The upcoming Mrs Sanford |
Posted on 09/03/2014 2:25:41 AM PDT by nickcarraway
I remember reading about her over the past few years. She is obviously a banshee with few likeable traits. It's easy to keep the revenge going when your ex-husband is a public figure and the media loves dirt.
The upcoming Mrs Sanford |
The former Mrs Sanford is a sick dried up old hag.....
It may sound "nasty", but trying to shield children from abuse is frequently a very nasty business; most substance abuse is characterized by denial on the part of the abuser and the spouse being emotionally blackmailed into enabling the abuse or else being cast as the "cause" of the substance abuse -- but substance abusers must take responsibility for their own choices. If Mrs. Sanford were abusing drugs or alcohol, wouldn't her husband be justified in bringing it to the court's attention? The alternative is leaving the child in jeopardy and eroding the non-abusing spouse's position as a protector of the child, should something happen like a drunken car accident the other partner should have tried to help prevent by disclosing the abuse.
Neither a husband nor a wife can just waltz into a divorce court and rely upon their own say-so, especially in high-profile cases. There must be proof of some kind; whether it is the child testifying to witnessing drinking behavior (I think their youngest is a preteen or young teen), or the child's therapist testifying, or a police report of DUI, or another witness. Mrs. Sanford is an educated and competent woman and I doubt she would even try to make a claim that could be easily overturned. Remember there is a child caught in this crossfire. It is typical for most adults to take the side of the accused substance abuser over the potential harm to the child if this behavior is taking place in front of the child.
$10 says he never marries her. He left his wife 5 years ago, and they’ve been engaged for over two years. Ain’t gonna happen.
Wow. Did she force him to abandon his office and damage the Republican Party? Kind of like Bill Clinton was unfairly judged.
Nice to see you here, Ms Chapur.
So, you'd hit the new Mrs Sanford, but not the old Mrs Sanford -- do we understand your analysis of the right and wrong of the situation correctly?
There’s an old saying that South Carolina is too small to be a country, too large to be an insane asylum ...
“I can’t believe South Carolina voted for this lunatic.”
How about you reveal the state you infest, so we can determine how many lunatics your state voters sent to congress.
It is the straw man non sequitur tactic used in high school debates.
Divorce filings are with the court, where the reporter probably got the information. Witnesses are not part of the filings. That comes when the judge hears the case. If any parent is drinking and driving, or drinking and drugging during sole custody periods, there is a problem that the other parent needs to bring into the record.
Why persist in discussing non sequiturs?
I do not know; but you were the one to suggest that Mrs Sanford may be the "lunatic." Having experience in the area of substance abuse dynamics, this is usually the way it goes -- the partner gets vilified for calling out the abuser's behavior. She would have to be a lunatic to go forward with this claim if she did not have some reason for it, don't you agree?
This and the divorces of many public figures are tragic in that public figures are always subject to intense, intrusive speculation. However, in this case, if an elected official who has already broken trust by being absent for weeks without calling, as he did when he ran off with the bimbo a few years ago, is also even suspected of impaired driving or other effects of drug and alcohol abuse, you can see why the topic would be considered newsworthy.
Mightn't Mary Jo Kopeckne still be alive if drinking and driving weren't a danger, and mightn't she have been saved if the great man who drowned her was not more concerned with his career than her safety? The entire course of American history might have been markedly different if his sycophants had not insulated the driver from culpability.
You have defended Sanford on what grounds? Do you personally know he is not using? I have defended Mrs Sanford's legal right to make the assertion as a necessary part of a custody determination, if in fact she is afraid for her child. It will be up to her legal team to show proof.
I think it is now obvious how much energy you will expend in defending your conclusion.
It is common among those who are taking a postiton absent of fact that they find that to be right necessitates hyperbolic rationalization, i. e. your introduction of “substance abuse dynamics”, “partner vilification”, “abuser's behavior”....all unproven in the referenced article and therefore non sequiturs.
Then your introduction of ad hominum attacks by using pejorative descriptions like “run off with bimbo”....”alcohol abuse”, and then the extreme example of guilt by association by bringing up the Kennedy issue.
The further you go into this, the more you show your bias or at best, very unclear thinking.
If you were wrong, would you want to know it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.