single payer health care.

 

[Vastator]

At least you’ve finally come clean. Albeit in a cowardly, mealy mouthed way you admit that you know nothing about marriage; less still about divorce. I knew we’d get you there...
And now you’re 0-4, State interference in private business is directly to blame for the subsequent fallout, and its desire to make money off of the victims of divorce. Which is in no way related to Capitalism.

It wasn't a matter of "Divorce". It was a matter of him taking responsibility for a child he admitted was his. He put his name on the birth certificate. Was he so dense he didn't know his wife was catting around?

The law is written to protect children from deadbeat fathers. Once he put his name on the birth certificate, he was liable. (And he would have been if they had been married or not.)

Frankly, what kind of complete asshole would say to a child who thought that was his father and say, "What, you are costing me money? I'm out of here!"

But hey, wouldn't have been a problem if we were like every other major Democracy and had single payer health care.

Youre an idiot. Classic leftist blaming the victim... Classic!

 

[Vastator]

Hillary Popular Vote win was because of her lopsided win in California which she won with four million more votes than Trump.

Now do the math and realize without California Hillary Clinton would have lost the Popular vote in 2016.

The reality is Clinton was unpopular in the majority of States and that is why she lost the Election and you can complain about the Electoral College all you want but it made sure a person that was unpopular in most states dis not win the Election.

Dude, you're babbling.

Hillary got 3 million more votes than the Orange Shitgibbon. The People said "No", loudly to this nonsense... but because we have a racist system that gives more credence to white states, we are stuck with a buffoon Americans plain old didn't want.

You're babbling... The popular vote doesn't determine who ascends to the presidency. The state's do. And they do so through the electoral college. And they always have. The overwhelming majority of state's chose Trump. And of story...

 

[JoeB131]

Youre an idiot. Classic leftist blaming the victim... Classic!

Any asshole who would turn his back on a dying child who called him "Daddy" kind of deserves what he gets.

You're babbling... The popular vote doesn't determine who ascends to the presidency. The state's do. And they do so through the electoral college. And they always have. The overwhelming majority of state's chose Trump. And of story...

No, guy, just because we have a bad system that was devised by slave rapists who had to almost immediately modify it because it didn't work well, is not proof of anything other than we have a bad system.

At the end of the day, Trump had no business being president, and the people realized that.

So now we have a situation where the people around Trump have to keep him from doing anything too crazy without getting themselves fired. This by you is good government?

 

[Vastator]

Youre an idiot. Classic leftist blaming the victim... Classic!

Any asshole who would turn his back on a dying child who called him "Daddy" kind of deserves what he gets.

You're babbling... The popular vote doesn't determine who ascends to the presidency. The state's do. And they do so through the electoral college. And they always have. The overwhelming majority of state's chose Trump. And of story...

No, guy, just because we have a bad system that was devised by slave rapists who had to almost immediately modify it because it didn't work well, is not proof of anything other than we have a bad system.

At the end of the day, Trump had no business being president, and the people realized that.

So now we have a situation where the people around Trump have to keep him from doing anything too crazy without getting themselves fired. This by you is good government?

If you write a bad check to a shop owner, and he cashes it, the court comes after the one who comitted the fraud. Not the person who was defrauded. The same thing that happens to a man who is defrauded by a woman who man good faith, and due to lack of suspiscion on the part of the would be dad, gets defrauded. Which leaves you with nothing but an appeal to emotion. Emotion isn't a valid, logic based argument. It never has been, nor will it ever be...

Again... Your dislike of the outcome generated by the established system isn't predicated on logic, but rather emotion. The electoral college has always operated this way, and for good reason of giving the state's equitable power amongst one another within the Union. Of your argument was one based on logic. You'd have protested all election outcomes based on this principle. Which you haven't. You are merely ignorant of how our electoral system works, and only rail against the structure of it, when it doesn't produce the outcome your have preferred. Again... You forsake logic and knowledge in favor of feelings. Feelings aren't a logical argument. Never have been. Never will be. Youre dismissed snowflake.
You're woefully out of your depth...

 

[JoeB131]

If you write a bad check to a shop owner, and he cashes it, the court comes after the one who commuted the fraud. Not the person who was defrauded. The same thing that happens to a man who is defrauded by a woman who man good faith, and due to lack of suspiscion on the part of the would be dad, gets defrauded. Which leaves you with nothing but an appeal to emotion. Emotion isn't a valid, logic based argument. It never has been, nor will it ever be...

Except the time to dispute the bad check was when it was written, not 10 years later when there is some liability on your part after you've enjoyed the benefit of that check.

Again, can't imagine what kind of soulless monster turns his back on a dying child. Which I am sure is EXACTLY what the court said.

Again... Your dislike of the outcome generated by the established system isn't predicated on logic, but rather emotion. The electoral college has always operated this way, and for good reason of giving the state's equitable power amongst one another within the Union. Of your argument was one based on logic.

The person who gets the most votes should win. This is how we do it for EVERY OTHER elected office in this country, and how we did it really, for 40 of the 45 guys who've held the presidency. That actually sounds kind of logical.

Your have protested all election outcomes based on this principle. Which you haven't.

Well, no, because most of the time, the Electoral College just confirms what the people said. The two times it didn't in my lifetime, have been unmitigated disasters. Bush-43 was a disaster, the people said no to. And two recessions, two wars, a major city wiped out, and the worst terrorist attack ever... and it is clear what a mistake he was.

But instead of fixing that mistake, the Right Wing terrified of having to share power with the darkies, doubled down and put the crazy person in.

You are merely ignorant of how our electoral system works, and only rail against the structure of it, when it doesn't produce the outcome your have preferred.

Quite the contrary. Before Dubya decided to steal an election, the last time we let the EC overrule the will of the people, was 1888, which was almost immediately reversed in 1892. and pretty much after that, the goal became to win the people, not the EC.

In 1960, when Nixon was told he could dispute the election by challenging results in IL and TX, he said, "Um, no, JFK won the popular vote, the people have spoken.'

And when you have to cite Tricky Dick as an example of Republican integrity, then you know you have a problem in your party.

 

[Vastator]

If you write a bad check to a shop owner, and he cashes it, the court comes after the one who commuted the fraud. Not the person who was defrauded. The same thing that happens to a man who is defrauded by a woman who man good faith, and due to lack of suspiscion on the part of the would be dad, gets defrauded. Which leaves you with nothing but an appeal to emotion. Emotion isn't a valid, logic based argument. It never has been, nor will it ever be...

Except the time to dispute the bad check was when it was written, not 10 years later when there is some liability on your part after you've enjoyed the benefit of that check.

Again, can't imagine what kind of soulless monster turns his back on a dying child. Which I am sure is EXACTLY what the court said.

Again... Your dislike of the outcome generated by the established system isn't predicated on logic, but rather emotion. The electoral college has always operated this way, and for good reason of giving the state's equitable power amongst one another within the Union. Of your argument was one based on logic.

The person who gets the most votes should win. This is how we do it for EVERY OTHER elected office in this country, and how we did it really, for 40 of the 45 guys who've held the presidency. That actually sounds kind of logical.

Your have protested all election outcomes based on this principle. Which you haven't.

Well, no, because most of the time, the Electoral College just confirms what the people said. The two times it didn't in my lifetime, have been unmitigated disasters. Bush-43 was a disaster, the people said no to. And two recessions, two wars, a major city wiped out, and the worst terrorist attack ever... and it is clear what a mistake he was.

But instead of fixing that mistake, the Right Wing terrified of having to share power with the darkies, doubled down and put the crazy person in.

You are merely ignorant of how our electoral system works, and only rail against the structure of it, when it doesn't produce the outcome your have preferred.

Quite the contrary. Before Dubya decided to steal an election, the last time we let the EC overrule the will of the people, was 1888, which was almost immediately reversed in 1892. and pretty much after that, the goal became to win the people, not the EC.

In 1960, when Nixon was told he could dispute the election by challenging results in IL and TX, he said, "Um, no, JFK won the popular vote, the people have spoken.'

And when you have to cite Tricky Dick as an example of Republican integrity, then you know you have a problem in your party.

Who said it was 10 years later? The time to dispute it is when it is noticed. Again Your appeal to emotion fails... You're like an NPC in a game... Same repetitive patterns incapable of independent though or decision making. It would be kind of sad if it weren't so amusing...

 

[JoeB131]

Who said it was 10 years later? The time to dispute it is when it is noticed. Again Your appeal to emotion fails... You're like an NPC in a game... Same repetitive patterns incapable of independent though or decision making. It would be kind of sad if it weren't so amusing...

Wow, guy, you repeat a meme you heard somewhere else and think you had an original thought.

Guy sounds like a major league creep to me. Then again, he's a friend of yours, so that should probably go without saying.

the thing is, whatever was wrong in their relationship, the kid didn't deceive him. The kid didn't lie when he called him "Daddy". The law is pretty clear... if you put your name on the birth certificate and act as that kid's father, you're his father.

 

[Vastator]

Who said it was 10 years later? The time to dispute it is when it is noticed. Again Your appeal to emotion fails... You're like an NPC in a game... Same repetitive patterns incapable of independent though or decision making. It would be kind of sad if it weren't so amusing...

Wow, guy, you repeat a meme you heard somewhere else and think you had an original thought.

The irony here isn't likely to be outmatched today... At least I can confirm that you understand exactly what I meant by my last post. Were getting somewhere! Now if we can pry the " nuh-uh you are"! From your hand well make real progress... Being a mindless bot in the world is choice. Choose better...

 

[JoeB131]

The irony here isn't likely to be outmatched today... At least I can confirm that you understand exactly what I meant by my last post. Were getting somewhere! Now if we can pry the " nuh-uh you are"! From your hand well make real progress... Being a mindless bot in the world is choice. Choose better...

Says the guy who repeats what he hears on Hate Radio like it's an original thought.

Remember, you came into this argument saying the "system" or the "State" screwed your friend, except when discussing the case, we found out your friend was a truly reprehensible human being who got exactly what he had coming to him.

 

[Vastator]

Who said it was 10 years later? The time to dispute it is when it is noticed. Again Your appeal to emotion fails... You're like an NPC in a game... Same repetitive patterns incapable of independent though or decision making. It would be kind of sad if it weren't so amusing...

Wow, guy, you repeat a meme you heard somewhere else and think you had an original thought.

Guy sounds like a major league creep to me. Then again, he's a friend of yours, so that should probably go without saying.

the thing is, whatever was wrong in their relationship, the kid didn't deceive him. The kid didn't lie when he called him "Daddy". The law is pretty clear... if you put your name on the birth certificate and act as that kid's father, you're his father.

The law was equally clear during the days of slavery, and Jim Crowe... So by your own standards you find that slavery and Jim Crowe were morally correct, and satisfied justice". Good to know. Your problem is that you have no positions. Other than opposition. You've never tempered your beliefs on the anvil of logic, with the hammer of reason. Typical NPC...

 

[Vastator]

The irony here isn't likely to be outmatched today... At least I can confirm that you understand exactly what I meant by my last post. Were getting somewhere! Now if we can pry the " nuh-uh you are"! From your hand well make real progress... Being a mindless bot in the world is choice. Choose better...

Says the guy who repeats what he hears on Hate Radio like it's an original thought.

Remember, you came into this argument saying the "system" or the "State" screwed your friend, except when discussing the case, we found out your friend was a truly reprehensible human being who got exactly what he had coming to him.

Reference your claim.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That’s quite a proclamation. Especially given that you know nothing of the situation...
Lemme guess... Leftist who supports bigger, stronger State. Right?

Okay, except it wasn't a mysterious "State" that screwed your friend on his divorce. It was a judge and maybe a jury that heard what a jerk he was, and decided, "Yup, let's totally stick it to this guy."

Nope. Had nothing to do with hearing "what a jerk the guy had been". Had to do with who had the vagina.

Usually does. In a divorce, men can do not right, women can do no wrong.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If you write a bad check to a shop owner, and he cashes it, the court comes after the one who commuted the fraud. Not the person who was defrauded. The same thing that happens to a man who is defrauded by a woman who man good faith, and due to lack of suspiscion on the part of the would be dad, gets defrauded. Which leaves you with nothing but an appeal to emotion. Emotion isn't a valid, logic based argument. It never has been, nor will it ever be...

Except the time to dispute the bad check was when it was written, not 10 years later when there is some liability on your part after you've enjoyed the benefit of that check.

Again, can't imagine what kind of soulless monster turns his back on a dying child. Which I am sure is EXACTLY what the court said.

Again... Your dislike of the outcome generated by the established system isn't predicated on logic, but rather emotion. The electoral college has always operated this way, and for good reason of giving the state's equitable power amongst one another within the Union. Of your argument was one based on logic.

The person who gets the most votes should win. This is how we do it for EVERY OTHER elected office in this country, and how we did it really, for 40 of the 45 guys who've held the presidency. That actually sounds kind of logical.

Your have protested all election outcomes based on this principle. Which you haven't.

Well, no, because most of the time, the Electoral College just confirms what the people said. The two times it didn't in my lifetime, have been unmitigated disasters. Bush-43 was a disaster, the people said no to. And two recessions, two wars, a major city wiped out, and the worst terrorist attack ever... and it is clear what a mistake he was.

But instead of fixing that mistake, the Right Wing terrified of having to share power with the darkies, doubled down and put the crazy person in.

You are merely ignorant of how our electoral system works, and only rail against the structure of it, when it doesn't produce the outcome your have preferred.

Quite the contrary. Before Dubya decided to steal an election, the last time we let the EC overrule the will of the people, was 1888, which was almost immediately reversed in 1892. and pretty much after that, the goal became to win the people, not the EC.

In 1960, when Nixon was told he could dispute the election by challenging results in IL and TX, he said, "Um, no, JFK won the popular vote, the people have spoken.'

And when you have to cite Tricky Dick as an example of Republican integrity, then you know you have a problem in your party.

Who said it was 10 years later? The time to dispute it is when it is noticed. Again Your appeal to emotion fails... You're like an NPC in a game... Same repetitive patterns incapable of independent though or decision making. It would be kind of sad if it weren't so amusing...

Joey is a new type of spambot: he is a STUPIDBOT.