Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Not sure, but I think that parallel breaks down when the children own the house.
2018 U.S election
- Thread starter Zkribbler
- Start date
Lien on the house... foreclose after the elder passes away.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
The mechanics of this present a problem. It also seems unpopular, at least with the "even though I warehoused my people instead of taking care of them I am entitled to their stuff" crowd. The mechanics problem is that a lien is a fixed amount, and you are talking about an amount that accumulates monthly. I'm sure some sort of provision for that exists, I just don't think the standard lien would be what works. The widespread view that you are stealing from innocent dead people when you fail to reward their irresponsible offspring is a much more complex obstacle.
I just read that in Damon Wayans' voice (as per the Raves thread) and it sounded hilarious.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Very PRC. Not that everything they do is wrong. But yeah. I never sorted out how jailing somebody actually helps get child support paid. Deadbeats are going to deadbeat, and slapping as wide as we do smacks down some people who aren't trying to be. Dunno what to do with the actual deadbeats.
Though, let's be real maybe. Let's present three options. (1) The nursing home gets the lifetime assets. (2) The hospital gets the lifetime assets. (3) M&D separately but both quiety decide to fail to disclose, at some point, that they haven't been able to feel their left arm for the better part of a day and the lifetime assets inherit according to will and applicable tax. Do we have a (4) (5) (6) etc? Tragedy, I suppose, could be (4) and it'd operate like (3), generally. Assuming no crazy will or evil family members, but then those call all bets off to begin with.
Last edited:
Estebonrober
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 9, 2017
- Messages
- 6,062
It might be useful to point out that in practical purposes these assets usually get bought up by investment groups on the super cheap and turned around for big profits. This is very similar to foreclosure type sales if I understand government auctions of assets like these correctly.
Kozmos
Jew Detective
Well tapping directly into whatever banking accounts tied to their ID would probably help alleviate the issue.
Yes, they do do that.
I just saw these posts during a re-skim of the Kavanaugh thread and thought I'd comment. This isn't to pick on Lexicus specifically but to point out a general sentiment that I've heard quite a bit in left-wing circles:
It's worth noting that there is still no sign of this happening. Losers have mostly conceded, and despite the blather about fraud in recounts and noncitizens voting, none of these talking points are actually being allowed to affect who is certified the winner of elections.
Even in a somewhat illiberal "flawed democracy" type of state, it is worth opposing the ruling party by electoral means. The tables are slanted, but not so much that opposition victories are impossible or that election results are overturned wholesale. It would take quite a bit of further deterioration before we would reach that point.
The Republican advantage amounts to about 1-2 points across the board by "soft" suppression through ID and other laws and about 1 point by felon disenfranchisement. That's the actual total. Then they have advantages of 3-5 points in the House by gerrymandering and clustering effects, and some similar advantage in the Senate because there are more rural than urban states. There's actually no consistent advantage in the EC - Obama's vote distribution actually gave him a slight advantage against his opponents, but Clinton underperformed in the swing states while overperforming in solid states like Texas and California. The EC is undemocratic, but not in a way that advantages either side.
So while this is awful and should be contested, the slant in the playing field can be overcome. This is very different from holding total sham elections or overturning results entirely. Despite everything that is going wrong, the political process does matter.
It's worth noting that there is still no sign of this happening. Losers have mostly conceded, and despite the blather about fraud in recounts and noncitizens voting, none of these talking points are actually being allowed to affect who is certified the winner of elections.
Even in a somewhat illiberal "flawed democracy" type of state, it is worth opposing the ruling party by electoral means. The tables are slanted, but not so much that opposition victories are impossible or that election results are overturned wholesale. It would take quite a bit of further deterioration before we would reach that point.
The Republican advantage amounts to about 1-2 points across the board by "soft" suppression through ID and other laws and about 1 point by felon disenfranchisement. That's the actual total. Then they have advantages of 3-5 points in the House by gerrymandering and clustering effects, and some similar advantage in the Senate because there are more rural than urban states. There's actually no consistent advantage in the EC - Obama's vote distribution actually gave him a slight advantage against his opponents, but Clinton underperformed in the swing states while overperforming in solid states like Texas and California. The EC is undemocratic, but not in a way that advantages either side.
So while this is awful and should be contested, the slant in the playing field can be overcome. This is very different from holding total sham elections or overturning results entirely. Despite everything that is going wrong, the political process does matter.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Maybe @Bootstoots, but fact is that the day after the election D'ump was able to claim victory. No one believed him but him, but he did it. In 2020 if he loses there's no way that he'll be able to spin it. That may lead to an entirely different result in terms of acceptance of the outcome.
I still think, if he is still in office in 2020, he will take his campaign war chest and walk off the field.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
Only if there is a widespread conspiracy to make it happen. There are just too many people who could make some sort of juvenile double dog dare comment that the man child would be swayed by, and they'd all have to stay quiet.
time will tell Mr. Huskie team leader.
Yes, in the sense that he'd make a bunch of petulant posts on Twitter claiming that illegal votes cost him the election, and Breitbart would loudly echo it and add their own conspiracy theories. But nearly everybody at the county level would certify anyway, legal challenges on that basis would get dismissed as completely groundless, and Trump would leave the WH on January 20, 2021 albeit probably without a nice ceremony where he turns over power graciously.
Now, if he ends up losing by c. 1000 votes in Florida, all bets are off. It would take something like that, though. If it's even a little less close - say, the map looks like 2016 except PA, MI, and WI flip one percentage point to the other side, it's not happening outside of Trump's Twitter feed and the parallel universe of Breitbart and similar sites.
That would be a cold day in hell. He might siphon off funds to himself somehow, but he's shown no sign so far of being a quitter.
He has had two easy years. The next two will be much more difficult for him and he is already reeling. We know Mueller has stuff and the House will likely give him fits. He can't fill positions and I do expect more people to leave or be fired.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Again, I disagree, and the media plays right into his hands every time they push this "Trump is unhappy!" narrative.
Now, he not only has the attention, he has an actual foil to feud with, and to fight with publicly in a way that gets lots and lots of attention and media coverage. Things just got better for Trump, not worse. Now he gets to fight, but in the way that rich white cowards prefer - through lawyers and spokespeople and layers of bureaucracy.
He has said exactly this point blank... that it will be easier for him now because if anything goes wrong he can just blame the Democrats.
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
There are people in prison who can "just blame the judge." They don't seem to be getting all that much satisfaction out of it.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
It won't be easier or harder for him, because he isn't judging the job by how he actually is able to do it. I don't think he really is doing it at all.
It will, however, allow for an even bigger spectacle. That's all he cares about. I think he knows that beating up on Hillary Clinton 2 years after the election is pretty lame. Now he has a real live opponent, and he can play the heel to a captive audience of 325 million people. He has never wanted anything so badly in his life.
When you realize that WWE(F) is the blueprint for how Trump is conducting his presidency, with himself cast as the most notorious and hated heel, his whole presidency makes a lot more sense.
It will, however, allow for an even bigger spectacle. That's all he cares about. I think he knows that beating up on Hillary Clinton 2 years after the election is pretty lame. Now he has a real live opponent, and he can play the heel to a captive audience of 325 million people. He has never wanted anything so badly in his life.
When you realize that WWE(F) is the blueprint for how Trump is conducting his presidency, with himself cast as the most notorious and hated heel, his whole presidency makes a lot more sense.
Last edited:
