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 shouldnt 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

Republican/corporate coup...

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

  • #16
    I might be missing the point here, but this trade agreement legislation that is currently in the House (after passing the Senate) sounds like it doesn't give any extra power to the executive branch: Doesn't it mandate that any trade agreement must get a straight up-or-down vote in Congress, without adding any amendments?

    With all the jockeying and posturing that goes on with just about every bill in Congress, wouldn't a straight up-or-down vote be a refreshing change?

    ?


    • #17
      Originally posted by Good1 View Post
      I might be missing the point here, but this trade agreement legislation that is currently in the House (after passing the Senate) sounds like it doesn't give any extra power to the executive branch: Doesn't it mandate that any trade agreement must get a straight up-or-down vote in Congress, without adding any amendments?

      With all the jockeying and posturing that goes on with just about every bill in Congress, wouldn't a straight up-or-down vote be a refreshing change?
      Yeah, it just gives this president and the next the authority to concoct these agreements, which means, it gives the corporations the power to concoct them. Then, when they get it finished, the congress can only vote yes, or no, and not touch any of the agreement. So nothing new.

      The deal here is that the senate tied a bill to the bill which gives the president the authority, a bill that provides assistance for those workers who will lose their jobs because of TPP. So both have to be passed in order that TPP can be voted on. But the dems who would have generally voted for giving this assistance, did not vote for it, so that this would hold up TPP, since this was a two bill package deal. Now some voted no because they were afraid they might lose their seat, but that is not what Pelosi was concerned with. She and others voted no only because they wanted an extended unemployment benefit package in with the assistance program, and are holding out for a better deal for he displaced workers. Now as usual, the repubs voted against the assistance for they like shipping job offshore and then not helping those displaced with retraining. Darwin's Jungle men. But enough would have vote for it along with the dems to pass it of course, and a few did, but without the dem votes, it went nowhere.

      So, once again, enough dems will vote with the repubs on TPP, to eventually get it passed. This is just a temporary snag. I just hope that republicans and dems lose a lot of seats in the next election, because the majority of americans do not want another trade deal that sends jobs offshore to 56 cent an hour labor. I pray this bites both parties hard in the ass. With nafta, the 30 dems that voted for it, which the repubs needed to pass it, well, 16 of those 30 lost their seats. This time, even more americans are upset with this deal, than nafta, since nafta was sold with the idea that those displaced factory workers would have jobs where they would swap their blue collars, for white collars. LOL

      ?


      • #18
        Since the original post in this thread, I have read up (a little) on the various (and I do mean "Various") legislative attempts revolving around trade. From TPA and TPP, through TAA and TPIP (E I E I O), it becomes a jumbled mess which, I believe, is probably purposeful and intended to disengage the American public from looking into it. According to Bloomberg:
        Trade policy is complicated. Congressional procedure is complicated. Politics are often deliberately made complicated by lawmakers or candidates who see limited benefit in weighing in on thorny or increasingly complex issues. The ongoing fight on Capitol Hill over trade combines them alla mix of policy, procedure, and 2016 politics. That means it's probably worth breaking down a few top-line points on all three...
        Also from Bloomberg Politics, some brief explanations:

        The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is the name of the 12-nation trade talks that are currently ongoing. There is no deal, though Obama administration officials say they are closing in on one. President Barack Obama has made reaching a deal on TPP one of the top goals of his second term and a cornerstone of his foreign and domestic policy agenda. It is also a top priority of Republican leadership in the House and Senate. Many Democrats, stung by past major trade agreements, are skeptical of the direction of the negotiations. But it's important to note, again, there is technically no deal ... yet.
        Think about negotiating with 11 other countries. They've all got their own politics, their own legislatures, and their own powerful industries. How could you possibly get all 11 to agree on the same principles, let alone a specific trade deal? It's not easy. So it would make sense to create a mechanism to try and streamline the process, right? Meet the Trade Promotion Authority (TPA). TPA is not the trade deal (again, that's TPP). It is, more or less, a procedural mechanism designed to ease the passage of any deal. TPA, also known as fast-track, doesn't prevent lawmakers from voting on a final deal, but it does prevent amendments. Obama administration officials say explicitly they need TPA to reach a final agreement on TPP. Other nations, as Obama's team explains it, simply don't trust that the U.S. can get a deal through Congress untouched without it...
        Last week House Democrats chose to vote to sink their own priority, Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA), in order to slow down Obama's (TPA). So what the heck does this have to do with TPA? Well, nothing really. Except that program, used to provide aid to U.S. workers displaced due to trade, is expiring. Democrats, who are overwhelmingly supportive of the program, saw an opening in the TPA legislation and it became the vehicle to extend (and actually expand) the program.
        Finally, I had to go to the BBC News to get this tid-bit:

        The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, now generally known as TTIP, is primarily a deal to cut tariffs and regulatory barriers to trade between the US and EU countries, making it easier for companies on both sides of the Atlantic to access each other's markets. Industries it would affect include pharmaceuticals, cars, energy, finance, chemicals, clothing and food and drink.
        For all that, it is creating strange bedfellows with Obama and House Republicans generally pressing for most of the above, and Senate Democraps mostly opposed to most of the above. Hillary, of course, used to be for them (when she was S of S), before she was against them ... or she's not saying (whichever).

        confused.jpg

        ?


        • #19
          Originally posted by Good1 View Post
          Since the original post in this thread, I have read up (a little) on the various (and I do mean "Various") legislative attempts revolving around trade. From TPA and TPP, through TAA and TPIP (E I E I O), it becomes a jumbled mess which, I believe, is probably purposeful and intended to disengage the American public from looking into it. According to Bloomberg:


          Also from Bloomberg Politics, some brief explanations:







          Finally, I had to go to the BBC News to get this tid-bit:



          For all that, it is creating strange bedfellows with Obama and House Republicans generally pressing for most of the above, and Senate Democraps mostly opposed to most of the above. Hillary, of course, used to be for them (when she was S of S), before she was against them ... or she's not saying (whichever).

          [ATTACH]n512555[/ATTACH]
          People like sanders who oppose it, for it hurts working americans again,and takes away sovereignty, and gives corporations authority which they should never have, has like minded people in the GOP, a few, who are generally tea party conservatives. Ann Coulter on CSPAN this morning is against it, for she also sees it as the elites who Obama and the GOP represent, as screwing working American again, for greater profit.

          And yet, it will pass, I have little doubt about that, even as the majority of the people who congress and the president are supposed to represent are against it. So the Princeton Study is right, we are moving into, or are already in an Oligarchy, and the Republic is dead, with only an illusion remaining, to fool the half mis-educated partisan voters.

          The good news, is that finally we have people on the right and the left who are not oligarch enablers, who think the same way on these agreements that is little about trade and much about empowering these elites to rape and pillage the average American. But Pelosi is not one of these people, and of course neither is Boner or McConnell. These people are owned by the people who wrote TPP.

          ?


          • #20
            Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

            People like sanders who oppose it, for it hurts working americans again,and takes away sovereignty, and gives corporations authority which they should never have, has like minded people in the GOP, a few, who are generally tea party conservatives. Ann Coulter on CSPAN this morning is against it, for she also sees it as the elites who Obama and the GOP represent, as screwing working American again, for greater profit.

            And yet, it will pass, I have little doubt about that, even as the majority of the people who congress and the president are supposed to represent are against it. So the Princeton Study is right, we are moving into, or are already in an Oligarchy, and the Republic is dead, with only an illusion remaining, to fool the half mis-educated partisan voters.

            The good news, is that finally we have people on the right and the left who are not oligarch enablers, who think the same way on these agreements that is little about trade and much about empowering these elites to rape and pillage the average American. But Pelosi is not one of these people, and of course neither is Boner or McConnell. These people are owned by the people who wrote TPP.
            TO avoid the inevitable confusion, from here on out, please stipulate to which "T" you are in reference. IN your Tx above, I guess you are referring to the TPP?

            ?


            • #21
              Originally posted by Good1 View Post

              TO avoid the inevitable confusion, from here on out, please stipulate to which "T" you are in reference. IN your Tx above, I guess you are referring to the TPP?
              TPP, and any other bill connected with it in the effort to get it passed. There is TAA, and TPA, which were tied together by the senate, that both had to be passed in order to send it to Obama so he can finalize TPP and send it to the congress to vote yes or no.

              The only thing that threw a rock in the gears, was that the dems were expected to vote for TAA, but even Obama coming to congress to encourage the votes from the dems did not work out. But the thing is, it isn't that these TPP friendly dems did not want TPP, they wanted more in TAA, like 2 years unemployment for workers who lost their jobs due to TPP. So, they are holding out their votes to get this.

              Yet there is a group of dems who do not want TPP, as there are some conservative tea people in the GOP. But not enough of those to stop this TPP. The American people do not want it, but that makes no difference at all to the corporate owned dems and repubs.

              Now, given what we are seeing with Sanders, who is telling the people what this TPP is, I hope that along with the voters who are seeing their party is not representing their wishes, that this will cause a blood bath in congressional elections for the next two cycles. Time for the people to finally vote these treasonous bastards out of power and put people in who will represent the People again, instead of corporations, bankers, wall street, billionaires.

              ?

              Working...
              X