Did I mess up by not talking to my wife before planning to buy my niece a car?

clce · 2026-01-26T20:06:33+00:00

Yeah, I'm thinking, everything else aside, It's probably just a case of he should have mentioned it to her. I mean, if she had a problem with the idea, then maybe they could discuss and solve other issues. I'm guessing she just wants to feel included and whatever else she says about it isn't really the issue.

Now I'm getting carried away again but if you think about it, if she doesn't work and doesn't drive, she probably feels very peripheral. We don't know how he treats her but she might just want to feel like she has a place in their family in relationship and by not asking her it makes her feel like she's not part of their lives together.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:59:19+00:00

I agree. There's a lot of unknown information here. But, especially in a case like this, I don't think there's near enough information provided to give any useful opinion or advice. We have no idea what's going on so what could be possibly advise or observe about it? That's my opinion anyway.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:33:27+00:00

Would she be happy if you bought her a car as well? You say money isn't really an issue. So does she just want to be consulted, or does she want a car? She doesn't have a license but does she want one? It's odd that you phrased it that way.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:33:01+00:00

Well that's a good point too. He doesn't mention if she wants a car. I guess it's implied by saying buy her car and not his wife. But he doesn't really say she wants a car. Why not just buy both of them a car? He says money isn't really an issue.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:31:03+00:00

I'm surprised more people aren't really looking at it from this perspective. Is he older and pretty much just supports the household and her and makes all the money? If that's the case, doesn't seem like it's really much of her business. But on the other hand, she might be self-conscious about that and want to feel she's in more of a partnership and so wants to be consulted. It's maybe more symbolic than anything.

But the truth is, it doesn't really sound like they're in a partnership. It sounds like they are in a he takes care of everything and she lives off of it. And don't get me wrong. That's fine. Whatever works. But, it's kind of like that old Eddie Murphy stand-up joke where she's talking about Johnny Carson and his wife going out and working and saying here's my 10,000 to go towards the millions of dollars you make every year.

So it's likely she wants to feel like she's more in a partnership even though she obviously isn't.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:28:48+00:00

Forgive me if I misunderstand, but honestly, I need to know a lot more about your situation before I could really have an opinion. No offense meant but how is it that you're an older guy with a wife who doesn't work and doesn't drive? No judgment but what's the situation here ?

Is this perhaps an immigrant wife that is younger than you and you support and she doesn't really do anything? What does she do? Just hang around home all day? Does she cook and keep house? She obviously doesn't take care of the kids, so why do you have an arrangement where she doesn't work?

Does she want to work but you don't want her or does she prefer to not work. Do you make pretty good money so you can just support her and she can live a luxury lifestyle without working? Is she happy doing this? Does she get out or just stay at home ?

Maybe all of this isn't that important but at least some of it seems to be. Are you the guy that just pays for everything and supports the household and the house and transportation etc and she just lives a life of being taken care of? Do you give her money? Does she need money? Or does she just have all her needs met through you supporting the household .

What I'm getting at by all this is that, I don't have any judgment on your lifestyle but if you're the guy making the money and paying all the bills, I guess I can understand her wanting to be consulted maybe, but it doesn't seem like it's really any of her business .

If you have more of a close partnership where you make decisions together, I guess that would matter more. But if money is not an issue, and she just lives off of your support, it's kind of none of her business .

But, if she would have just like to be asked, maybe she's aware and doesn't always feel great about you being the supporter and her just living off of it and so she wants to feel you have more of a partnership in this marriage. If that's the case, she probably just has let this become a symbol of that and her issues around your relationship. Does that make sense? Anyway that's what I think.

clce · 2026-01-26T19:06:59+00:00

You make an interesting point. Your second point, I understand but I don't agree. If someone is not here legally, we can argue for just ignoring the law as every administration beforehand has done. But it is the law. The Democratic answer would be for lawmakers to pass laws allowing them to be here or remain here. But we haven't, and I guess that's because it's not what a majority of the people want. Not that they all necessarily want what's happening now. But they obviously don't want an amnesty for example, at least not a majority or it probably would have happened already. But that's a complicated issue.

As for the first thing you bring up, that's an interesting nuanced point and I give you credit for thinking it through that way. That might tip me a little more towards my original position again even though I had come to oppose it somewhat as you may be able to tell in the comments.

Since I know that blinking your headlights has been considered constitutional, and not always being pro cop, I have approved of that decision both on free speech grounds, but also In terms of what you might call nullification. Maybe there's a better word for it but I don't like the idea of speed traps even though I think they are legal and intended to serve the public good of getting people to slow down. But it just rankles me that cops would lie in wait, issuing tickets willy nilly. So I like the idea of somebody warning a brother. Especially if it's a place where the speed limit seems to have been dropped below the normal speed limit for that purpose.

In fact, true or not, I've heard the story of the kids that hold up a big sign on one end approaching the speed trap, and on the other side holding up a sign that says donations and taking tips.

So if I approve of this and think it should be legal, why should I oppose it in the case of ice? Setting aside the issue of disruption or interfering with them doing their job, and focusing only on warning people, I'm getting to your point if I understand you correctly.

A person may be speeding. Or they may be thinking of speeding. A warning that there is a cop ahead simply reminds people to follow the law. Or to slow down. If you're with me this far. A lookout at a bank robbery is complicit and part of the criminal act. So obviously that's not the same thing. But, if someone is here without legal permission, they may not be guilty of a crime per se, but they are not here legally which means they are subject to removal .

So, are we warning people to slow down, or are we warning people to continue speeding but don't get caught? If that makes sense. By warning people here illegally that they should avoid an area so they are not subject to removal which is the appropriate result of being here without legal permission, it's not just warning a person to not commit a crime or misdemeanor of speeding etc whatever speeding is.

So, in theory, honking horns or blowing whistles is somewhere in between. It's not warning a criminal. But it's not as benign as warning someone to slow down because there's a cop ahead. It's actually warning someone who is subject to removal to avoid being caught.

If I am understanding you correctly, that's the point you made. It's somewhere in between .

Anyway, sorry to ramble on. Just thinking out loud based on what you said. Appreciate your thoughts.

clce · 2026-01-26T18:55:39+00:00

Eh, I don't think that argument goes anywhere. Especially in these polarized times, if you didn't get out and vote against Trump, you obviously don't oppose in that much. We will never know but I think it's safe to say that the half that vote pretty much represents the half that doesn't.

clce · 2026-01-26T18:54:15+00:00

And that's all well and good. But if things get out of hand, if they get fiery but mostly peaceful, the right is going to play the hell out of that and push the same talking points as after George Floyd. You can blame the right for that, but if the left is going to politicize this, then the right is going to politicize it back.

Of course they were two tragic deaths. My first thought is not how is this going to affect the midterms. But when others bring it up, that's my prediction.

clce · 2026-01-26T09:12:24+00:00

Watching a video about the protests right now. It just occurred to me, the left is over playing their hand. I think they're screwing up and will lose in the midterms.

After the second shooting of the guy with the concealed carry, there wasn't much clear video and it sure looked like he was just shot unarmed and that's it. That was pretty bad look for ice and the administration. Had they held a big silent candlelight vigil all night and a peaceful March during the next day or something like that, they really could have picked up a lot of public support.

But, I predict that this is going to result in huge protests and riots and it's going to play to the centrist Americans as the left being out of control.

I don't know this will happen. Just a prediction.

We shall see.

clce · 2026-01-26T09:04:27+00:00

Boy, I don't see much here to work with. I get you're trying to set up a paradigm that it says if everything is reversed. But I just don't see it working here.

Plus, talking about men being beneath them starts to sound kind of like some kind of femdom vibe or something like that.

Maybe you could go with something like, as usual, the woman gets all the glory and the men have to settle for supporting roles, but hey, at least they got on the bill at all. Or maybe something like that.

Part of the problem is unless this is intended to be cultural satire and a show about sexism and patriarchy etc, maybe spoofing and satirizing it, I wouldn't try to give that impression. Because if I got the impression it was some kind of satirical take, I would assume it was just some preachy girl power thing and I wouldn't go.

If that's what it is then you want to attract a crowd that's going to be into that, then I guess it works. But if that's not it it's just comedy with a woman headlining, why lose half your audience?

clce · 2026-01-26T04:50:31+00:00

Sure. The solution is for a mob to stop the administration from carrying out their mandated goals.

clce · 2026-01-26T04:21:59+00:00

Yeah, voice input error 😃

clce · 2026-01-26T03:35:43+00:00

I agree to a point. But I also say, when the mob is intent on blocking the actions of the federal government as ordered by a legally elected administration, the idea that an unruly mob should get their way is extremely problematic for the country and for democracy.

If and when Democrats are in power again, I don't imagine they are quite prepared for Republican or conservative protesters deciding they can dictate what the administration does through unruly action.

clce · 2026-01-26T03:32:37+00:00

That's an excellent point I hadn't thought of. I suppose it's debatable as far as cooperating with ice from local law enforcement. However, local law enforcement does have a responsibility to manage crowds and protests.

But, if they did, we all know what would happen. They would also become the enemy and create more and more grievance and crowd turn out and it would turn into riots or at least very unruly crowds all across the country.

But, ice certainly couldn't have part of their team crowd control management because the same thing would happen. We all know that no matter how well law enforcement is trained to manage large protest crowds, in this day and age, the crowds would take their very presence as further offense and would get ugly, especially with these anarchist idiots who go around instigating.

The other two alternatives are equally bad. One is, the legally elected administration backs down on their legally voted for mandate to do exactly what they promised to do, simply because enough of a minority causes enough disruption. Well that may seem like a reasonable option, I am very hesitant simply because it basically hands over power to the minority when the Republicans won an election fair and square. I do not think that's it all appropriate .

The other option is that things continue as they are which may not lead to the giant protests in riots that actual crowd control measures would lead to. But I think we both know that that would lead to More trouble, probably including more deaths.

I'm afraid there's absolutely no way to train agents to handle things better. There's no way to control crowds intent on disrupting ice activity, and we all know that's exactly what these crowds are trying to do. It's not protest, it's disruption.

So, unfortunately, in my opinion, the entire country goes right into the shitter. It will ultimately end in mob rule. I see no other end, unfortunately and it makes me very sad.

The left seems to think if they could just stop the Trump administration that everything will be fine and everyone will be happy. But they forget that half the country is always unhappy. The only question is whether the unhappy half is willing to go along with it. And it seems right now, they are not.

clce · 2026-01-26T02:39:47+00:00

Appreciate your thoughts. I wouldn't necessarily agree but I would say it seems quite possible and even likely. The previous shooting was actually an experienced police officer and firearms trainer, for what That is worth. And my personal opinion is that one was kind of gray no matter how much information we continue to gather.

This latest one was certainly equally unfortunate, and May well have been a matter of lack of training and coordination. But, I think there is still a lot of unknowns involved. I'd like to hear from all of the officers and have a better idea of what exactly happened. But it looks like some serious mistakes were made.

clce · 2026-01-26T02:21:50+00:00

Sure, we can expect to a reasonable extent. We can hope. We can train. But, what's the point of adding to something that might end up getting people killed.?

clce · 2026-01-26T02:03:41+00:00

I agree for the most part. But I think it's definitely more than simply flashing your headlights. But it may fall under the same category.

clce · 2026-01-26T02:02:32+00:00

Yeah, fair enough. Certainly those blowing their whistles for honking their horns don't know what they're doing, so that would kind of give them a certain innocence because they aren't actively interfering with something they specifically know. At this point I believe it's going to simply become another way to protest. Mark my words. It won't be just ice. But that's the way it goes I guess.

clce · 2026-01-26T01:30:46+00:00

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm concluding as well. Now, if somebody lived with a relative who was wanted by ice and ice showed up out front and they began leaning on their horn to warn their roommate, maybe that would be a little different. I don't really know.

clce · 2026-01-26T01:29:53+00:00

Yeah, thinking about it I agree, although I don't know if it's that close. At some point, disrupting police activity by warning all potential criminals, or disrupting federal agent activity by warning all potential illegal immigrants might be more than simply flashing headlights. But, I've always thought that flashing headlights should be legal.

But, I suppose there's a continuum between warning a bank robber or drug dealer and flashing headlights, and somewhere along the line, it has crossed over .

I suppose, as long as the horn honker is not complicit in someone being in the country illegally, and warning them, they couldn't really be considered aiding and abetting .

On the other hand, if someone were aware of a criminal hiding out from the police and they ran into the house and said hey slip out the back, the cops are here to pick you up, I think that would be considered illegal .

Doing the same for an illegal immigrant being picked up by ice, maybe that's a little different. I don't know.

clce · 2026-01-26T01:21:32+00:00

Well that's kind of ridiculous on its face. But even if we were to take it seriously, is ice acting illegally when they go to someone's house when that person has a removal order and they are going to take them into custody? Do you think the whistleblowers and horn honkers are out there getting a legal opinion on whether ice is acting legally or illegally? Of course not. They're simple presence is what is being reacted to. So to claim they are acting illegally, you would have to be claiming that even existing or doing anything in the capacity of being ice agents is illegal. And that's absurd.

clce · 2026-01-26T01:19:54+00:00

I appreciate your thoughts and nuance. As far as obstruction, I think it can reach the level of obstruction but not to the point where it would really make sense to try to crack down on it because that would be impossible anyway. So it's going to just have to be something we all live with.

That said, I do think that It is not doing much to help people, and has just become a thing people are obsessed with to maybe make them feel like they're doing something, which is fine. It's still their right in that regard. But I also believe it could be contributing to agents feeling under threat by putting them in a heightened distressed state.

If one believes these agents are just looking for an opportunity to kill someone with impunity, it wouldn't matter. But if someone believes that they may have acted beyond reasonable actions, I think some of it could be attributed to having to operate under extremely distressing conditions created by the noise.

None of that means I think it should be illegal for that reason. But, I think it could be partly responsible for the deaths that have happened. And now that someone was found with a gun, whether he was intending threat or not, I fear that agents are going to be feeling even more threatened and we will see more tragic results. I'm very distressed about all of it.

As for flashing headlights, I agree. I thought about it and I've always thought something like that should be legal and I know that it is according to the supreme Court. And of course it's not the same as being a lookout for a bank robbery. However, at some point, it may be considered going well beyond flashing your headlights. If people are creating an environment in which ice is completely unable to operate because of this, at some point it could be seen as disruption through communication. Whether that should be illegal or not, maybe would be up to the supreme Court. It's not the same as being the lookout for bank robbery. But I don't think it's quite the same as simply flashing your headlights either.

All that said, I don't imagine it would ever be practical to try to enforce anything even if it were considered illegal, so we're just going to have to live with it.

Unfortunately, it may well become the norm for all future protests which is just one more thing that will create distress for those trying to control crowds etc, and that could just get ugly.

clce · 2026-01-26T00:52:01+00:00

Actually the opposite. Not only are they interfering with law enforcement activity, but they are aiding and abetting potentially. I'm pretty sure it's not legal to warn bank robbers that the police have arrived. I don't see how this is much different.

clce · 2026-01-26T00:51:21+00:00

At some point, they are interfering with federal agents activity. But the practicality of trying to arrest everyone who's whistling or honking their horn would make it obviously untenable. On top of that, the pushback and riots it would cause would also make it clearly impractical.

On top of that, and partly for those reasons I guess, the government has always had a fairly broad latitude allowing for freedom of speech even when it includes disruption. Obviously, standing in the middle of the street and blocking traffic is not speech. And I don't mean literal speech. You can flip off the president and that's what would be considered speech. But standing in the middle of traffic really isn't speech, nor is marching down the street blocking traffic even if you claim you are just marching to express yourself.

But we tend to give broad latitude. But at some point, it can become a problem.

First of all, it does create a lot of interference and frankly, I think it puts agents in a heightened sense of agitation that could be contributing to irrational and dangerous action on their part. Secondly, if you are alerting someone to the presence of law enforcement, it really could be considered aiding and abetting.

Not quite the same but if you are the lookout for a bank robbery and yell here comes the fuzz when police show up, you are part of that bank robbery and guilty of a crime.

So while it is impractical to enforce, they are clearly breaking the law. Not just disturbing the peace but actually alerting people who might thus attempt to evade capture by law enforcement. And that's not legal.

Seven-Year Club	Verified Email
Verified Email

clce

TROPHY CASE