• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Lies haunt Texas Democrat Wendy Davis's record of her personal past

Discussion in 'American Politics' started by NightHawkeye, Jan 20, 2014.

  1. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    She would have had no choice, the parent with primary custody always is entitled to child support.
     
  2. PreachersWife2004

    PreachersWife2004 by his wounds we are healed Supporter

    +3,894
    Lutheran
    Married
    You're reading too much here. For legal purposes, step fathers ARE NOT real fathers. My husband, while he is my oldest's father in every way, would not really count for much in the court system because he has no legal ties to my oldest. I had to make it clear in my will that if something happened to me before he came of age, that I wanted guardianship granted to my husband. And even then, if his biological dad had pitched a fit (thankfully he's not in the picture at all) there would've been a court fight.

    It's usually the court that makes the arrangements and then the parties really have no choice over it.

    You've never been divorced, have you?
     
  3. kevinmaynard

    kevinmaynard Active Member

    671
    +11
    Christian
    Married

    What you say is true in a contested divorce. Not one where parties form an agreement between themselves and their lawyers. Also, a step parent can certainly get custody.
     
  4. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +4,606
    Methodist
    Married
    Which agreement becomes the court order. :wave:
     
  5. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Once the judge signs the agreement both sides have worked out amongst themselves, it becomes the courts order.

    If the divorce was contested along with custody, the judge would rule on all the pertinent issues based on the evidence (and state law) and a dissolution agreement would be written by the court and signed by the judge.
     
  6. GondwanaLand

    GondwanaLand Newbie

    902
    +350
    Atheist
    Married
    US-Libertarian
    Reminds me of Elizabeth "I'm a Native American, really, just take my word for it!" Warren.....
     
  7. MachZer0

    MachZer0 Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

    +1,506
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    In most, if not allstates, divorce cannot be contested. Only the terms of the the divorce can be contested.
     
  8. MachZer0

    MachZer0 Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

    +1,506
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    Funny how some people were so much more outraged over Rand Paul's alleged plagiarism than they are about Wendy's Davis' outright lies.
     
  9. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Thats what I meant by contested, the terms, both financial and custody.
     
  10. mpok1519

    mpok1519 Veteran

    +311
    Christian
    Single
    And the fact remains, none of this stuff even matters, as long as she is doing her job well.
     
  11. PreachersWife2004

    PreachersWife2004 by his wounds we are healed Supporter

    +3,894
    Lutheran
    Married
    And even if the two parties agree to something, the judge is not bound in any way to accept it.
     
  12. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    True. In most cases, if a judge in a divorce case does not go along with what two people agree on, it is usually because what they have agreed on goes against the state statutes the cover divorce. Or, he could have a concern for the kids, that neither parent appears to be concerned about.
     
  13. MachZer0

    MachZer0 Caught Between Barack and a Hard Place

    +1,506
    Christian
    Married
    US-Others
    It doesn't matter to some people, obviously
     
  14. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I would agree. Track record on the job is an important gauge. I mean, look at guys like JFK, he was married, in the white house and living the life of a playboy, but many thought he was a pretty good president, right.

    Times have changed and politicians are more open to character examination, especially the higher up they go in office.
     
  15. stamperben

    stamperben It's an old family tradition

    +4,021
    Humanist
    Private
    Of course it matters to you! It scares the dickens out of you that she's doing her job well and can out fund-raise the Attny General! :thumbsup:
     
  16. NightHawkeye

    NightHawkeye Work-in-progress Supporter

    +4,606
    Methodist
    Married
    Behavior like JFK's has never been greatly admired in women. :wave:
     
  17. Sistrin

    Sistrin Rightful King of Westeros

    +2,296
    Christian
    Married
    Ah, the Clinton defense. I suppose any activity can be justified using this argument. Of course this defense is totally dependent on the fact you share her views therefore making the promotion of the agenda far more important to any question of character or legality. Consequently this argument is also totally dependent upon hypocrisy, because no Conservative accused of exactly the same would be allowed such passive considerations.
     
  18. cow451

    cow451 US-Russia Outreach Friendship League Supporter

    +4,299
    Baptist
    Married
    US-Others
    It's not that they want to be more open. You just can't hide your past and present secrets very easily anymore. The higher a politician goes, the more digging the opponent does. Everything is fair game now.

    Independent voters are more likely concerned about things that the candidate has done in recent years rather than what they did 25-30 years ago.
     
  19. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Yes, I realize that, but was using that example to show how times have changed. JFK wouldn't last five minutes in a presidential campaign today with his personal life, where back then, it could be kept under the rug.

    Whatever this women's sex life was wouldn't be of great concern to me, but the whole thing about the kids would be something she would have to have a great explanation for, if I was going to vote for her.
     
  20. bhsmte

    bhsmte Newbie

    +7,274
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Thats what I meant, the higher they go, they are more open to character examination. They themselves are not more open, the current system and expectations that go along with it, make them more open to being scrutinized.