Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)


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.


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.


You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software),, sites affiliated with, 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
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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Anybody noticed ?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by radcentr View Post
    I was referring to the SCOTUS, which pretty much handles only what is placed before them. Congress might handle more serious threats, but the chances of R v W changing or going away is more real in the near future, than ever before.
    No, I don't think it is.

    That's something that's going to be endlessly put before us by the liberal media to keep us worried about "losing" a "womans right to have an abortion."

    and keep us worried about the next pick for the supreme court

    It has always stood on very shaky & irrational ground, but I don't believe this is going to be something we need to worry about losing, no matter who the SCOTUS is populated by.

    This dark "right" is upheld as powerfully as are religious rights in the U.S., and is going away no faster than gay marriage is.

    ... which isn't going away. It's a thing that, like every other item or benefit given, will raise holy hell if the government tries to remove it.

    "You can't take that away from us !!!!!"

    "We have a RIGHT !!!!"

    Which is why barack obamas crappy "care" has been impossible to rid ourselves of.

    Same thing. Abortion 'rights' are going no where.


    • #32
      Concerning the presidents coming judicial nominee.

      Offered here is the general crap we're going to hear & read from the left about any nominee he chooses.

      From below link;

      [ This ] a generic editorial that could (and will) be published against anyone the president chooses. ...


      To those still laboring at a craft that last had impact in the 19th century, I draw upon my 27 years of experience to offer this generic editorial on whomever President Trump nominates for the Supreme Court.

      You may cut and paste it, and your boss will not notice the difference.


      The Senate Must Reject This Monster

      President Trump -- a vain, deranged, and impulsive man elected by Russia and not a majority of Americans -- has nominated the worst judicial candidate since Roger Brooke Taney, the chief justice who authored the Dred Scott decision. [Nominee's name] may be worse. Not only does [he or she] view African-Americans as chattel, but women as second-class citizens!

      ..... preemptively dismisses all the editorials that will look like it once the nominee is announced. They will be proven to be just boilerplate.



      • #33
        Heres an idea... they might wait until, you know, he nominated someone before they switch on
        the hatred.


        • #34
          Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
          Heres an idea... they might wait until, you know, he nominated someone before they switch on
          the hatred.
          Don't count on it. The hate is there already, now it has a direction to be focused.

          Fear of losing the "right" to kill tiny humans will be - as we see already - one of the means to focus that hate.

          There will be many more ! There will be much noise. All of it mindless foolishness.


          • #35
            Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

            Don't count on it. The hate is there already, now it has a direction to be focused.

            Fear of losing the "right" to kill tiny humans will be - as we see already - one of the means to focus that hate.

            There will be many more ! There will be much noise. All of it mindless foolishness.
            It's as if the leftist hatred of conservatives and love of abortions will overcome their minority vote in Congress!!!! Oh wait. It won't overcome their minority vote. The GOP has shown the discipline to get Gorsuch thru, and you have shown no reason they won't get another.

            BTW, why should a conservative need a crass lefty like me to calm their tear-stained, nervous hands? When they are in power? One might come to the conclusion the righties went down a dark and twisted rabbit hole after their win. -Either that, or the right has been living down there for a very long time, only now it becomes apparent.


            • #36
              Originally posted by radcentr View Post
              It's as if the leftist hatred of conservatives and love of abortions will overcome their minority vote in Congress!!!! Oh wait. It won't overcome their minority vote. The GOP has shown the discipline to get Gorsuch thru, and you have shown no reason they won't get another.

              BTW, why should a conservative need a crass lefty like me to calm their tear-stained, nervous hands? When they are in power? One might come to the conclusion the righties went down a dark and twisted rabbit hole after their win. -Either that, or the right has been living down there for a very long time, only now it becomes apparent.
              If Roe v. Wade is repealed maybe I CAN Make some money on ebay selling some of my old wire coat hangers.


              • #37
                Originally posted by redrover View Post

                If Roe v. Wade is repealed maybe I CAN Make some money on ebay selling some of my old wire coat hangers.
                No one wants your coat hangers, roe v wade is going no where.


                • #38
                  Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                  It's as if the leftist hatred of conservatives and love of abortions will overcome their minority vote in Congress!!!! Oh wait. It won't overcome their minority vote. The GOP has shown the discipline to get Gorsuch thru, and you have shown no reason they won't get another.

                  BTW, why should a conservative need a crass lefty like me to calm their tear-stained, nervous hands? When they are in power? One might come to the conclusion the righties went down a dark and twisted rabbit hole after their win. -Either that, or the right has been living down there for a very long time, only now it becomes apparent.
                  Yep ... I'm thinking you called that one right. There is simply no other explanation for a republican controlled congress AND white house who cannot get anything meaningful done.


                  • #39
                    Interesting (though expected) article from the Daily Caller:

                    Replacing retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy will probably be the most consequential decision President Donald Trump makes in his first term.

                    ​During Kennedys 31 years on the bench, he was the courts swing vote. Especially in the most controversial cases, he was usually the reason a decision went 5-4 or 4-5. With Kennedys departure, the Court is currently split between four textualist conservatives, who base their judgments on what the Constitution says, and four progressives, who base their judgments on what they want the Constitution to say.

                    ​And so President Trump and the Republican majority in the U.S. Senate now have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to cement a clear conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

                    ​The left knows it. The right knows it. And both sides also know the stakes.

                    For decades, Congresss abdication of its constitutional responsibilities has turned the Supreme Court into a super-legislature. This long era of judicial supremacy has been bad for America, but it has been very good for the Democrat Party.

                    ​From abortion to gay marriage to the extra-constitutional power of the federal bureaucracy, the Lefts greatest victories in recent generations have come not via the ballot box, but the courts. Under liberal legal ideology, every federal judge is a Congress unto him or herself free to rewrite federal law, and even the Constitution, as they see fit. The living Constitution, they call it.

                    A conservative, textualist majority on the nations highest court would put an end to that. It would not and should not start imposing conservative policies on the country. Rather, it would get the courts out of the policy business altogether, and leave that job of lawmaking to lawmakers and voters where it belongs.


                    • #40
                      An Article from James Barrett in the Daily Wire suggests Trump has narrowed his list of SCOTUS nominees to just two:
                      According to CBS News, President Trump has narrowed his potential Supreme Court Justice picks to two federal judges: D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh and Chicago Circuit Court Judge Amy Coney Barrett.
                      The article goes on to list pros and cons of each candidate (although very limited on "cons" for Barrett whom Ben Shapiro has said previously is his favored).


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                        Interesting (though expected) article from the Daily Caller:

                        The stuff about traditionalist being confused with "textualist" aside, there is no reason to believe a legislative body that was in a habit of doing as little as possible, will change it's habits.

                        It's a nice, big paycheck, with the hardest part arguably being a run for re-election. If it swings right for any reason, why should one not believe that Congress would simply toss their duties to a SCOTUS that tends to agree with them?

                        What is lacking is a concerted effort at reform of the legal code and programs in Congress, which is (in part) one practical cause for judicial review. Had Congress been doing this for the last few decades, they could have made gov't. more efficient, responsive and less costly. Oh, and it would have resulted in a lower number of unnecessary cases in federal appeals. The effect on right or left politics? -Probably a huge improvement for both sides.


                        • #42
                          JUST to show he can be reasonable: The Babylon Bee tells us:

                          WASHINGTON, D.C.Bowing to public pressure, Donald Trump has agreed to remove a popular mainstay of the Supreme Court nomination process: the swimsuit competition.

                          This is long overdue, said law professor Edgar Ford. Its time to put out the message that judges of all shapes and sizes can rule on Constitutional issues. Not just those who look good in a bikini.


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                            JUST to show he can be reasonable: The Babylon Bee tells us:
                            We'll look for some conciliatory statements in "The Onion", as well.


                            • #44
                              Below is a worthwhile read on the subject of abortion and why it's not going to be made illegal.

                              Democrats want to side track everybody with this non-issue during the appointing of a new supreme court pick. That's all..

                              Just more liberal foolishness, screaming that womens rights are going to be taken away.. that nazis are taking over..

                              blah blah blah.. still mad as hell about losing the election.. .


                              ..Banning abortion could have unintended, disastrous consequences for women in this country. I've been around long enough to remember the tragic lengths women sought decades ago. I'm talking about illicit abortion mills, women almost killing themselves, using coat hangers to a terminate a pregnancy.

                              But you should understand that abortifacients have been used since ancient times in almost every society. Years ago, I wrote a book called Earth Medicine, Earth Food about Native American healing and in my research I found that many tribes had used plants to end pregnancies that were unwanted long before we could ever imagine this would become an industrial level act here in the United States of America.

                              Even in the pre-industrial era, they were using plants to end pregnancies in primitive or traditional societies. We must be cautious in making and reversing legislation so that we prevent women from killing themselves, having to fly to third world countries for abortions, or going to shady operators in bad neighborhoods to have abortions.

                              There has to be some balance in this picture. Once again, I acknowledge that this may not be the popular stance for my profession, but I must offer my sincere observations rather than those that will only boost my ratings. I hope I have not offended the devout Christians amongst my listenership which is a significant part of my audience in expressing to you the picture of this very complex story of abortion.



                              • #45
                                Today - 7/9/2018 - president Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court as a replacement for Justice Anthony Kennedy who retired recently.

                                Thoughts ?