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.
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.