Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Fugget about it!Follow

#152 Jan 24 2014 at 9:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:
For me, that would depend on the situation. I can see the argument for that if "what the child is accustomed to" is similar to the cost of living of the area.


That's a nearly impossible standard to manage though. What area? The one she was living in prior to the divorce? The one the father is living in now? The one the mother and child are living in now? I'm just not getting why you seem to want to apply some additional and unnecessary "standard" to this.

Quote:
If the wife was the one who wanted the daughter to have horseback riding lessons, I don't think the father should be forced to continue paying for the lessons.


Why not? The father was willing to pay for the daughters lessons when he was married to her mother, but not now that they're divorced? Why? What changed to make that happen? On what planet do you think that makes a lick of sense and is anything more than someone punishing the child for the actions of the other parent?

Sorry. I disagree with you there.

Quote:
However, if the daughter had a horseback riding scholarship and the lessons were crucial for her advancement, then I would reconsider it.


You're kidding, right? That's yet another impossible standard to manage. How the **** is anyone going to determine this?

Quote:
The point being that I could spoil my children everyday for 10 years, giving them whatever they wanted. I can then wake up one day and donate everything to charity and live life without the luxuries and that would not only be legal, but applauded by many.


And if that decision happens to coincide with a divorce settlement, I'd strongly suspect that you're doing it to be an **** and not out of some kind of altruism.

Quote:
So, it doesn't make sense for the court to force your children to have luxuries during a divorce, but not during a marriage.


It does, however, make sense for the court to do what it can to prevent someone from using the divorce as an excuse to radically reduce the amount of money he provides for his children. I actually kinda agree with you to a point that the court shouldn't arbitrarily set some amount based on your earnings, but it should be based on what you were spending before. So if you were a super frugal person while married the court should not mandate that you pay child support to your former spouse in an amount sufficient to provide a higher level of living than they had while married. However, it should be able to mandate that you provide sufficient child support to maintain the same level of living.


It's just that the whole "Well, I could have decided to live like a bum while married, so I shouldn't have to provide more than a bums support for my children" bit smacks of selfishness when you didn't live that way when married and only now decide this is what you want to do now that you're faced with the potential of child support payments.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#153 Jan 24 2014 at 11:13 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That's a nearly impossible standard to manage though. What area? The one she was living in prior to the divorce? The one the father is living in now? The one the mother and child are living in now? I'm just not getting why you seem to want to apply some additional and unnecessary "standard" to this.
Don't confuse the cost of living for the CHILD with the cost of living for the adult. The point is to focus on the child and those prices wont vary as much. With that being said, the cost of living would focus on where the child will be living when the father (assuming he's the one paying) is paying the child support. Of course there will be other variables, but it will start from there as opposed to your salary.

Gbaji wrote:
Why not? The father was willing to pay for the daughters lessons when he was married to her mother, but not now that they're divorced? Why? What changed to make that happen? On what planet do you think that makes a lick of sense and is anything more than someone punishing the child for the actions of the other parent?

Sorry. I disagree with you there.
1. Uhhh. because husbands pay for things that their wives want, even if they think its a waste of money? If your WIFE wants something, you kind of have *some* level of responsibility to provide it. If the woman is no longer your wife, you no longer have that level of responsibility.

2. If he decided to stop paying it on his own during the marriage, he wouldn't be forced to pay for it, so why force him to pay during a divorce? In respect to the child (notice the theme), there is no difference. In reference to the paying parent, who might eventually have another family and kids to support, it makes a ton of difference.

Gbaji wrote:

You're kidding, right? That's yet another impossible standard to manage. How the **** is anyone going to determine this?
You're intentionally trying to over complicate things. We already know the basic necessities for a child. We start there. If the mother claims that her daughter needs piano lessons, then it's up to the mother to prove it. Likewise, it would be the father's onus to prove that he is unable to pay for it if the judge accepts the mother's argument. It's really that simple.


____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#154 Jan 25 2014 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Gurue
*****
16,281 posts
In Alma's world, when the father moves out, he stops loving his children and wanting them to have anything more than the basics. I think we've learned a lot here today, people.
#155 Jan 25 2014 at 4:34 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Nadenu wrote:
In Alma's world, when the father moves out, he stops loving his children and wanting them to have anything more than the basics. I think we've learned a lot here today, people.

Almalieque wrote:
I would much rather save money for my child's first car or for college tuition than give a monthly stipend 3 times of what is necessary to survive, especially if the mom is just spending it on herself.

Almalieque wrote:
I didn't say "limited" to basic needs or my example of unemployment benefits would be a complete contradiction

Almalieque wrote:
My overall complaint is that you can't accurately determine the standard of living of the child purely based off the income of the parents without making assumptions.

Almalieque wrote:
If the wife was the one who wanted the daughter to have horseback riding lessons, I don't think the father should be forced to continue paying for the lessons. However, if the daughter had a horseback riding scholarship and the lessons were crucial for her advancement, then I would reconsider it.

Almalieque wrote:
The focus should be on the child. The amount should start off with "cost of living" and then go up/down from there.

Almalieque wrote:
With that being said, the cost of living would focus on where the child will be living when the father (assuming he's the one paying) is paying the child support. Of course there will be other variables, but it will start from there as opposed to your salary.

Almalieque wrote:
In respect to the child (notice the theme), there is no difference. In reference to the paying parent, who might eventually have another family and kids to support, it makes a ton of difference.

Almalieque wrote:
We already know the basic necessities for a child. We start there. If the mother claims that her daughter needs piano lessons, then it's up to the mother to prove it. Likewise, it would be the father's onus to prove that he is unable to pay for it if the judge accepts the mother's argument.

I've learned that people still make comments against me without actually reading what I wrote. Then people act surprised when I claim that "everyone" else is wrong as opposed to me.

How many times must ye be burned before you learn?


Edited, Jan 26th 2014 12:38am by Almalieque
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#156 Jan 26 2014 at 2:30 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
No-one's surprised, Almalieque. We're just disappointed. You can do better than this.

...Can't you?
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#157 Jan 26 2014 at 9:12 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Kavekk wrote:
No-one's surprised, Almalieque. We're just disappointed. You can do better than this.

...Can't you?


Disappointed in what? Do better in what and how? Please explain.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#158 Jan 27 2014 at 5:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
tl;dr: Alma wants every case where alimony needs to be paid to be looked at separately and in depth to get the fairest possible judgment with zero assumptions made and with the mom (or dad if the kid(s) live with him) would have to go to court over every little expense to prove what the kid does and doesn't need and whether the other parent needs to help pay for that.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#159 Jan 27 2014 at 6:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
11,909 posts
The courts really do not have that kind of time.
____________________________
"Observe what happens when you force a man to change"
Just as Planned.
#160 Jan 27 2014 at 6:19 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
tl;dr: Alma wants every case where alimony needs to be paid to be looked at separately and in depth to get the fairest possible judgment with zero assumptions made and with the mom (or dad if the kid(s) live with him) would have to go to court over every little expense to prove what the kid does and doesn't need and whether the other parent needs to help pay for that.


I'm not sure if you're trolling or truly dense. In any case, see post 155. I said nothing to that liking.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#161 Jan 27 2014 at 6:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
What you're saying is that you think the alimony paying parent should start off paying just basic costs of living and then it's up to the parents to fight over what the child does or doesn't need and what the paying parent can or can't afford which. That would have to go through some sort of 3rd party who can judge on these things which brings you to a court or a government agency, something overly complicated, awfully expensive and incredibly slow all in the interest of fairness because you don't think one can make reasonable assumptions based on income. Because you have no grasp of on reality.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#162 Jan 27 2014 at 7:08 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Alimony isn't child support. Alimony is support for a non-wage earning spouse. They're two separate issues.

Alma are you a deadbeat Dad?!

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#163 Jan 27 2014 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
Nadenu wrote:
I think we've learned a lot here today, people.
Doesn't look like anyone learned anything.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#164 Jan 27 2014 at 7:37 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Aethien wrote:
What you're saying is that you think the alimony paying parent should start off paying just basic costs of living and then it's up to the parents to fight over what the child does or doesn't need and what the paying parent can or can't afford which. That would have to go through some sort of 3rd party who can judge on these things which brings you to a court or a government agency, something overly complicated, awfully expensive and incredibly slow all in the interest of fairness because you don't think one can make reasonable assumptions based on income. Because you have no grasp of on reality.


1. Alimony isn't child support
2. The fact that you start off at a basic cost means that there wouldn't be a need to go over every detail, hence the basic cost. It has already been calculated.
3. That's exactly how everything else in life works. You're charged or given a certain amount of money based on some type of calculations. If for some reason you believe that you should pay less or be paid more, then it's up to you to argue otherwise.
4. Don't trip over the word "basic". I've stated that there should be other variables involved, but the point was to start at the average cost of living vs your salary. If you think your child deserves more/less money than the average child, then you should be able to argue your point.
5. This tactic actually would simplify things. Instead of starting off with your salary, which is inherently wrong, and having the parents argue over the costs, start off with something more accurate.

Elinda wrote:

Alma are you a deadbeat Dad?!


Holy crap... Do you people read anything? How is arguing to support your children any indication of being a deadbeat dad?
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#165 Jan 27 2014 at 8:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
The courts really do not have that kind of time.

Well, that's what the lawyers are for. And, really, that's what they usually do -- work out an agreement between the two of them and just bring it before the judge to be blessed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#166 Jan 27 2014 at 8:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
Elinda wrote:
Alimony isn't child support. Alimony is support for a non-wage earning spouse. They're two separate issues.

Alma are you a deadbeat Dad?!

Ah, damnit. got the terms messed up in my head.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#167 Jan 27 2014 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,179 posts
Yeah I think alimony is its own other can of worms, and you could definitely argue that the recipient of alimony should only get the minimum required to not starve - no "lifestyle to which he/she was accustomed" stuff involved.

But the kid did nothing wrong if the parents get divorced, so why should the kid be punished?
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#168 Jan 27 2014 at 9:07 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Yeah I think alimony is its own other can of worms, and you could definitely argue that the recipient of alimony should only get the minimum required to not starve - no "lifestyle to which he/she was accustomed" stuff involved.

Yeah, that'd be a compelling argument. "Hey, you take time off from your career to raise the kids and I'll focus on mine". "Hey it's been 12 years, I'm a CEO now, I'm going to go bang 22 year olds, why don't you run along and go back to an entry level job you haven't kept up with for over a decade and I'll make sure the kids have things."

Sounds perfect.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#169 Jan 27 2014 at 11:13 AM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,179 posts
Yeah, it's **** and unfair, but the ex-wife can get a job. A kid can't.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#170 Jan 27 2014 at 12:09 PM Rating: Good
Supreme Lionator
*****
14,174 posts
Quote:
The courts really do not have that kind of time.


The civil and family courts in Cardiff run anywhere from about thirty minutes to an hour behind most of the day, though they always seem to make up the time before they break for lunch at one. My suggestion is that we make the non-starvation of both parties, as well as court staff, contingent on the rapid formulation of an absurdly complex arrangement, as advocated by Almalieque. This is sure to foster a clean break with the minimum of hurt feelings and ongoing conflict. Definitely.

Quote:
Yeah I think alimony is its own other can of worms, and you could definitely argue that the recipient of alimony should only get the minimum required to not starve - no "lifestyle to which he/she was accustomed" stuff involved.


I suppose you could argue that, just as you could argue anything. Are you just idly listing one of an uncountable plurality of hypothetical arguments or are we to infer that it's an argument that you would make? The precedent, in this country at the least, is generally headed the other way - apart from an increasing acceptance of prenuptial agreements, which is distinct but not unconnected from the division from assets gained during marriage.

Still, your arguable model would be pretty progressive among the Indian Muslim community. So that's something, I suppose.
____________________________
“Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.”
#171 Jan 27 2014 at 1:02 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Yeah, it's sh*tty and unfair, but the ex-wife can get a job. A kid can't.

Oh well, **** and unfair? Let's definatley change the law then.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#172 Jan 27 2014 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
Catwho wrote:
Yeah, it's sh*tty and unfair, but the ex-wife can get a job.
Different states approach alimony differently, however all states will make allowances for it.

My dad, against the better judgement of his three lovely adult daughters, remarried shortly after my mom died. He came into the new marriage with my mom's pension, his pension, two homes and various other stuff. She had nothing but a part time job at the butcher shop and two dependent daughters. She must have been smarter than we gave her credit for though as after ten years of marriage she sought divorce - pretty much out of the blue (ten years is typically a legal division between a long term marriage and a short term marriage). Her daughters weren't at issue as they'd grown up and out in that ten years.

She got half of everything and he's into her for $800.00/month til he or she dies or she remarries. No one's gonna marry her.

Prenups should be mandated.



____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#173 Jan 27 2014 at 2:14 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
26,951 posts
Elinda wrote:
Prenups should be mandated.
I think they did that here last year, or at least they made getting a prenup the default or something. I honestly haven't paid attention to it much but I remember it being in the news a while ago.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#174 Jan 28 2014 at 1:00 AM Rating: Excellent
******
43,382 posts
I'm not concerned with alimony because I just plan on burying her in the yard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#175 Jan 28 2014 at 3:44 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Elinda wrote:
She got half of everything and he's into her for $800.00/month til he or she dies or she remarries. No one's gonna marry her.


That's definitely wrong. If she's the one filling for divorce, then she shouldn't get anything unless there's fault of the man, i.e. infidelity. Even then, there should be a time limit like unemployment benefits.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#176 Jan 31 2014 at 4:52 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Not to return to the OP but it's increasingly looking like Christie is screwed.
PW wrote:
David Wildstein, the former Port Authority official "who personally oversaw the lane closings on the George Washington Bridge in the scandal now swirling around Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey said on Friday that the governor knew about the lane closings when they were happening, and that he had the evidence to prove it," the New York Times reports.

Wildstein described the order to close the lanes as "the Christie administration's order" and said "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#177 Jan 31 2014 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
14,693 posts
Ya, but who can trust a Jew?
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#178 Jan 31 2014 at 5:24 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Not to return to the OP but it's increasingly looking like Christie is screwed.
Quote:

Wildstein described the order to close the lanes as "the Christie administration's order" and said "evidence exists as well tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago.



Impossible, he was hiking the Appalachian Trail then.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#179 Jan 31 2014 at 8:11 PM Rating: Decent
**
537 posts

repost

****

So Wildstein decided to put Christie out of the 2016 election cycle.

Then again, two years is a lot of time in politics. We already moving faster and faster on every news cycle. I don't think people even remember recent gvmt shutdown thing. So this is prolly even smaller potatoes.

Anyway, how badly did they scare the guy that he ratted out on a guy that is known to be somewhat vindictive, and, well, something of a ****
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#180 Jan 31 2014 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
*****
19,882 posts
Come on now, everybody under the bus!
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#181 Jan 31 2014 at 10:24 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
angrymnk wrote:


Then again, two years is a lot of time in politics. We already moving faster and faster on every news cycle. I don't think people even remember recent gvmt shutdown thing. So this is prolly even smaller potatoes.



That's true for saying something stupid or supporting an unpopular policy. There's no way people will forgive him intentionally **** over people for personal gain. Republicans will not risk supporting him. They doubted him before, there's no way they will support him now.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#182 Jan 31 2014 at 10:56 PM Rating: Decent
**
537 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:


Then again, two years is a lot of time in politics. We already moving faster and faster on every news cycle. I don't think people even remember recent gvmt shutdown thing. So this is prolly even smaller potatoes.



That's true for saying something stupid or supporting an unpopular policy. There's no way people will forgive him intentionally **** over people for personal gain. Republicans will not risk supporting him. They doubted him before, there's no way they will support him now.


Huh? Since when? In a country where people are actually arguing about voting against their own interest?

It does not look good for him right now. But in two years? American populace won't care as long as enough ads have a message along the lines of Putin apologists "well, he could have killed them".
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#183 Feb 01 2014 at 5:10 AM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:


Then again, two years is a lot of time in politics. We already moving faster and faster on every news cycle. I don't think people even remember recent gvmt shutdown thing. So this is prolly even smaller potatoes.



That's true for saying something stupid or supporting an unpopular policy. There's no way people will forgive him intentionally **** over people for personal gain. Republicans will not risk supporting him. They doubted him before, there's no way they will support him now.


Huh? Since when? In a country where people are actually arguing about voting against their own interest?

It does not look good for him right now. But in two years? American populace won't care as long as enough ads have a message along the lines of Putin apologists "well, he could have killed them".


I realize you're a troll, but it's the weekend... so heh.

The severity of the scandal makes a difference. Republicans did not trust him or support him without the scandal, they are surely not going to support him with the scandal. You have to remember that the Republicans are low in the polls, have lost the past two elections and have no clear front runner. Republicans will only support a candidate that they believe can win the general election and without the scandal, Christie was questionable.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#184 Feb 01 2014 at 8:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
It's less about the GOP specifically (although it hurts there as well) and more that Christie's Dem/Ind credibility is largely blown. Christie would have campaigned on a "I'm governor for a largish blue state and won with bipartisan support" platform but his favorability ratings with Democrats and independents have tanked since the scandals started coming out. There's no putting the bloom back onto the rose and now he has more of a Romney "I was governor of a blue state although now no one from the other side(s) there likes me much" vibe.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#185 Feb 01 2014 at 3:53 PM Rating: Default
**
537 posts
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
angrymnk wrote:


Then again, two years is a lot of time in politics. We already moving faster and faster on every news cycle. I don't think people even remember recent gvmt shutdown thing. So this is prolly even smaller potatoes.



That's true for saying something stupid or supporting an unpopular policy. There's no way people will forgive him intentionally **** over people for personal gain. Republicans will not risk supporting him. They doubted him before, there's no way they will support him now.


Huh? Since when? In a country where people are actually arguing about voting against their own interest?

It does not look good for him right now. But in two years? American populace won't care as long as enough ads have a message along the lines of Putin apologists "well, he could have killed them".


I realize you're a troll, but it's the weekend... so heh.

The severity of the scandal makes a difference. Republicans did not trust him or support him without the scandal, they are surely not going to support him with the scandal. You have to remember that the Republicans are low in the polls, have lost the past two elections and have no clear front runner. Republicans will only support a candidate that they believe can win the general election and without the scandal, Christie was questionable.


Wrote a long response, pressed post, the browser freaked out, and I lost it. Oh well, I will give you cliff notes.

Republican party is falling apart. Dems are slowly falling apart In two years people won't remember **** even if you show them pictures.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#186 Feb 01 2014 at 4:22 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Jophiel wrote:
It's less about the GOP specifically (although it hurts there as well) and more that Christie's Dem/Ind credibility is largely blown. Christie would have campaigned on a "I'm governor for a largish blue state and won with bipartisan support" platform but his favorability ratings with Democrats and independents have tanked since the scandals started coming out. There's no putting the bloom back onto the rose and now he has more of a Romney "I was governor of a blue state although now no one from the other side(s) there likes me much" vibe.


Of course the loss of Den/Ind support gave the final blow, but even with the support, the GOP was reluctant to support him. Before, it was possible for him to do it without the initial support of the GOP, just with the DEM/IND support. Now, that gap would have to be filled in by conservatives. Given the fact that the GOP nomination is anyone's game, people are no longer forced to support a frontrunner that s/he doesn't like. Furthermore, there was still the question if his brash personality was welcomed outside of the NE.

angrymnk wrote:
Wrote a long response, pressed post, the browser freaked out, and I lost it. Oh well, I will give you cliff notes.

Sounds like you're using Internet Explorer. Probably should change.

Angrymnk wrote:
Republican party is falling apart. Dems are slowly falling apart In two years people won't remember sh*t even if you show them pictures.

The falling apart of the Republican party is even more of the reason why they wont forget and nominate someone that will lose. If they were united, then they would have a frontrunner where we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're just making up stuff on the Democratic party.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#187 Feb 01 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Almalieque wrote:
Of course the loss of Den/Ind support gave the final blow, but even with the support, the GOP was reluctant to support him.

Well, he was the front-runner in GOP primary polling. Not by any huge margin (+4-6) but he had the plurality anyway. But, yeah, you already had conservative groups bemoaning the idea of another "blue state moderate governor" after Romney just got trounced with the same calling card.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#188 Feb 02 2014 at 1:37 AM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Of course the loss of Den/Ind support gave the final blow, but even with the support, the GOP was reluctant to support him.

Well, he was the front-runner in GOP primary polling. Not by any huge margin (+4-6) but he had the plurality anyway. But, yeah, you already had conservative groups bemoaning the idea of another "blue state moderate governor" after Romney just got trounced with the same calling card.


Don't get me wrong, I believe that he would have been the nominee, but reluctantly. If the polling numbers remained the same, it would be foolish to elect anyone else to potentially go against HRC.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#189 Feb 02 2014 at 10:02 AM Rating: Default
**
537 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
It's less about the GOP specifically (although it hurts there as well) and more that Christie's Dem/Ind credibility is largely blown. Christie would have campaigned on a "I'm governor for a largish blue state and won with bipartisan support" platform but his favorability ratings with Democrats and independents have tanked since the scandals started coming out. There's no putting the bloom back onto the rose and now he has more of a Romney "I was governor of a blue state although now no one from the other side(s) there likes me much" vibe.


Of course the loss of Den/Ind support gave the final blow, but even with the support, the GOP was reluctant to support him. Before, it was possible for him to do it without the initial support of the GOP, just with the DEM/IND support. Now, that gap would have to be filled in by conservatives. Given the fact that the GOP nomination is anyone's game, people are no longer forced to support a frontrunner that s/he doesn't like. Furthermore, there was still the question if his brash personality was welcomed outside of the NE.

angrymnk wrote:
Wrote a long response, pressed post, the browser freaked out, and I lost it. Oh well, I will give you cliff notes.

Sounds like you're using Internet Explorer. Probably should change.

Angrymnk wrote:
Republican party is falling apart. Dems are slowly falling apart In two years people won't remember sh*t even if you show them pictures.

The falling apart of the Republican party is even more of the reason why they wont forget and nominate someone that will lose. If they were united, then they would have a frontrunner where we wouldn't be having this conversation. You're just making up stuff on the Democratic party.


Key work about democratic party is 'slowly'. If you look at Vermont, you will understand what I mean.

Also, it was chrome.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#190 Feb 02 2014 at 6:44 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
8,939 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Key work about democratic party is 'slowly'. If you look at Vermont, you will understand what I mean.


If by "slowly" you mean "any change at all". I shouldn't have to look at one specific state in order to determine the fall of an entire party. It should be widespread in order for someone to claim the fall of an entire party. There will always be ups and downs. Now if you mean, "politics" in general, to include both Republicans and Democrats, then that's a different claim.

angrymnk wrote:
Also, it was chrome.


I've had that happened to me on IE a couple of times. Firefox tends to save the previous page even if I get an error when I select post. I recall the same with Chrome.
____________________________
Demea wrote:
Almalieque wrote:

I'm biased against statistics
#191 Feb 03 2014 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
I use IE at home. I was having some serious issues with this site about a month ago. It kept giving me an error message that the certificate thingy was bad. Some times I could refresh the page and it would go away, other times not.

I figure IE and Zam kissed and made up though, as it all just stopped one day.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#192 Feb 03 2014 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
******
43,382 posts
There simply is no better browser in the world than IE to download a new browser.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 9:59am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#193 Feb 03 2014 at 9:05 AM Rating: Excellent
******
30,635 posts
I have to use IE for work stuff for some reason. As a matter of fact, I specifically have to use IE version 9. I'm not sure why.

Also this:

Screenshot
#194 Feb 03 2014 at 9:10 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,666 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
There simply is no better browser in the world than IE to download a new browser.
Eh, it works.

Chrome broke, I tried re-installing it and it's still broke. I can't say that internet browsers are so very important to me that i care to spend any real amount of time attempting anything further.




Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 4:10pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#195 Feb 03 2014 at 3:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Don't get me wrong, I believe that he would have been the nominee, but reluctantly.


Highly unlikely that he would have even come close to being the nominee. I've never been a huge fan of Christie, but I get why people like him. He's got a strong "tell it like it is" persona, that people tend to like in a politician (in theory anyway). In reality, that sort of politics ends out getting you bounced out of national level runs because it's something that sounds great in principle, but makes it terrifically easy for the opposition to turn against you. There are far too many different groups that can be **** off by that sort of political approach.

Um... And at the risk of injecting something which maybe shouldn't matter. He's fat. Not "a little on the heavy side", but actually medically obese. We can all stand here and say it shouldn't affect his chances, but if we're honest we all know that alone costs him like 10 points in any national election (at least). People like their leaders healthy and strong. Fair or not, an obese person is assumed to have a lack of self control. And if he can't be trusted to keep his sweaty mitts off the dessert tray, how can we trust him with the nuclear **** of the worlds largest military?

Having said all of that, I have to admit that I'm honestly still confused about what the **** this whole scandal is actually about. I get that there were lanes closed that caused a big massive traffic jam. And I get that there were people who "knew about it" (which seems kinda "duh", since someone had to actually authorize it and send crews to do it). What I don't get, and haven't yet really heard a satisfactory explanation to is how we go from those facts to "The governors staff deliberately closed the lanes to create a traffic jam to <insert fuzzy logic here> harm some Mayor from the other party".

It just seems like a strange leap to make, yet, all the coverage and "investigation" seems to be focusing on whether various people in the governors staff knew about the closures, and not into the motivation and reasoning behind the closures themselves. I mean, I'm assuming the governor's staff weren't actually standing on the freeway with cones and orange vests themselves, right? So there had to be coordination with a whole set of different organizations which actually have direct control over things like freeway lane closures. So shouldn't we be looking at that process instead of going on a witch hunt through the governors office?


It would seem like minutes of meetings with whatever groups actually did the closures might yield more information as to why they happened and whether those reasons were legitimate, right? I mean, do we actually have anything other than wild speculation to suggest that this was actually some kind of political payback thing?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#196 Feb 03 2014 at 4:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,179 posts
The smoking gun was an email from Christie's chief of staff to the governor's hand picked appointee at the Port Authority:

Quote:
Kelley: Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee
Wildstein: Got it


These were sent via their personal email accounts, not the official NJ accounts. Within a week, the bridge was closed with no warning other than a "traffic study" that apparently bypassed all rules regarding traffic studies, all NJ regulations for traffic studies, and all common sense because you don't close lanes for traffic studies. The actual traffic study was a passive count of cars via cameras that were installed some time before.

The staff passed forth numerous emails commenting on the traffic jams and the complaints that they were receiving, and yet Christie claims he didn't know about the lane closures until they were over (which indicates incompetence or lying, depending on whether you believe him or not.) He also claims he barely knew Wildstein, despite them having been friends since high school and having been photographed all buddy buddy (along with Kelley) just months before.

Once this scandal started unfolding, a pattern of withholding funds or causing issues like this as punishment started to unveil between Christie's office and all the mayors in NJ. It's sounding more and more like an episode of the Sopranos. Christie's staff, caught red handed, has been resigning like flies and a few have pleaded the fifth as the investigation continues.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 5:32pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#197 Feb 03 2014 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Catwho wrote:
The smoking gun was an email from Christie's chief of staff to the governor's hand picked appointee at the Port Authority:

Quote:
Kelley: Time for some traffic problems in Fort Lee
Wildstein: Got it


Yeah. I've heard this. But this tells me that they knew that the lane closures would cause traffic problems (again, duh!). It doesn't lead me to "this was done as political payback". The whole thing just comes off like speculating about what terrible plot could have been behind it all, but not really establishing that this was behind it. Then going 3 steps past the evidence and launching an investigation.

That's not a smoking gun to me. Not unless you really leap to conclusions without facts. Where's the email saying "those traffic jams will teach <someone> to mess with us!"? That's what's missing. Where's the connection to this idea of it being political payback? I'm just not seeing it.

Quote:
These were sent via their personal email accounts, not the official NJ accounts. Within a week, the bridge was closed with no warning other than a "traffic study" that apparently bypassed all rules regarding traffic studies, all NJ regulations for traffic studies, and all common sense because you don't close lanes for traffic studies. The actual traffic study was a passive count of cars via cameras that were installed some time before.


Great. So let's start with the guys wearing the vests and putting out cones and trace the issue back from there. I guess my issue with this is that somehow we've bypassed like 8 levels of government right to the governors staff, apparently based on the wild speculation I mentioned earlier. I'm not seeing the dots in between though.

Quote:
The staff passed forth numerous emails commenting on the traffic jams and the complaints that they were receiving ...


Sure. Which is exactly what you'd expect if they knew that there was a traffic study going on, right? I'm not seeing how the fact that some members of his staff knew about the lane closures equates to a really wild assumption about why those closures happened.

Again, his staff weren't out there with orange vests and cones, right? So a whole group of people, all of whom presumably had much more direct responsibility with actually managing traffic on the highway system, were involved in this. Perhaps we should be looking at them first instead of leaping to the target(s) we want to investigate. This whole thing smacks of phony scandal.

Quote:
...and yet Christie claims he didn't know about the lane closures until they were over (which indicates incompetence or lying, depending on whether you believe him or not.) He also claims he barely knew Wildstein, despite them having been friends since high school and having been photographed all buddy buddy (along with Kelley) just months before.


Um... which at the absolute worse tells us only that some set of people knew about the lane closures. So what? This just sounds like a "gotcha" scandal. Something happens that garners public attention. The media jumps on it and speculates that anyone in the governors office who knew about it must have done something wrong. Magically, people in the governors office start denying knowing anything about it, not because they did a single thing wrong, but because there's an angry mob looking to blame anyone in the governor's office who knew about it. Meanwhile, we've forgotten that a whole ton of people also knew about and were directly involved in the planning and execution of the event itself. But because they aren't the political targets we want to attack, they get ignored.


If we're going to assume something nefarious of anyone who knew about this, then why aren't we looking at the folks who actually did the shutdown? Or their bosses? How did we skip all those levels and go right to the governor's staff? That's the part that I don't get. Admittedly, here on the west coast this didn't become a story until the very tail end, so maybe I'm asking questions that have already been answered, but I swear I've listened to lots of pundits rambling on and on about this, and I still don't see where the link is between what clearly had to have been an approved traffic closure to "this was all done to punish Democrats". I really honestly don't see it.

All of the discussions about this seem to start with the assumption that the closures must have been political payback so anyone who knew about them was "in on it", but I've yet to actually hear or read any explanation of why the starting assumption exists. It just is.

Quote:
Once this scandal started unfolding, a pattern of withholding funds or causing issues like this as punishment started to unveil between Christie's office and all the mayors in NJ. It's sounding more and more like an episode of the Sopranos. Christie's staff, caught red handed, has been resigning like flies and a few have pleaded the fifth as the investigation continues.


That's great and all, but doesn't indicate anything concrete about this specific case. It's just more circular innuendo. All those other actions are being interpreted as payback because it's assumed that this went on in this case. One leads to the other. Take one away, and there's nothing real there at all.

Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 3:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#198 Feb 03 2014 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,179 posts
You're missing the entire point.

Why is the Governor's Chief of Staff telling someone at Port Authority it's time for traffic problems?

Shouldn't that be the other way around? What the frig does the Governor of NJ's administration have to do with telling someone at an ostensibly independent department that that person, or department, is going to cause traffic problems in Fort Lee in approximately one week? Why is the person at the Authority acknowledging it, instead of saying "I was afraid of that" or "What are you talking about?" or "Too bad"? Why did they use their unofficial Gmail accounts instead of their official State of NJ accounts if this was a routine thing everyone already knew about?

Quote:
Why aren't we looking at the folks who actually did the shutdown? Or their bosses?


David Wildstein, the "Got it" guy, is their boss, and apparently also told the road crew who set it up to blame the mayor of Hoboken.


Edited, Feb 3rd 2014 6:40pm by Catwho
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#199 Feb 03 2014 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Why on earth would you start with the road crew? Unless your contention is that rogue road crews are roaming around, shutting down lanes in some maverick fashion, you're just wasting time there. You already have a record who who told them where to go via the Port Authority and you already have senior people from the Port Authority implicating the governor's office.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#200 Feb 03 2014 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,235 posts
Yeah. I've heard this. But this tells me that they knew that the lane closures would cause traffic problems (again, duh!). It doesn't lead me to "this was done as political payback". The whole thing just comes off like speculating about what terrible plot could have been behind it all, but not really establishing that this was behind it. Then going 3 steps past the evidence and launching an investigation.

That's not a smoking gun to me. Not unless you really leap to conclusions without facts. Where's the email saying "those traffic jams will teach <someone> to mess with us!"? That's what's missing.


Right. This is why Clinton's email saying "make sure you pretend it has to do with that movie, yes, I'm saying lie because we let the ambassador die" is so critical. It's good to see consistency from you.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a whore. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#201 Feb 03 2014 at 6:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,453 posts
Catwho wrote:
You're missing the entire point.

Why is the Governor's Chief of Staff telling someone at Port Authority it's time for traffic problems?


Dunno. Do we have the full context of the string of emails, or just selected tidbits that look bad? For all I know they had a whole conversation where he told her what the plan was for the lane closures, both of them knew it would result in traffic jams, and when she heard that the study was green-lit, she said "time for some traffic problems in Port Lee", cause that was what was going to happen. Doesn't mean that she ordered it or anything.

Quote:
Shouldn't that be the other way around?


Again. Is she telling him to cause traffic problems in Fort Lee, or responding to previous conversations about the upcoming traffic study? We all know how easy it is to misconstrue email, doubly so when we're only reading selected parts of the conversation.

Quote:
What the frig does the Governor of NJ's administration have to do with telling someone at an ostensibly independent department that that person, or department, is going to cause traffic problems in Fort Lee in approximately one week?


Um... Because according to some of the other documents I've been looking at, a town called Springfield requested the study, and the $60k cost was being paid for or approved by the Governor's office. So presumably, that's how some of the governor's staff would have been aware of it.

Quote:
Why is the person at the Authority acknowledging it, instead of saying "I was afraid of that" or "What are you talking about?" or "Too bad"? Why did they use their unofficial Gmail accounts instead of their official State of NJ accounts if this was a routine thing everyone already knew about?


Cause they were having a conversation about something that was coming up? Who cares? Find me the email where they say "Let's create a traffic jam to punish the people of Port Lee", and you've got something. All I've seen is a lot of stuff that could be interpreted to imply some kind of deliberate punitive action, but could also just be casual conversation being misconstrued.

Quote:
Quote:
Why aren't we looking at the folks who actually did the shutdown? Or their bosses?


David Wildstein, the "Got it" guy, is their boss, and apparently also told the road crew who set it up to blame the mayor of Hoboken.


No one else in any meeting over the months of planning and prep for this had any knowledge about traffic flow and effects of lane closures? He greenlit the thing, but let's go out on a limb and assume he's not actually a traffic flow expert. Let's also assume that someone requested the study (cause they did), and that they had some reason for doing so. Let's also assume that a whole set of people involved in the lane closures presumably had a much better understanding of traffic flow and handling then the "got it" guy.

He's a political guy. Not a traffic guy. Presumably someone (multiple someones) who actually are traffic guys were involved in this, and signed off on it, actually choose which lanes to shut down, etc.

Again, the political folks were not wearing orange vests and placing cones on the road. There's a ridiculous number of layers between them and those people. If you think that someone at his level could just say "hey. You guys with orange vests on. Go shut down this list of lanes tomorrow", you're incredibly naive. I'm not automatically discounting the possibility that a whole set of guys were involved in this, but my point is that if even a fraction of what's being tossed around as the assumed motivations and actions were true, you'd have hundreds of people "in on it". And not just political folks. You'd have to have the direct agreement of a bunch of hard hat guys working in/with whatever the freeway management agency is in NJ.


It's far far more likely that there was an actual legitimate traffic study that was proposed and approved, and the political folks (and presumably a whole bunch of other people) knew that it would cause traffic problems and they foolishly made jokes about it because the town that would be most impacted by said traffic problem happened to be run by a mayor of the other political party. Bad taste, sure. Conspiracy to cause a traffic jam? I just don't see it. If for no other reason than it seems like a particularly ineffective way of hurting someone else politically. No one's going to blame the mayor of Fort Lee for the traffic jams, right? So how exactly does this end out being political payback?

The biggest victims of this from a political perspective has been the governor's staff, right? So if we're going to create some kind of theory about political payback, isn't it more likely that someone took advantage of a traffic study that caused a big traffic jam to float the scandalous theory that it was done deliberately by the governor's office? Look hard enough at the emails of those involved and you can pretty much always find some statements that can be made to look "bad". And again, if you don't start with the assumption that this was done maliciously, there's nothing to indicate that. The cart is leading the horse here IMO.


Reminds me a lot of the whole Plame scandal, where it ultimately ended out to be complete BS, but if you raise a big enough stink and threaten people with the fear of "being involved", and investigate enough, you'll find someone who'll lie, not because he did anything wrong, but because he's afraid of the investigation. So far Bridget Kelly looks to be a lot like poor Scooter Libby. Let's not forget that she wasn't fired because she plotted to close the freeway to punish the people of Fort Lee, but because when the theories started floating around that this might have been political payback, she told the governor that she didn't know anything about it. She lied about knowing about the lane closures. Which is "bad", but still doesn't mean that the lane closures were anything other than a legitimate (if poorly executed) traffic study.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 66 All times are in CDT