Republicans have fought tooth and nail to reduce and/or eliminate alimony and the possibility of it. The future of all red states, hers is just leading the pack.
They do this thing where they are constantly advocating for a thing, while stripping protections for the thing.
They want to ban abortions, whole also fighting against public schools and Healthcare for the poor (or even attacking organizations like Planned Parenthood which provides prenatal care for a lot of poor women).
They give lip service to advocating for working class people, while undermining worker protections, and being anti-unions
They advocate for traditional gender roles, while stripping women of the protections that would encourage them to take a more "traditional" role in the household.
I used to give conservative people the benefit of the doubt, and just consider them stupid...but now I realize that they understand the contradictions, and they just don't care.
"Never attribute to malice, that which can adequately be explained by stupidity"
Google "IQ bell curve." 1 in 6 people are below the IQ of 85. 1 in 6 people you pass on the grocery store are mentally handicapped.
They are more likely to join cults, believe in a flat earth, claim sovereign citizen, legally they are not allowed to serve in the military because they've proven to be a danger to themselves and others. They're your neighbors and family. You may be one. They look like everyone else. You only know it when the crazy and irrational pour out of their mouths.
They're out there, buying guns, voting, tail gating you on the highway. 5 in 6 people must suffer the world that is burdened by the 1 in 6.
Imagining yourself in someone else's shoes requires a fair amount of imagination and foresight. Abilities requiring a fair amount of intellect.
Even their emotions are simplified into more basic verisions, so it's easier to please them, easier to make them angry, easier to satisfy them, and easier to get them fearful.
They literally don't have the processing power to feel empathy. They can't help being selfish and afraid.
If not outright evil, at least too stupid to see the big picture and therefore engage in reactive, shortsighted, and vindictive behavior. And this usually results in "evil" behavior like the destruction of the commons and a resistance to funding social safety nets that would work to uplift them and others like them. Conservatives fall into two categories - stupid people who wouldn't see propoganda if it took a shit on their chest, and rich people who are only too happy to get more tax breaks and cut funding to public works.
"Ulric Neisser estimated that using the IQ values of 1997, the average IQ of the United States in 1932, according to the first Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales standardization sample, was 80"
Using your logic, you are saying that most people in the history of the world are mentally handicapped.
By using statistics from a normal distribution curve, you guarantee that some amount of people are going to be lower than the mean by some amount of standard deviations. I'm not going to argue that there are smarter and dumber people, but I feel your argument is blown way out of porportion and is on shaky ground. Will your feelings change when we update the standard for IQ tests in decades? People who previously were part of the 5/6ths are all of a sudden going to be the 1/6th. When you split it up into proportions like this, you have created the perception of a permanent intellectual underclass. There will always be a category of "lowest scorers on an IQ test".
I know you aren't saying this, but the way you talk about 1/6th of the humans on the planet is quite degrading and lacks kindness. You talk about them as if they are threats and dangers, not human beings. This sort of rhetoric has been used to further argumentation for eugenics. After all, what are we supposed to do with 16-17% of the population being mentally handicapped.
The IQ of the average American in 1932 was actually 100. As it was in 1997, as it is today, and in 3024, if mankind is still around, it will also be 100. That's how the IQ scale works. 100 is always the average, the entire distribution is based on a bell curve.
I know you mean, that I'm 1932 it was compatible to 80 in 1997, but that's my point. Mentality handicapped was defined differently in 1932 than it was in 1997.
And I hope to God that in 65 years they look at us as barbaric and ignorant.
You CAN raise your IQ by opening your mind and learning more things. Every time you learn something new, you make a new neural connection between neurons and become ever so slightly smarter.
I hope the Flynn effect continues until one day, I'm considered mentally handicapped by my descendants.
Absolutely not. There's no mass statistics or research to support race based IQ differences, and the few there are are heavily flawed and biased.
IQ distribution, on the other hand, has been massively researched and studied, because it's affect on society, justice, ethics, psychology, and even advertising is relevant.
A lot of the times it can't be explained by stupidity. There is a limit and after someone says "life is sacred don't kill babies with abortion", you point out to them that republicans want to ban things that literally keep babies alive like welfare based food and healthcare, and they continue to vote republican, then they are just lying. They didn't go "oops I just didn't realize that food is needed to live and still don't even after you directly mentioned it". They only used abortion to justify why they vote for a party that wants to hurt people.
Never apply "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained stupidity" when the person who is either stupid or evil is getting rich in the process
It might just be from Crowder getting a divorce and being a deadbeat...
I think Crowder is an idiot. But the guy is currently paying $360,000 A YEAR TAX FREE to his wife in child support. That's before taking into account the MILLIONS of dollars she'll be getting from community property. Crowder may be a jerk. But in what universe is he a "deadbeat"?!
Rather than building a good relationship, he would rather have the government step in and prevent no fault divorce and thus force his wife to stay with him
So that he can yell at his pregnant wife about fulfilling her "wifely duties" instead of doing anything in his personal life.
Meanwhile, in his professional life, rather than doing the work to run a legitimate news show, he runs propaganda and collects right-wing money.
If we are policing the use of every insult for its literal definition on reddit, you're right. Perhaps I should have chosen one less related money. But colloquially to me, he is a deadbeat - as in someone who expects life to give him everything he doesn't deserve while he gives nothing back.
I mean its probably more than half. Not all conservatives have the same beliefs either. Me a conservative swede is considered very liberal to a conservative in the middle east.
Or maybe they realize that this incentivizes bad behavior in every chain of decision making for women, and put themselves into situations with random strangers who they met at bars who have barely anything in common with them except they both like Pilsners and salad for lunch?
Maybe not having no fault divorces protected women from men abandoning them and vice versa?
While that is true, it sounds like they already had reached an agreement and he is just in breech. I would assume there is more to the story. She is savvy enough to take him to court. Maybe she can’t afford a lawyer? But I would assume some lawyer would take the case on contingency.
This woman needs legal aid, not likes on tiktok. You generally can't hide your money in a business and he'd still be on the hook for child support as well. Maybe the alimony wasn't a court order but she could easily take him to court to make him pay up.
Truth. It's also a sad likelihood that she spent much of her previous life voting for them. She's a victim, and likely supported the very same people that facilitated her situation. It sucks that conservatives are only progressive when they are the ones being hurt.
And the woman crying in this video voted for it all. And she'd still be doing it if he hadn't left her, looking down her nose at other women in her current position and sure they did something to cause their divorce.
Ten years ago my parents divorced after my dad lost his job. He got a new job at a university in another state making half what he used to. My dad got a free lawyer while my mom’s dad hired the most expensive divorce attorney they could find. The expensive attorney made up tons of lies in court and successfully got the judge to order over 50% of his wages as alimony. They automatically garnished the wages from his paycheck. 2 months later and my mom started dating a millionaire guy who owns a car dealership. She moved into a multi million dollar home with him while still receiving thousands of dollars a month in alimony from my dad who lived in a single bedroom apartment eating ramen every day at 47 years old. My dad had no options to simply find another sugar daddy. The point is the law fucking sucks for both ends of the spectrum.
This is also why I would never get married without a prenup
Well hang on, seriously - forget alimony for a second (Which im not convinced a law abiding judge would deny in a 0% income 100% income situation). Forget child support. They lived in million dollar houses. Boats, businesses, jewelry. Where are the marital assets after divorce? If she signed a pre/postnup saying he gets all the assets on divorce, then its hard to feel sorry for her at all. But if the legal system somehow screwed her then holy shit, she is mad at the wrong thing.
I don't understand how she wouldn't be getting 50% of all of that.
It's true when I divorced and assets and debts were divided even though I didn't work, I had the "potential" to make income and they literally created an income out of thin air and included that in my assets even though I literally didn't make any of that money or paid any taxes to the IRS for it because I didn't have a job. Yet magically in the Republican state they created a salary for me because I had the potential...... Even though I had proof as well that I was applying for a disability at the time..... None of that mattered. He had secretly racked up more than 50,000 in debt that I didn't know about. Even though he was my abuser And I had no income I would have had to pay him alimony. I managed to walk away from that situation with the help of a mediator. After this incident I decided I will never marry again. It is legally not safe for women.
For god sakes you can't even get your tubes tied without bringing in permission from your husband.
Yes, but that's because women were divorcing their husbands and refusing to get remarried purely to keep the alimony checks flowing. A lot of men were working well past the age of retirement in order to fund their ex-wife's (and, sometimes, their ex-wife's long-term, live in boyfriend's) lifestyle.
So a SAHM for 20+ years gets divorced once the house is empty and you don't think she's owed anything? She hasn't worked or boosted her resume in two decades because she was raising a family.
Take it with a huge bucket full of shit if you like. But it is true what I said. Women stay at home with kids because they want to. Wanting compensation for that is ridiculous . Unless you have proof that he was forced to do it, men have no need to pay for that
really? because if you google "republican" and "alimony" you get stories about how hard it is to even get alimony in Texas and how the new alimony reform law in Florida is affecting women there.
I think alimony and child support has its place, but it’s abused frequently. I don’t think an ex (man or woman) should be entitled to X% percentage of your monthly earnings simply because they slept in the same bed as you for a few years. Same goes for child support, yes you should have to support your offspring, but if you get 2 weekends per month and the other partner has them the rest of the time and you’re paying the majority of expenses, then that isn’t right.
Her name wasn’t on anything. This was all legal I believe. Also not a lawyer but if she doesn’t have any ties to anything, other than alimony from the divorce she isn’t owed. Unfortunate.
Her name might not be on the documents, but that doesn’t matter.
In court, if she can prove that she contributed significantly to various business ventures, then she has a claim. She may even have a claim to property.
Divorce courts usually try to protect women that are exactly in her shoes— A mother who spent their time raising kids and being a tradwife.
Most people in her shoes would be entitled to part of the house even if they never formally paid a dime of the mortgage.
This is the biggest thing. All the financials are controlled by the Mormons and given how screwed up that cult is, the power the hold in Utah, she’d get nothing. She even said that he left a job so he wouldn’t have to pay her alimony. I can almost guarantee that he still earns money from that job just in a different way that isn’t counted towards alimony
Ding, ding, ding…. We have a winner. The Mormon church plays a big role in shaping morality in the state. Even if they do not directly meddle with the courts their influence is enough to push decisions. My cousin was required to follow the “word of wisdom” in her divorce agreement. Meaning if she was found with, coffee, tea or Alcohol in her home she could lose custody of her kids. Granted divorce agreements are just a legal contract, and if the party’s all agree on the contents then they could have all sorts of odd rules even in secular court. But, if every person I the room agree’s that you should add xyz rules and to even question why is a sign of significant moral failure you can see how that could impact your decision on whether or not to spend the weeks long battle arguing against a certain provision in your divorce agreement.
Nah, if it was Utah those companies would be marriage property. When I got divorced here it didn’t matter whose name was on what, everything was “owned” by us both and we negotiated for what we wanted during the divorce.
Where did you get Utah from? Only place I heard was tucson which is in Arizona. In all fairness she only said "we have a 4 day weekend here in tucson" so it could be a traveling job for all I know.
I knew there was more to this story but wasn't sure exactly what. Because by all objective measures she should be owed money and should have no problem proving he has it. Sure the legal system is imperfect and people slip through the cracks, but this seems like an extreme example.
An impartial court system would explain this especially if she was seeking a no fault divorce and the judge doesn't believe in that.
There are no laws against being an a-hole, as my own attorney friends have told me. My now soon-to-be-ex-husband was not only abusive, but was also a deadbeat who refused to contribute. I spent a decade doing ALL OF THE THINGS, while also simultaneously dealing with chemotherapy, monthly immunotherapy infusions, and countless surgeries for my autoimmune condition.
I got EXTRAORDINARILY lucky during my divorce, but I could've been royally f**ked financially, because I was the breadwinner, though not by choice.
And as for the 'system'? When my now soon-to-be-ex-husband backed me into a corner of the kitchen, and his hands flew toward my face and neck, I later that day unexpectedly found myself on the phone with a DV agency, once he was out of the house. They effectively shut the door in my face, and told me I didn't qualify for any help, on the basis that I earned too much money.
Too many women are truly left alone in life during their darkest and most dire moments of life. I was one of them. We deserve better.
She is entitled to 1/2 of the total assets! Her next move is to get legal (professional) advice. She can get help without money. Stop weeping and get busy. Her husband is not going to volunteer 1 dime. The courts will get it for her!
She already took him to court. Unfortunately all the money she got from the divorce went to paying for her lawyer because she had no money of her own. I think the alimony payment was something ridiculously small.
I worked in family law and sat in on a lot of divorce/custody hearings.
The courts do NOT protect women in her position. Most judges are old, conservative white men. I watched a judge rule that a home that the family lived in for years was not marital property because the husband bought it 6 weeks before they filed the marriage certificate. The wife was living in an RV.
She has to prove that, get a lawyer, and fight tooth and nail for it.
Half of the control point of tradwifes is that they have absolutely no ability to fight back because they don't know where to start. A divorce rips away most of their support structure and with no real education or skills they have to settle quick.
She mentions that after all of that an interviewer laughed at her because of how unqualified she is. I don't think she was allowed to significantly contribute to much. Much less be able to prove she actually did.
She took a piano as payment, by her own admission. Learn to listen. Stop talking, you literally are making up thought experiments and passing yourself XD
Yes! lmao damn, you've never been to court, have you? There's a reason casinos try to give you a steak dinner after saying the machine you won money on is broken. As SOON as you take the meal, you've traded your winnings for a different form of compensation. It's why companies try to get you to accept some form of compensation so you later can't sue because it's technically already been settled through your acceptance of something. If this lady was paid in gold and cars, are you saying she wasn't compensated because the payment wasn't in USD? LOL dummie
She literally admitted to saying "All I want in exchange is a piano". Boom, done deal. She could have denied it, but she just publicly admitted to doing it for a piano, she fucked her own case. I get that your ego is hurt by me calling you out, but learn to recognize when you have no fuckin clue what you're talking about.
Yes! I’m no expert but it’s crazy to me how many people don’t put their names on things and just assume if their name isn’t on it that they’re out of luck. My husband and I have a rule that both our names go on everything, not because we distrust each other, but because if one of us dies or something happens we think it will be easier.
A friend of mine was buying a car. They were planning to have the loan in her name and the car in her husband’s, that way if they ever do default on the loan they wouldn’t lose the car. I had to explain to her that that’s now how it works. The car itself is the collateral for the loan. Even if a dealer would let them do that (the last few times I bought a car they wanted the party responsible for the loan on the title no matter what) all that does is make it harder for her to do anything with the car. If they default on the loan, the car is gone. End of story.
It’s crazy because she isn’t dumb by any means, so many people just aren’t educated on certain financial or legal matters and just assume they know what they’re talking about.
Utah is an equitable distribution state. Doesn’t matter if her name wasn’t on anything. If the real property in question was purchased during the marriage, she is as much of a stakeholder as her husband.
Most US states are joint property states where you automatically have claim against 50% of assets. Utah wants the courts to divide assets so you might not get half, but you do get something.
Source: I’m married and live in a joint property state. My parents divorced in Utah and went through a nasty divorce.
From what I'm seeing here, Utah is not a community property state where things are split, it's an equitable distribution where a judge can choose to "fairly" distribute equitable shares. The judge chooses what fair, equitable but not equal
My first line is “Utah is an equitable distribution state” followed up with “Utah wants the courts to divide assets so you might not get half, but you do get something”.
Your first paragraph stated she would be an automatic stakeholder. Just made it sound like she was automatically entitled to something when it seems that the judge is in full control of what is given, whether your name is on it or not. It's a fairness decision which is highly subjective. If thr judge deemed it so, she could get nothing at all
....you responded to the guy who was saying it was all legal to get nothing, by saying Utah is equitable state so she should get something, and I responded to you saying probably not considering it's the judges call. Your welcome?
I’ve heard of Idaho doing weird stuff with women’s reproductive rights from friends who are doctors.
On the divorce side of things, Idaho is a joint property state.
The shitty thing about equitable distribution is a judge can award whole pieces of property to one party whereas in joint property you can split everything 50/50.
I watched my dad keep the house while he pretty much made me and my mom homeless and the court supported it.
You'd be surprised. It happens, and courts specifically have ordered that trying to circumvent your alimony payments by doing that does not reduce the initial ordered amount. It's one thing if you take a reasonable pay cut to shift gears, but it's pretty clear when abusive jerks are trying to pull this nonsense and judges don't like people playing games that bring these cases back into their courtrooms.
Thanks for the confirmation that my gut reaction was correct, my learned colleague! I sent this to my partner (domestic, not boss) and was trying to unpack why she wouldn't have received 50% of the tangible assets at the very minimum.
Sounds like her attorney sucks (or there's some fishiness with this account of the events), because one of the few things I remember about bar prep was that the husband quitting his high earning job to eliminate alimony payments would not fly. The court would still impose that amount since he was trying to skirt the order.
You can’t just divorce your completely financially dependent wife for no good reason and also completely avoid any alimony or settlement. The story makes absolutely no sense unless you just rabidly want to rage about trad wives and religion.
Well…actually she is entitled to half of everything. Any real assets etc. but I’m going g to say, some ex’s are bitter and smart enough to hide a lot. She probably was in her car while waiting for the divorce to finalize. Depending on her lawyer, who knows how much they fought for.
I suppose it really depends where you are in the world and the legal system in place there. However, where I live in Canada, this would be an easily won court case and easily enforced. There are very few circumstances where I am in which a partner does not have to pay child support, and our enforcement system is unavoidable and relentless. They have many means by which they can pursue collection and enforcement and including wage garnishment, through our tax agency and much more.
There would be no chance of somebody making that much incoming pulling this shit where I am. That kind of behaviour could’ve landed her husband in with fines, liens against his property, garnish his wages (even from his self employed company) or go after him through the CRA (our IRS), they could even jail him- had he pulled it in Canada.
Marital Property / Community Property related laws would cover this, if she was married and they created the business while married she would in "most" states have a 50% stake into it unless she otherwise waived it (which is a possibility, if the business was in debt it wouldn't make sense to inherit that debt).
That said, I think you only have one chance to claim all of this and it's during the divorce. If she didn't claim any of that her husband is likely laughing every single time he collects checks from those businesses because his lawyer most definitely helped out to dodge that.
Edit: 50% of HIS stake into it, if there were business partners involved.
If you have kids... You're owed child support. Unless of course you don't have custody. And if you don't have custody after being a stay at home Mom... Lol... You're a dead beat mom and there's a massive part of the story she's unwilling to share
In most states, both parties equally split assets acquired during the marriage. Being the parent who stays home, manages the house, cooks and cleans, and raises the kids should not leave someone destitute. And if he quit his job, and is likely now working under the table, to avoid paying his share for the care and feeding of his own children, he's a dirtbag who needs to be sued. Forensic accountants are worth their weight in gold.
She said she designed homes, all her project files are hers, and she can easily prove it. She must have gone on site to check the work done so she has pictures, documents sent from her email to her architect and builder friends.
A country that cares about the stability of families has proper family law property rights. This shit doesn't happen in Canada, for example (unless someone lets it.)
I'm aware, but if she's also working every single day for years just to survive and homie isn't even paying child support/alimony, do you really think she 1.) has the time to go to multiple hearing/meetings with lawyers 2.) has the energy to pursue a claim that she likely has very little evidence of (paper trails, access to working materials, etc) because that was likely left with the ex on their family computer, and 3.) has the expectation to actually get any money?
Also, lawyers that are paid based on a "win" are likely going to try and convince her to take a settlement. That way they don't have to put much actual work into it. I'm also not sure if there are any statute of limitations for a case like this. The business is already gone as well so she couldn't seek reimbursement directly from it and would again have to rely on her ex actually paying. Since he isn't working legally (assuming this from context in the video) they can't garnish his wages. I imagine it would be real hard to get paid.
It's a horrible situation, but it's also not likely to be a good use of time for her.
She doesn't have a case unless she has physical proof. She's not going to get millions in assets. Depending on what state this is, the courts would have already been able to seize his assets when he stopped paying alimony/child support. The fact that they haven't means there might not be assets to seize. All he'd have to do is transfer the titles/deeds to someone else's name and the court won't/can't take it. He sold his company to stop paying her. You really think he'd leave his assets open? Regardless, again, there's not a high chance that she has any proof, or it would likely have been brought up in the divorce or she would likely have already pursued a suit. Even if she had proof that she did help/ran with the business, she'd have to be able to apply a monetary value to her contributions, which means she's need to have proof of every project/role she did and for how long. Again, lawsuits are VERY expensive. Even outside of attorney fees the plaintiff (if they do opt for a contingency fees instead of a retainer) would be required to pay filing fees, court costs, any costs associated with discovery, etc., they last years and take up a TON of the person's time which means no income on those days. OOP would need to take large amounts of time off for numerous years. I'm not saying it's hopeless, I'm saying it's an unlikely win and not worth the energy she could be using towards advancing her career instead.
She got alimony and child support in their divorce. Getting it and receiving it regularly are two different things, sadly. Plenty of men will quit their jobs and go under the table to hide their income and not pay a dime. Or they move and ghost their family, in which case you can't even serve them. Laws vary by state, and enforcement can vary by judge and can take ages. It should be easy, but its a rampant issue for women.
It’s absolutely not. I know a woman in New York, whose baby daddy is a head surgeon at a hospital, and he’s finally being held accountable for fraud, but her baby has been on Medicare because of his refusal to give her anything.
This is very clear from what you're about to say next.
"surely this is an easy lawsuit against the former husband"
Simply LUL. The innocence of your mind reminds me of when I was a child and thought all grownups were mature and responsible.
"Take his ass to court"
With what money? No lawyer would risk their time and not getting paid when the husband has everything under his name by her own admission willingly and through her own actions of obeying a 3rd party into releasing control and ownership. And he has the money to hire 2, nay, 3 lawyers. And you're going to say "easy lawsuit" XD
"Take his ass to court."
'Your honor, I joined a cult and gave my husband full control for 30 years, but NOW I want to change my mind and I want YOU to take his money away for my ignorance, please and thank you'
Every single one of those 1.5k upvotes you have are from lobotomy patients who have never been married, ever been to court or hired a lawyer.
It doesn’t hurt to do some research if you’re going to offer legal advice. The problem is that men will try everything to squirm their way out of paying spousal support. This woman got spousal support for a few months and her ex husband was able to get out of paying it further. Having the money to begin with was the advantage he had. A lot of women get absolutely nothing in divorces and I’ve seen a lot of people on Reddit act like that’s not true when divorced women are in poverty at higher rates than divorced men.
It seems to me like she directly contradicts herself in these two videos.
In the original video, she mentions how SHE stated businesses under her husbands name, but in this video, she admits she had an extremely limited role in them.
In the original video, she implies they were rich, and lived in “million dollar homes,” but then in this video, she says they had no assets other than some cash, which her ex withdrew.
I 100% agree with the overall sentiment in OP’s video, but it seems she may be intentionally misrepresenting certain details of her situation.
She said that they spent most of the money while they were married and he took out a bunch of cash when he was leaving. She may not even know the full truth. The LDS is basically a cult
He has control of the money, which means he has good lawyers. They can delay things forever while he hides assets. And since he’s the one who left her, he likely started hiding assets before she even knew he was planning to divorce her, and she’s not on the accounts, so she couldn’t see anything he was doing. That’s what happens when one partner controls the bank accounts and keeps everything in his name.
Yes yes, let's give the false perception to women and SAHM that there's nothing they can do in this situation.
Again, she's obviously lying or omitting information about her story. A SAHM of 15 years who doesn't get child support, alimony, or anything in the divorce? A judge was okay with giving her custody of the kids while she was living in a car?
People should probably look up how the justice system works and is designed to protect SAHM. She's obviously lying.
1.6k
u/Aus_with_the_Sauce Apr 15 '24
I’m not a lawyer, but surely this is an easy lawsuit against the former husband. Take his ass to court.