Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

All for 3%

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    That's special (sarcasm). A person can find an acceptable position when their spouse screws around on them, repeatedly? It doesn't matter if the person complains publicly or keeps quiet about the breach of contract. There is only one acceptable position for a repeated breach of an agreement on personal fidelity: Divorce.

    Maybe both the Clintons and the current WH couple have an "open marriage" agreement. That might explain the lack of divorce papers. Otherwise, the public can conclude that the spouse accepts repeated cheating due to "other" interests (fe financial or political). We can also conclude that many in the ruling class have suffered such arrangements for decades, if not centuries, based on countless biographies.
    One thing that made divorce a greater possibility for the working/middle class was the civil rights act of 1964, limiting discrimination in matters of employment. How many marriages would have ended with divorce, had discrimination been made illegal in the 1940's, instead of 1960's? We may well have seen those divorce trends swing upwards starting much sooner. Staying married because one partner cannot get a decent paying job ranks near the top of the list of "worst reasons to stay married".
    I'm not so sure, rad.

    In the other thread, you mentioned finding someone else to blame for our own misfortune (instead of taking responsibility for one's own behavior ... is the part I added).

    I believe the divorce statistics have remained fairly steady over the last 40 or so years. The NUMBERS have increased, of course, with the populations and people today waiting longer before marrying (or just living together instead of marrying) also impacts the stats. But by and large (I think I heard) about 48% of first marriages will end in divorce.

    Just in the last decade, marriages have only declined by about 200,000, whereas divorces (NOT necessarily in those marriages) have decreased by just over 100,000.

    In my opinion, divorce "suddenly" became a viable option with the advent of "no-fault" divorce (California, of course, 1969). With that, no one had to prove any reason why they wanted out of the marriage. Bedroom businesses started up almost immediately for non-court dissolution services charging only a couple hundred bucks. That made one of the very few reasons to stick with a marriage, "the children" ... but by and large, even that reason evaporated when we further devolved into, as you said, "blaming others for our own misfortune."

    In the interest of full disclosure, my marriage dissolved in the 80's when she moved in with her boyfriend. Of course, we lived in California so there was nothing I could do to keep her in the marriage: I checked with an attorney who told me "I will be happy to take your money, but in the end, I can delay her, but I cannot stop her."

    All of this, again in my opinion, stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of "love." Most people I know confuse that urge to merge with "love" so when that physical attraction becomes not-so-new, they start looking for ways out.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Brexx View Post

      Legal marriage is a financial arrangement, although a good one is a lot more than that. The difference between Hillary and Melania is that Melania has not attacked any of Donald's accusers. If Hillary would have just stood by her man and kept her mouth shut she would have been better off.
      Exactly. Hillary is not being held accountable for her husband being a sleazy predator and serial abuser of women. But, she IS validly called out for at best being an enabler who shows utter naivete and poor judgement (if she actually ever believed his denials) and far more likely a cynical liar (in denying the charges along with him knowing they were true) and abuser of women in her own right for not only permitting, but actively engaging in the very kind of attacking of the accusers she actively decry's when she decides to wrap herself in the NOW flag as the great defender of all things woman!

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • https://www.newyorker.com/humor/boro...rom-gay-aliens

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

          Exactly. Hillary is not being held accountable for her husband being a sleazy predator and serial abuser of women. But, she IS validly called out for at best being an enabler who shows utter naivete and poor judgement (if she actually ever believed his denials) and far more likely a cynical liar (in denying the charges along with him knowing they were true) and abuser of women in her own right for not only permitting, but actively engaging in the very kind of attacking of the accusers she actively decry's when she decides to wrap herself in the NOW flag as the great defender of all things woman!
          Hillary is being reconsidered by the feminist left on that count. Link:
          ...Hillary Clinton lost the support of many feminists who’d adored her when she decided to stand by her man. Others made it clear that they thought the choice was hers to make, but their support had its own dark underside, when pundits like the New York Times’ Maureen Dowd accused Hillary of leveraging sympathy as a wronged wife into a political career. From there, it was just a short leap to view Hillary Clinton’s pathbreaking achievements — as the first woman elected to the Senate from New York, and later as the first American woman to become a major-party nominee for the presidency — as fundamentally unearned...
          https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/bill-...how-metoo.html

          I don't see the "unprecedented" tone of Hillary's accomplishments (there have been other qualified, female lefty senators before Hillary). But the fact that they assess the damage done by supporting Bill (and Hillary's support of Bill) is a clear sign they rationally consider ethics. Including their own.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
            Hillary is being reconsidered by the feminist left on that count. Link:
            https://www.thecut.com/2018/06/bill-...how-metoo.html

            I don't see the "unprecedented" tone of Hillary's accomplishments (there have been other qualified, female lefty senators before Hillary). But the fact that they assess the damage done by supporting Bill (and Hillary's support of Bill) is a clear sign they rationally consider ethics. Including their own.
            This reassessment of Hillary over how she treated Bill's accusers came AFTER she lost the un-loseable election, and the left had already concluded that (as a two-time loser) it would be best if she just went away. Do you really think that the #MeToo movement would have played out as it has were she the sitting President? The fact that they FINALLY are including the Clinton's in their finger pointing is not because of any great ethical awakening on the left, it is because they lost and it is not in the left's interest to cut them lose for no other reason than that. Not a single new fact about either of the Clinton's behavior towards and treatment of women has come out since the election. When she was on track to be the first woman president, all these feminists you refer to were "with HER", only after she became a twice loser, and ongoing albatross did they suddenly see the light on her own very un-#MeToo treatment of women.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              That's special (sarcasm). A person can find an acceptable position when their spouse screws around on them, repeatedly? It doesn't matter if the person complains publicly or keeps quiet about the breach of contract. There is only one acceptable position for a repeated breach of an agreement on personal fidelity: Divorce.

              Maybe both the Clintons and the current WH couple have an "open marriage" agreement. That might explain the lack of divorce papers. Otherwise, the public can conclude that the spouse accepts repeated cheating due to "other" interests (fe financial or political). We can also conclude that many in the ruling class have suffered such arrangements for decades, if not centuries, based on countless biographies.
              One thing that made divorce a greater possibility for the working/middle class was the civil rights act of 1964, limiting discrimination in matters of employment. How many marriages would have ended with divorce, had discrimination been made illegal in the 1940's, instead of 1960's? We may well have seen those divorce trends swing upwards starting much sooner. Staying married because one partner cannot get a decent paying job ranks near the top of the list of "worst reasons to stay married".
              Of course policy changes that have created "no fault" and easier resort to divorce has had the deleterious effect of making the initial decision to get married less consequential and reflective in the first place. Part of it is based on a faulty premise. In the 1960-70s the self-serving idea that it was better for the children if unhappy parents got a divorce. Statistically the social pathologies that come with single-parent households are worse for the children in most instances than living in an "unhappy" household. This was just pablum put forward to justify selfishness on the part of married adults to put their personal happiness over the well-being of their children.

              Far from facilitating this, we should get rid of "no fault" (there is no such thing, there may be MUTUAL fault, but there is never a "no fault" divorce), and think we should have a tax on divorcing couples who have children, to help fund the social costs that clearly stem from single parent households.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                Of course policy changes that have created "no fault" and easier resort to divorce has had the deleterious effect of making the initial decision to get married less consequential and reflective in the first place. Part of it is based on a faulty premise. In the 1960-70s the self-serving idea that it was better for the children if unhappy parents got a divorce. Statistically the social pathologies that come with single-parent households are worse for the children in most instances than living in an "unhappy" household. This was just pablum put forward to justify selfishness on the part of married adults to put their personal happiness over the well-being of their children.

                Far from facilitating this, we should get rid of "no fault" (there is no such thing, there may be MUTUAL fault, but there is never a "no fault" divorce), and think we should have a tax on divorcing couples who have children, to help fund the social costs that clearly stem from single parent households.
                "Unhappy household" as in, frowny faces and an occasional muttering under the breath, but otherwise civil? You make a good point. If "unhappy" means screaming insults, including personal insults involving gender or parenting skills, we have kids learning the wrong things, they might be better off with a single parent. Both extremes are legal behavior, but one end of the "unhappy" spectrum loses the argument to single parent.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                  This reassessment of Hillary over how she treated Bill's accusers came AFTER she lost the un-loseable election, and the left had already concluded that (as a two-time loser) it would be best if she just went away. Do you really think that the #MeToo movement would have played out as it has were she the sitting President? The fact that they FINALLY are including the Clinton's in their finger pointing is not because of any great ethical awakening on the left, it is because they lost and it is not in the left's interest to cut them lose for no other reason than that. Not a single new fact about either of the Clinton's behavior towards and treatment of women has come out since the election. When she was on track to be the first woman president, all these feminists you refer to were "with HER", only after she became a twice loser, and ongoing albatross did they suddenly see the light on her own very un-#MeToo treatment of women.
                  That is sometimes how the ruling class learns -punished by grass roots reaction. There is little difference in the hubris demonstrated by those feminist leaders (or how they get punished by the unwashed masses), and right wing leadership. Both sides can enjoy watching this lesson being played out, and hopefully the leaders value their learning experience.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                    That is sometimes how the ruling class learns -punished by grass roots reaction. There is little difference in the hubris demonstrated by those feminist leaders (or how they get punished by the unwashed masses), and right wing leadership. Both sides can enjoy watching this lesson being played out, and hopefully the leaders value their learning experience.
                    Fortunately for the right wing leaders the unwashed masses are too stupid to know that their meager wage increases are not keeping pace with the inflation fueled by trade wars.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                      Fortunately for the right wing leaders the unwashed masses are too stupid to know that their meager wage increases are not keeping pace with the inflation fueled by trade wars.
                      All the better to force a positive decision favoring non-profits (including collectives and cooperatives), organized on an interstate basis. There are currently too many roadblocks to such organization, which can provide flat real cost for services and products. That will be essential for any working class that has a flat real wage.

                      It might be ironic, but I'm for unintended consequences that result in positive change. If The Big Trade Wars force the regional opening of flat price providers, for those making flat wages, good.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                        "Unhappy household" as in, frowny faces and an occasional muttering under the breath, but otherwise civil? You make a good point. If "unhappy" means screaming insults, including personal insults involving gender or parenting skills, we have kids learning the wrong things, they might be better off with a single parent. Both extremes are legal behavior, but one end of the "unhappy" spectrum loses the argument to single parent.
                        Part and parcel of the same thing. Parents behaving in that manner in front of their children is simply a more extreme example of them putting their own wishes and immediate gratification above the interest of their children. It takes two to tango as they say, in which case both parents are probably pretty poor at parenting and miserable people in general, and more often than not are just as miserable apart (just poorer as a result). The one glaring exception I would make to this is households where one of the parents engages in chronic physical or emotional abuse.

                        But even with the exceptions to the rule, public policy should not be geared to the lowest common denominator. In both the instances above, I would argue that it showed poor judgement on the part of one or both parents to get married and have children (or as is just as often the case, have children married or not) which is just an extension of their own self-indulgence over the interest of potential children. If it is easy to get a divorce, it facilitates less careful consideration of the initial decision to marry in the first place. People respond to incentives over time, and public policy should put in place sensible incentives that lead to socially desirable behavoirs, and not to indulge outliers.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          All the better to force a positive decision favoring non-profits (including collectives and cooperatives), organized on an interstate basis. There are currently too many roadblocks to such organization, which can provide flat real cost for services and products. That will be essential for any working class that has a flat real wage.

                          It might be ironic, but I'm for unintended consequences that result in positive change. If The Big Trade Wars force the regional opening of flat price providers, for those making flat wages, good.
                          I think the first important thing is to distinguish between genuine "inflation" and price changes due to market factors (including market reaction to regulatory changes). Increasing prices due to "trade wars" are not "inflation", they are markets reacting to basic supply and demand forces (albeit ones that are being distorted by regulation). Real inflation is not when the price of a good or service goes up because of a drop in supply or increase in demand (for whatever the underlying reasons), it is when the currency it is being engaged through has actually decreased in value over time. Real inflation is a very complicated thing to measure, because it is very difficult to isolate the various market-based changes in prices from those driven by change in the relative value of the underlying currency prices are being expressed in.

                          Now that that is out of the way, trade wars (if they reflect a policy belief that long term tariffs, restrictions, etc...are somehow a net positive for an economy) are never a net good. One of my biggest concern over Trump was with regard to trade (and still is), in that most of what he has said about the issue leads me to believe that he things that there are winners and losers in a protracted trade battle (there are not, there are only losers). More recently he has begun to make a more reasoned and defensible argument, that trade battles CAN if they are used short- to medium-term to pressure trading partners into lowering trade barriers result in long-term benefits to all.

                          I will also reiterate here, what I have said elsewhere (because it applies to Trump's views on trade). Trump has a very liberal, zero-sum view of economic exchange. He seems to see every exchange as having a winner and a loser (and from his perspective whoever get's the "better" deal is the winner). But in a free market, there would be no such thing as exchanges with winner/losers because nobody would freely enter into an exchange in which they come off worse than they began. At the heart of this is that different people place different values on things at different points in time. This is why most free exchanges are in fact Win-Win. This type of thinking is why liberals obsess over income inequality, as though it is somehow better that all people be equally poor than for some most to not be poor, but some to be far better off than others.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                            Part and parcel of the same thing. Parents behaving in that manner in front of their children is simply a more extreme example of them putting their own wishes and immediate gratification above the interest of their children. It takes two to tango as they say, in which case both parents are probably pretty poor at parenting and miserable people in general, and more often than not are just as miserable apart (just poorer as a result). The one glaring exception I would make to this is households where one of the parents engages in chronic physical or emotional abuse.

                            But even with the exceptions to the rule, public policy should not be geared to the lowest common denominator. In both the instances above, I would argue that it showed poor judgement on the part of one or both parents to get married and have children (or as is just as often the case, have children married or not) which is just an extension of their own self-indulgence over the interest of potential children. If it is easy to get a divorce, it facilitates less careful consideration of the initial decision to marry in the first place. People respond to incentives over time, and public policy should put in place sensible incentives that lead to socially desirable behavoirs, and not to indulge outliers.
                            Supposing there were classes on proper use of birth control, which first encouraged alternatives to coitus before marriage. Or licensing for marriage which included a free measurement of aptitude for raising children in tandem with a partner. What incentives did you have in mind, that would encourage people toward serious reflection before becoming parents?

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                              I think the first important thing is to distinguish between genuine "inflation" and price changes due to market factors (including market reaction to regulatory changes). Increasing prices due to "trade wars" are not "inflation", they are markets reacting to basic supply and demand forces (albeit ones that are being distorted by regulation). Real inflation is not when the price of a good or service goes up because of a drop in supply or increase in demand (for whatever the underlying reasons), it is when the currency it is being engaged through has actually decreased in value over time. Real inflation is a very complicated thing to measure, because it is very difficult to isolate the various market-based changes in prices from those driven by change in the relative value of the underlying currency prices are being expressed in.

                              Now that that is out of the way, trade wars (if they reflect a policy belief that long term tariffs, restrictions, etc...are somehow a net positive for an economy) are never a net good. One of my biggest concern over Trump was with regard to trade (and still is), in that most of what he has said about the issue leads me to believe that he things that there are winners and losers in a protracted trade battle (there are not, there are only losers). More recently he has begun to make a more reasoned and defensible argument, that trade battles CAN if they are used short- to medium-term to pressure trading partners into lowering trade barriers result in long-term benefits to all.

                              I will also reiterate here, what I have said elsewhere (because it applies to Trump's views on trade). Trump has a very liberal, zero-sum view of economic exchange. He seems to see every exchange as having a winner and a loser (and from his perspective whoever get's the "better" deal is the winner). But in a free market, there would be no such thing as exchanges with winner/losers because nobody would freely enter into an exchange in which they come off worse than they began. At the heart of this is that different people place different values on things at different points in time. This is why most free exchanges are in fact Win-Win. This type of thinking is why liberals obsess over income inequality, as though it is somehow better that all people be equally poor than for some most to not be poor, but some to be far better off than others.
                              I mostly agree; trade wars are basically a losing proposition, aside from a short term game to force honest consideration of trade barriers between nations. As to their origin, tariffs came from a mix of liberal and conservative politicians going back to the beginning of the Republic. The modern end to tariffs (free trade) also came from a mix of political actors. One can state that Reagan had the intention of ending tariffs, and started the modern push to that end. Part of that objective was to increase investment, which supposedly increases domestic employment.

                              That is basically the failure of equating investment with employment. Capitalist investment used to mean greater domestic employment, but that assumption is compromised by modern technology. Regardless of large investment, or the greater the dependence on communication technology by a given industry, there is shrinking relevance to domestic employment. The largest companies that produce goods will seek out automation before increasing employment, as well as looking to reduce labor costs overseas. Labor cost reduction is easily achieved when a company provides customer service (fe technical or contract support), from countries with a decent supply of educated, bilingual labor.

                              Unlike some of my fellow lefties, I believe the above free trade developments that pressure the US laborer need to be left in place. To do otherwise is to go against one of the basic principles of very large-scale (and/or high tech) capitalism: To minimize labor & production costs on a large scale. Instead, the leftist politician -who very likely enjoys the many items and services financed by said capitalists- needs to look to those sectors of the free market that provide domestic employment. If the large sector capitalist is a "shrinking supply" for employment, the proper response is to look for those who are positioned to pick up the slack for employment, and treat the large sector as unreliable for that objective. In short, free trade agreements between developed nations may be increasingly irrelevant to the problem of domestic employment, even as it increases investment and provides some "spinoff" employment. Hence, Trump's repeated embarrassment over domestic employment, making an example of large companies that intend to leave the US (Carrier, Harley Davidson). They will leave if and when it suits their requirement to reduce labor costs, and the gov't. should do little to stop them. Instead, gov't. should look at structural incentives (fe socialist programs like education, infrastructure) to grow and maintain support for small/medium capitalist, private non-profit and for profits. That points to the rut we are stuck in: Lefties still obsessing about large scale capitalism, righties still neglecting the smaller sectors, both parties pretending the non-profit sector is irrelevant for the purposes of employment objectives. To get out of that rut, stabilize employment at a high rate outside the sphere of large capital companies, which can thus be allowed to fail when deserved. Minimum wage law isn't needed with full employment, and with proper recognition of non-profit employment (along with flat real price/flat cost of living), "wealth envy" becomes irrelevant. One's basic needs are met, so the "need" to deal with the wealthy is reduced to the "option" to deal with that economic class.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

                                I think the first important thing is to distinguish between genuine "inflation" and price changes due to market factors (including market reaction to regulatory changes). Increasing prices due to "trade wars" are not "inflation", they are markets reacting to basic supply and demand forces (albeit ones that are being distorted by regulation). Real inflation is not when the price of a good or service goes up because of a drop in supply or increase in demand (for whatever the underlying reasons), it is when the currency it is being engaged through has actually decreased in value over time. Real inflation is a very complicated thing to measure, because it is very difficult to isolate the various market-based changes in prices from those driven by change in the relative value of the underlying currency prices are being expressed in.

                                Now that that is out of the way, trade wars (if they reflect a policy belief that long term tariffs, restrictions, etc...are somehow a net positive for an economy) are never a net good. One of my biggest concern over Trump was with regard to trade (and still is), in that most of what he has said about the issue leads me to believe that he things that there are winners and losers in a protracted trade battle (there are not, there are only losers). More recently he has begun to make a more reasoned and defensible argument, that trade battles CAN if they are used short- to medium-term to pressure trading partners into lowering trade barriers result in long-term benefits to all.

                                I will also reiterate here, what I have said elsewhere (because it applies to Trump's views on trade). Trump has a very liberal, zero-sum view of economic exchange. He seems to see every exchange as having a winner and a loser (and from his perspective whoever get's the "better" deal is the winner). But in a free market, there would be no such thing as exchanges with winner/losers because nobody would freely enter into an exchange in which they come off worse than they began. At the heart of this is that different people place different values on things at different points in time. This is why most free exchanges are in fact Win-Win. This type of thinking is why liberals obsess over income inequality, as though it is somehow better that all people be equally poor than for some most to not be poor, but some to be far better off than others.
                                While I do appreciate the distinction between "real" inflation and arbitrarily inflated prices, my objection is from the perspective of the consumer: Consumers don't care WHY prices are rising and Consumers always applaud prices falling, regardless of the cause.

                                Trump is a bit of a mystery here: He has profited handsomely from globalism (under which tariffs should not exist at all) but he was elected on nationalism. I appreciate radcenter's perspective on the short-term gain of a trade war: I see this tiff with China as, still, short term and we have already seen some meager results because of it.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X