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

[Vastator]

Precisely. The assumption made in good faith; was in fact made in error. That error allowed the actual father to avoid responsibility. That’s why it is incumbent upon a legally just system to correct errors, as they are made known. But youre unprincipled. You keep contradicting yourself throughout this thread. That’s the cost of lacking principles...

Nope. The principle is to protect children. If this guy was too stupid to realize that his wife was stepping out on him because of his inadequacies as a man, that's on him.

You have neither substantiated your assertion that the child is best protected, by helping the father avoid financial responsibility at the cost of another man. Nor have you shown the merit of punish one person, for the actions of another...

 

[JoeB131]

You have neither substantiated your assertion that the child is best protected, by helping the father avoid financial responsibility at the cost of another man. Nor have you shown the merit of punish one person, for the actions of another...

Sure it is. We have the legal father RIGHT HERE. certainly much faster than trying to identify the sperm donor ("I don't remember, met him in a bar."), then litigate a paternity suit against him. Not when you have the legal father right here, and you can put the screws to him.

 

[Vastator]

You have neither substantiated your assertion that the child is best protected, by helping the father avoid financial responsibility at the cost of another man. Nor have you shown the merit of punish one person, for the actions of another...

Sure it is. We have the legal father RIGHT HERE. certainly much faster than trying to identify the sperm donor ("I don't remember, met him in a bar."), then litigate a paternity suit against him. Not when you have the legal father right here, and you can put the screws to him.

Laws don’t determine genetics. Saying a thing is so; has no bearing on its truth. That’s what facts are for. So you are relegated to a legal system wherein facts matter, or they don’t.
You said if he was too stupid not to know, then he “deserves” it. Okay... At what IQ threshold does an individual garner the rights to a facts based justice system? Pick a number. We’ll go from there. And since I’m your view being defrauded is the fault of the victim; do you also support letting those who commit welfare fraud off the hook? After all... the state in these cases was too stupid to not know the truth, and therefore, applying your principles consistently put the responsibility on the state.
C’mon now... Be consistent. Be principled.

 

[justoffal]

I feel sure there are hundreds of thousands. But MOST won't write an editorial and submit it under their name to a MAJOR newspaper. And most won't change their party affiliation but won't vote for REPUBLICANS. (Remember, if these women are from ORANGE COUNTY, it bleeds red).

"The Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the GOP’s support for the now- Supreme Court justice that put her “over the edge.”

Longtime GOP female voters reveal what Trump did to make them finally bail on the party: ‘I hung on until I couldn’t’

NOOR AL-SIBAI
20 OCT 2018 AT 15:07 ET

In two letters to the editor of the Los Angeles Times, longtime Republican-voting women explained why Donald Trump has led them to leave the party.

Eileen E. Padberg, a registered Republican of 53 years, wrote that although she considers herself “an active feminist,” she stuck with the GOP because she believed it was “the party of individual rights and liberties, personal responsibility, limited government, free markets, a strong national defense and fiscal responsibility.”

“I hung on to my party registration although I didn’t always vote a straight GOP ticket,” she wrote. “I hung on until I couldn’t.”

Padberg noted that her Republican credentials “would hold up to anyone” — she founders her college’s Young Republicans club, has been a delegate and an attendee at multiple Republican National Conventions and “was the regional political director for George H.W. Bush’s campaign for president.”

The Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the GOP’s support for the now-Supreme Court justice that put her “over the edge.”

“When I heard the words coming from the Republican leadership and the president, that fine thread holding me to the GOP finally broke,” Padberg wrote. “I couldn’t believe the disrespect for women I was hearing.”

Padberg acknowledged that she’s not alone, that “surely there are thousands of women across America who gave up on the Republican Party.”


Longtime GOP female voters reveal what Trump did to make them finally bail on the party: 'I hung on until I couldn't'

Your post title is incorrect. It says women when it should say woman.

Jo

 

[Vastator]

You have neither substantiated your assertion that the child is best protected, by helping the father avoid financial responsibility at the cost of another man. Nor have you shown the merit of punish one person, for the actions of another...

certainly much faster than trying to identify the sperm donor ("I don't remember, met him in a bar."), then litigate a paternity suit against him.

Ahhh... The blind squirrel stumbles his way into a nut... How fortuitous. You see... Through out the thread you’ve a series of unsubstantiated assumptions. This post highlights one of them. “Not knowing who the real father was. In this case they did. But it never occurred to your simple mind to ask, what for most would have been such an obvious question...
Additionally; if this position you take in this post came from a principled stance... You’d be in favor of keeping people in prison for murder convictions; even after DNA exhonerates them. Especially if if was too much work, or would take too long to find the real killer.
If you’re principled; it’s one, ore the other. Since your positions on matters of jurisprudence are always in flux; it shows that you are unprincipled. That being the case... Why would anyone be inclined to take you seriously on the topic of the principles of justice? When by default you are unprincipled? In short. You, make you impossible to take seriously.

 

[JoeB131]

Laws don’t determine genetics. Saying a thing is so; has no bearing on its truth. That’s what facts are for. So you are relegated to a legal system wherein facts matter, or they don’t.

Quite the contrary, he put his name on the birth certificate and took care of that child as long as he thought it was his, and then tried to weasel his way out when the going got tough.

You said if he was to stupid not to know, then he “deserves” it. Okay... At what IQ threshold does an individual garner the rights to a facts based justice system? Pick a number. We’ll go from there. And since I’m your view being defrauded is the fault of the victim; do you also support letting those who commit welfare fraud off the hook? After all... the state in these cases was too stupid to not know the truth, and therefore, applying your principles consistently put the responsibility on the state.

Actual welfare fraud is kind of rare... but that's besides the point. This was about the rights of the child, not the rights of the fool who was so inadequate as a man his wife had to step out on him.

My guess is, he never made an effort to find out who the real father was.

If this kid had stayed healthy and got a really good job as a doctor and got your friend out of whatever trailer park he lived in, I'm guessing he wouldn't care so much where the sperm actually came from.

 

[Vastator]

Laws don’t determine genetics. Saying a thing is so; has no bearing on its truth. That’s what facts are for. So you are relegated to a legal system wherein facts matter, or they don’t.

Quite the contrary, he put his name on the birth certificate and took care of that child as long as he thought it was his, and then tried to weasel his way out when the going got tough.

You said if he was to stupid not to know, then he “deserves” it. Okay... At what IQ threshold does an individual garner the rights to a facts based justice system? Pick a number. We’ll go from there. And since I’m your view being defrauded is the fault of the victim; do you also support letting those who commit welfare fraud off the hook? After all... the state in these cases was too stupid to not know the truth, and therefore, applying your principles consistently put the responsibility on the state.

Actual welfare fraud is kind of rare... but that's besides the point. This was about the rights of the child, not the rights of the fool who was so inadequate as a man his wife had to step out on him.

My guess is, he never made an effort to find out who the real father was.

If this kid had stayed healthy and got a really good job as a doctor and got your friend out of whatever trailer park he lived in, I'm guessing he wouldn't care so much where the sperm actually came from.

You keep repeating that. Even when you know it’s not the case. You yourself posted the link that demonstrates that the state proclaims a woman’s husband to be the father. Regardless of facts. If your down to repeating a lie... I’d say youre out of gas Joey. Your going to have to start demonstrating principled, fact based decisions here. Lest I become too bored with your contrarian habits...

 

[Vastator]

Laws don’t determine genetics. Saying a thing is so; has no bearing on its truth. That’s what facts are for. So you are relegated to a legal system wherein facts matter, or they don’t.

Quite the contrary, he put his name on the birth certificate and took care of that child as long as he thought it was his, and then tried to weasel his way out when the going got tough.

You said if he was to stupid not to know, then he “deserves” it. Okay... At what IQ threshold does an individual garner the rights to a facts based justice system? Pick a number. We’ll go from there. And since I’m your view being defrauded is the fault of the victim; do you also support letting those who commit welfare fraud off the hook? After all... the state in these cases was too stupid to not know the truth, and therefore, applying your principles consistently put the responsibility on the state.

Actual welfare fraud is kind of rare... but that's besides the point. This was about the rights of the child, not the rights of the fool who was so inadequate as a man his wife had to step out on him.

My guess is, he never made an effort to find out who the real father was.

If this kid had stayed healthy and got a really good job as a doctor and got your friend out of whatever trailer park he lived in, I'm guessing he wouldn't care so much where the sperm actually came from.

Well your guess was wrong. Another issue that arises when you declare a stance absent facts. So back to your “principles”. What IQ threshold entitles a person to facts based justice. Be specific.

 

[Vastator]

Laws don’t determine genetics. Saying a thing is so; has no bearing on its truth. That’s what facts are for. So you are relegated to a legal system wherein facts matter, or they don’t.

Quite the contrary, he put his name on the birth certificate and took care of that child as long as he thought it was his, and then tried to weasel his way out when the going got tough.

You said if he was to stupid not to know, then he “deserves” it. Okay... At what IQ threshold does an individual garner the rights to a facts based justice system? Pick a number. We’ll go from there. And since I’m your view being defrauded is the fault of the victim; do you also support letting those who commit welfare fraud off the hook? After all... the state in these cases was too stupid to not know the truth, and therefore, applying your principles consistently put the responsibility on the state.

Actual welfare fraud is kind of rare...

If this kid had stayed healthy and got a really good job as a doctor and got your friend out of whatever trailer park he lived in, I'm guessing he wouldn't care so much where the sperm actually came from.

Regardless of rarity; the responsibility is the issue. Answer the question, from your principled position.
As for the last paragraph... More unfounded supposition, coupled with a fantasy scenario formulated to appeal to the feelz... Well that’s just desperate. Irrelevant. And desperate.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Their names being on the document don’t validate the responsibility, as he was put there on good faith; and it turned out to be incorrect. And no. I’m not changing my story. At the time; if it were required... he would have put his name down, in good faith. He at that point had not discovered that he had been defrauded.

then not seeing the problem here. he admitted responsibility and someone held him to it.

Again, what kind of a sick monster turns his back on a dying child who called him "Daddy".

What kind of sick **** thinks someone that isn't the baby daddy should be financially responsible for something that is that of the actual sperm donor?

Joey, who believes The State can do no wrong.

 

[Jarlaxle]

You're sure? Without proof, you are doing nothing more than making an unsubstantiated claim.

Again, since you won't tell us what state you live in, you are free to check out the laws.. and they are probably the same.

When someone isn't the sperm donor, they have no personal responsibility for the situation.

Except that's not what the law says.

Not if the name is removed when the truth is known. If the name isn't on the birth certificate anymore, no longer his responsibility.

Um, yeah, good luck with that.

How do I get my name off a birth certificate? | Dads Divorce

In many states, if you were married to the mother at the time the child was born, you are dad. A genetic test is not needed and the Court could, and it seems the Court may already have, declared you the father. Some states even prohibit genetic testing once a man has been legally determined to be the father. Since you were married at the time the child was born, there was likely a presumption that you were the father which was solidified with the divorce decree. Some states do allow a genetic test and may extinguish a support order upon the discovery that the child is not your biological child.

Universal healthcare would be the problem. Again, if you want someone without care to have it, write a check. As for suffering, I hope that you get something for which you suffer immensely. Slowly and painfully.

1) Wow, dude, you have issues.
2) Sorry, man, most of us are getting our health care paid for by someone else, whether we are in an insurance plan or a government program. Someone else is paying those bills.

The difference is, we do it wrong, we spend more money than anyone else does, and we get the worst results. and guys like Vasty's friend get put through the wringer.

All these legal implements exist with the sole purpose of protecting the state from financial liability; at the cost of defrauded fathers. They are worse than draconian, and serve the best interest of the state, and the state alone.

If they can't or won't, let bleeding hearts like Joe voluntarily do it and prove he has the compassion he claims.

Joe doesn’t care about the children, truth, morality, or justice. He cares about the state.

Joe's a bleeding heart.

No, Joey is a psychotic Stalinist.

 

[JoeB131]

You keep repeating that. Even when you know it’s not the case. You yourself posted the link that demonstrates that the state proclaims a woman’s husband to be the father. Regardless of facts. If your down to repeating a lie... I’d say youre out of gas Joey. Your going to have to start demonstrating principled, fact based decisions here. Lest I become too bored with your contrarian habits..

The law says the man who the woman was married to is the father. Period. Done. Not really the state's job to sort out a man's inadequacies as a man and husband.

Well your guess was wrong. Another issue that arises when you declare a stance absent facts. So back to your “principles”. What IQ threshold entitles a person to facts based justice. Be specific.

Dude, you responded to the same post three times... must have hit a never. Anyway, if the guy was too stupid to realize his wife was stepping out on his lame dick, the state should be the ones to sort that out 10 years after the fact because he wants to weasel out of taking care of a dying kid?

Regardless of rarity; the responsibility is the issue. Answer the question, from your principled position.

Already have. He put his name on the birth certificate. As far as anyone knew at the time, he was the father. Shit, he must have fucked the woman around the time of conception. Or maybe he was one of these guys who liked to watch other guys **** his wife... you know, that's an actual fetish? (Thanks, Internet!)

Really not the state's job to sort that out..

 

[JoeB131]

No, Joey is a psychotic Stalinist.

Oh, Ditchweed, I know you want my attention, but you have to actually say something interesting.

 

[Marion Morrison]

No, Joey is a psychotic Stalinist.

Oh, Ditchweed, I know you want my attention, but you have to actually say something interesting.

How do you manage to be wrong so often?

Is it intentional, or are you really that derp?

 

[JoeB131]

How do you manage to be wrong so often?

Is it intentional, or are you really that derp?

again, buddy, you have to say interesting stuff for me to pay attention to you.

 

[Marion Morrison]

How do you manage to be wrong so often?

Is it intentional, or are you really that derp?

again, buddy, you have to say interesting stuff for me to pay attention to you.

Derp, got it, thx.

 

[Vastator]

You keep repeating that. Even when you know it’s not the case. You yourself posted the link that demonstrates that the state proclaims a woman’s husband to be the father. Regardless of facts. If your down to repeating a lie... I’d say youre out of gas Joey. Your going to have to start demonstrating principled, fact based decisions here. Lest I become too bored with your contrarian habits..

The law says the man who the woman was married to is the father. Period. Done. Not really the state's job to sort out a man's inadequacies as a man and husband.

Well your guess was wrong. Another issue that arises when you declare a stance absent facts. So back to your “principles”. What IQ threshold entitles a person to facts based justice. Be specific.

Dude, you responded to the same post three times... must have hit a never. Anyway, if the guy was too stupid to realize his wife was stepping out on his lame dick, the state should be the ones to sort that out 10 years after the fact because he wants to weasel out of taking care of a dying kid?

Regardless of rarity; the responsibility is the issue. Answer the question, from your principled position.

Already have. He put his name on the birth certificate. As far as anyone knew at the time, he was the father. Shit, he must have fucked the woman around the time of conception. Or maybe he was one of these guys who liked to watch other guys **** his wife... you know, that's an actual fetish? (Thanks, Internet!)

Really not the state's job to sort that out..

That’s a whole lot of shuckin’, and jivin’, to dodge the challenge of applying principles as you’ve been challenged...

 

[miketx]

Fake news from fake Americans.

 

[miketx]

No, Joey is a psychotic Stalinist.

Oh, Ditchweed, I know you want my attention, but you have to actually say something interesting.

Apparently not since you gave him your attention.

 

[JoeB131]

That’s a whole lot of shuckin’, and jivin’, to dodge the challenge of applying principles as you’ve been challenged...

did i need to use smaller words for you?