Hi all.

I am active on many internet forums so I am not new to such an interface.

The registration here was strict and I see the rules here are strict too.

I am a real life 2012 candidate for the US Senate from my State of Maryland, see link here = Maryland Board of Elections - 2012 Primary State Candidates List.

My campaign platform is to reform the Child Support laws, see link here = Vote JP platform.

So some people could view me as being SPAM depending on however one might define SPAM but I do not consider myself as being SPAM.

I do want to discuss the issue and discuss my own politics and stuff so this is my intro.

Welcome JP Cusick

Reforming child support laws is badly needed. These are state laws for the most part. There is some federal interference via presidential declaration which occurred when Clinton was President. Child support should not be an issue at the federal level. That is the only issue to address at the federal level...remove any law or regulation.

You will need more positions which address many activities of the federal government to have a successful campaign for the Senate.

I would be glad to participate in any discussion you have on any subject.

JP, here is something you might want to look at. This kind of thing if applied nationally could get every citizen who was under a legal requirement contributing to child support.



A good place to start would be a one dollar gas tax and its carbon equivalent that would be equally kicked back to every citizen. You could carry this kind of thing further with the idea of a national commons in which various activities were taxed for usage and then returned equally to the citizens. All would be subject to cs garnishment.

On a whole different track if we turned prisons into places of work where you were paid at least minimum wage that would be an all around win win with cs garnishment being one of the winners.

Welcome to AD. I happen to be an attorney that does family law on the low end, so I'll be participating in those threads.

John

I thank you for the welcoming.



The federal interference is already very widespread, link here = U.S. Dept of Health & Human Services - Administration for Children and Families.

I agree that President Clinton sold out the USA and our Democratic Party principles when he signed that ugly Republican legislature on Welfare reform, but the dirty deed is done now.



One would think so but I find it to be quite the opposite.

Most political campaigns are very shallow and just name-recognition is all many incumbents run on.

The successful campaigns really do often have little more than a catchy saying as like "Yes we can" or "9-9-9" or "Peace with honor" and if a candidate's platform gets too complicated then we get lost into our own created confusion.





We do NOT want to turn American prisons into slave-labor camps, and the prison inmates would love to be given jobs even for $1.00 per day.

If we want to create jobs then we have a 9% unemployment rate of non-criminal workers already available.

But more so the idea that some people want to create labor-camps for parents so we can physically force parents into paying our Court ordered Child Support might be a BIG sign that this system is going way too far overboard.

I disagree- we need a father's bill of rights and to end child support as we know it- there is no way in gods green earth that a woman should get over 25k in her lifetime from child support. If she can't afford them, she shouldn't get custody- period.

That sounds like reform to me.

I was incensed when I heard of a performer arrested for 420k dollars in back child support- what in gods name does the court think that a woman needs 420k dollars to raise a child? It is simply a lottery ticket for a lazy woman to use her uterus to extort money from her meal train. Personally, any woman that recieved over 300 dollars a month in child support, I don't care how many children she has, I would make her pay it back with 50% interest, and garnish 60% of her gross income just to see how she likes it. Yeah, I am angry. I have seen way too much abuse by CSSD in my lifetime, and it forced my dad into an early grave. A woman should NEVER be allowed to live off child support.

I'm sure if my father would have read this, he would crack open a beer, and probably use a four-letter metaphor followed by the word "yeah."

He and his father started up a company many years ago. There was no such thing as a weekly, or even bi-weekly, paycheck. He got paid when they got paid by their customers. So, what he did was, paid several months upfront. There were times when he paid 6-8 months upfront. He got receipts, signed by my mother, for all of it. This went on for several years. One day, they go out of business and he's out of work for a few months. Which just so happened to be a month over what he paid in advance for. So, my father goes down to talk to them. See if he can work something out, etc... He brought in all of his receipts to show he is up to date and that he's willing to work with them.

I've heard this story so many times and my dad gets pretty angry every time he thinks about it. He said the lady looked through his receipts and had to catch herself from laughing. She thought he was trying to pull one over on her. She then stated that it has to be paid month to month. Any money over the court appointed amount is charity. Instead of one month behind on child support, he was over two years behind. Thousands instead of hundreds.

I don't know if the laws have changed since then or if that's only a Utah thing, but it took a long time for my father to pay all that back. I love my mother, but she should have given all that garnishment back to him.

I'm not talking about slave labor camps. I'm talking about job opportunities for prisoners that give them increasing purchasing power and job skills and among other things allow them to play some responsible roll with their families. Along with that it could help keep a lot of jobs at home that are currently being shipped overseas. It's not like there isn't any precedent. A friend of mine had a job doing prison dry cleaning while he was incarcerated and was able apply the skill on the outside.

Seems like a win win win all the way around.

Welcome to , JP Cusick!

I'm looking forward to reading your posts. Thank you for being brave enough to identify yourself as a candidate here. I will probably have many questions for you during the next several months.

Welcome. FWIW, while you're correct that the CS system needs to be "reformed", your reforms amount to nothing more than a dirty bandage.

Child support should ONLY be awarded to an innocent spouse who gets custody. Which means bringing back fault based divorce. Which also means that if wombmomma didn't marry babydaddy, no child support.

Child support, as currently constituted, is an incentive to bad behavior. Once you grok that, you might be able to put together a reform that comports with justice. As it is, my guess is that your platform will manage to turn off the feminists ( "what, no minimum child support, how mean") and the manosphere ("It don't take 1.8 million dollars a year to raise a kid!" - Random NBA BabyDaddy ) and pretty much everybody in between.

In China they have their prisoners working at jobs because they view giving a prisoner "3-hots-and-a-cot" as outrageous, and the self righteous American gov has long time condemned China for those slave-labor camps which so very many Americans would like to see done here.

If we make prisoners to work even if we pay them a salary above the minimum wage but we deny such workers the simple basic human rights as like the ability to buy their own food or their own housing or the right to have a family then that is slavery and it would be cruel and inhuman.

And you are suggesting this for "PARENTS", not violent criminals but for dead-broke parents, to be put into work camps for their crime of parenting.

The cost of incarceration in the USA is around $25,000 per inmate per year, so for that cost we could give each parent a full time 40 hour week minimum wage job where they could live free and paying taxes and from that same $25,000 we could pay off the parents' Child Support orders in full, and then we would still have some cash left over to keep in the prison system for holding real criminals.

See Wiki link here = The Child Support Industry & Criticism.

I say the parents do NOT need any big-Daddy gov or laws dictating to parents as to their children and it was never needed to begin with.

Welcome, John.

Child Support is an important issue, which has been undergoing change in many states. A large potential voting block, but one that has never seemed to have a corresponding campaign to latch on to. Even some of the recipients of the current system know that it needs to change. My sister commented as such several times, even though she was the beneficiary. There also needs to be some way to ensure that child support is actually spent on the child, too. There are plenty of stories of the one paying support having to buy clothes, etc for their child, because they don't have any---indicating baby momma is spending all the money on herself, and not on the child. There should be some way to control that. The court system, as you say, inherently assumes the father is a deadbeat, and the mother is a saint....which is certainly not always the case. I look forward to seeing what you contribute to debates here.

My real name is James Patrick Cusick, and as such I try to go by my two initials of JP.

But "John" was a close guess.



I do NOT want the gov to start supervising the Custodial parents as the State does NOT belong in the parenting business.

The laws now cheat and mistreat the noncustodial parents so we do not need some equality by violating the Custodial parents too.



It turns out that this forum has me rather severely restricted and I see no way around that.

As I said in the OP that some people might view me as SPAM because I am not anonymous and I do have my own agenda.

It appears that posters here expect to discuss this subject out on the main board but I am restricted from starting a thread and so I am stuck here.

I have looked over the forum and I do not want to make posting onto various topics just to be posting when I have no interest or nothing to add into those other topics.

The rules appear unnecessarily too restrictive on this forum.

So I started a thread just dealing with your issue JP- enjoy

This would be that one linked HERE.

Welcome to JP

Don't worry - that's a just a protection for the rest of us from fly-by-night posters who turn up, open a thread and then disappear from view. Not that you're in that category, you understand.

You have to contribute below the line (within the rules) a few times before you can start creating new threads of your own. Them's the rules. But it's also good from your point of view, surely? If you're to be taken seriously as a candidate, you ought to be able to frame debates and engage with issues across the board, not only on your specialist subject area, no?

We've all abided by the rules and waited a while before being able to post our own threads. It's no big deal. It gives us a chance to first get to know each other a little in other threads. In the past there have been posters who joined us for no reason but to ride their own hobby horse, only to flame out in a very short time.

I hope you will see fit to join us in discussions besides the one that comprises your platform. Candidates who sound well-informed on a variety of subjects tend to gain the confidence of would-be supporters. On the other hand, one-subject politicians, although they may gain temporary attention ("The rent is too damn high!") tend to become a flash in the pan.

It turns out that I too am one of those ride my "own hobby horse" and my flame here has indeed run out.

I still get email notifications if anyone wants to post on here but there is no reason for me to stay here.

I am active on many Internet forums and I do not participate on any subject just to debate and debate without purpose or conclusion.

And it really makes no sense to me that you or this forum or anyone to not want any short term participation or single subject members because that is a significant part of humanity.

Obeying rules is a far different virtue rather than paranoid restrictions. This forum can act like a privileged private Country Club since it appears that way, and so be it.

It is time for me to move on, but I will still reply here if any one wants to talk to me as a lone ranger, and as me being one of those kind of persons that are not wanted here.

Most assuredly, this forum is restrictive to those who feel it must be "My way or the highway."

Fare thee well.

That's your own choice, though - a thread was started on your behalf by a sympathetic poster, and you posted on it precisely twice, and on neither occasion did you engage with any of the other posters on the thread. Politics and debate is not things that happen simply by each person taking turns to articulate their own point of view without reference to anyone else, you have to engage with ideas other than your own, if only to attempt to refute them.



Your choice.



Then, for the sake of your own sanity, do not stand for elected office. If you become a Senator, and the only thing you ever talk about in the Senate is child support laws, your constituents aren't going to be very happy with the way you're representing them, are they?



Who said wanted to involve the entirety of humanity? We aim be the best in internet political debate, not the most popular.



You say you post on many other debate sites, so you'll know that the vast majority of them either have no rules or they're enforced quixotically by partisan moderation. We're not like that here. Our rules do treat posting here as a privilege, it's true - that's why you have to earn the right to be able to open your own debate topics by the simple expedient of posting within the rules and - crucially - the Survival Guidefor a while. If you haven't already read the Survival Guide I strongly suggest you do so.

We're not paranoid here either - we don't think anyone is trying to prevent us saying what we want to say. Nobody here is preventing you from doing that either - you've posted freely without being prevented from doing so, having your posts removed or edited to toe some ideological line or other.

The definition of paranoia is the belief in a person that other people are "out to get" them with little or no real evidence to support that view. So all I'd ask is - who is it who's paranoid?



We want contributors to engage with other participants in civil and constructive debate. If you don't think you fit that mould, or you don't want to fit it, then you're right, you probably aren't suited to but it's you that's making the choice not to be active here, not us telling you you can't be.

It was just a matter of time before this came to pass, Mr. Cusick.

I am disappointed there will not be your perspective on legislative corrections and a discussion of them and possible others. We can still have that discussion here at but your work on it would be good to hear.

Wow. Just......wow.

No wonder he doesn't stay long enough to debate anyone.

My personal favorite:

That link is for a political Internet heckler from my Maryland who follows me around online, so it is not a representation of me or of my positions.

Having my own online hecklers (there are other ones) then that shows that I have entered the real world of politics and campaigns.

====================


If you look at that quote then it gives a dot dot dot ( ... ) which means a part is left out of the quote, and the quote you give does NOT have a source link so anyone could see the real quote instead of that incorrect rendition.

Otherwise the point is accurate that the Moms and the Dads do have two (2) different and distinct roles in raising their children, and the Mom can not fill the Dad's role just as the Dad can not fill the role of the mother.

The children need unrestricted access to both of their biological parents, and the children do NOT need the Child Support and Custody laws.

====================


Yes, it is my choice, and God knows we have to blame some one.

I now see this AD forum as being a forum of snobs, and that is not necessarily an insult because snobbery is a very common thing and very American and it seems to really fit this forum here.

Just giving my own perception of course.

As is I still must be grateful to this AD forum because I followed its given "recommendation" to discuss "Religion" over at the "Debating Christianity & Religion" forum which I now have two ongoing threads there, link 1 HERE, and link 2 HERE.

It has long been my personal policy in every regard that I take the best from any source and leave the rest which is what I do here too.

On the one hand, I'm not sure how you get to that conclusion. Post a few more times on the public debate forums here, (from memory I think it's five or ten - not too taxing) and you'll be able to post the same debate topic on . I'm not sure how you get to snobbery from that.

On the other, I'm reminded of a quote from The Magnificent Seven


If the distinction is between high-quality debate we get on most of the time and the kind of bunfights that beleaguer the rest of the debate sites I've seen, I'm downright snobbish, no question.

Good luck in the elections all the same.

I now see JPCusick as immature and childish, and that is not necessarily an insult because immaturity is a very common thing and very American and it seems to really fit his personality.

Just giving my own perception of course.

Sometimes, I wish this was Facebook, just because I really wanted to "like" this post. Totally made my day.

This might provide some insight into the source of JP Cusick's politics.

I do want to expand a little bit on my thoughts about JP since my last post is a bit of a Parthian shot.

He and his chosen issue were welcomed warmly, and because he was unable to start his own topic on the issue of child support, CR did him the courtesy of starting it for him. He made two isolated posts without really engaging anyone else who was participating on the topic. In fact, in the second post, he quoted his first. Clearly, he was dissatisfied with the discourse on the topic.

Personally, I found it a very interesting and heated discussion on the topic guided by both personal and professional experience, and there were many issues raised that JP could have chimed in on, including sharing his personal experience which has now found its way onto this thread anyway. Instead, he made no connection between his broad campaign platform and the specific issues raised by the participants in that thread.


This comment begs the question, what are you looking for on this debate website Mr. Cusick? What is the purpose you're seeking? If what you want is merely approval of your opinion, you're not going to find it here. We focus on both agreement and disagreement, and for good reason. Consequently, nearly no topics are concluded by any kind of consensus on the issue. To be blunt, that's not the point at all.

The point is that by exchanging ideas, the participators come away with a different perspective on the issue. More often than not, that different perspective an even more entrenched position because in the eyes of the participant, he/she has stood up to an opposing opinion and defended the position successfully. In other words, you have an opportunity to test and strengthen your position which will make it more convincing if it is tested again. Less commonly, participants come away convinced that their previous position was flawed, and they have an opportunity to modify it for their own personal benefit. In other words, they learn something.

If the above is not what you are looking for, Mr. Cusick, then I wish you the best on your way. I will warn you that you're walking away from an opportunity to learn from some very well-informed contributors both liberal and conservative. I'll also warn you that you won't like everything you read, and I fear that when you say:


You really mean you take what you like from any source and leave what you don't. If that's the case, you should be on your way.

Board policy regarding starting posts is longstanding and reasonable.

There is also a longstanding tradition, if not policy,* that we debate issues rather than other members.

Hence, I have nothing to say about JP Cusick, except that like everyone here is free to come and go, to post frequently or rarely, etc.

*If I remember correctly, we tried debating lordhelmet several years ago and Mike quickly nixed the thread.

An initial, probationary status does not indicate snobbery. It is altogether reasonable to see how a new member does before affording him (or her) full membership privileges.

If you can't abide a simple rule here, how would you ever tolerate following rules in Congress?

However- I totally agree with his civil disobedience- I wish more guys graffiti-d the various houses- pretty good idea IMHO. Just don't get caught LOL -too bad he did more time for that than Scooter Libby did for treason.

My mistake - sorry to anyone I misled.

Calling it as "snobbery" is a nice and polite thing for me to call it, as there are more choice words which would be more accurate.

In cases of snobbery we have to compare it to other forums to see where the standards lay, and then ask why is this one even more "special" than the vast majority which do not have such restrictions?



In this case I have NOT violated the rules, so refusing to follow such rules is not the same as breaking rules.

And in this case the so-called "rules" are not even told as the rules are arbitrary and capricious, as in one person has to apologize for telling that it is 10 posting while the actual rules are not told.

I do not see myself as being subordinate to those who rule here, even if others see it otherwise.

Wow, has Cusick handcuffed and locked up. Watch out Jamie and Mike, JP is getting ready for a bust out! Your rule will no longer be tolerated.

With each passing day, the title of this thread becomes more and more accurate.

You didn't answer the question. If you can't be humble and patient enough to wait through an introductory period on an internet debate forum, how are you going to be able to transition into the US Senate? If elected, you are going to be an outsider in the Senate, and you're going to have to establish yourself meekly before anyone takes you seriously. It might not be part of the rules, but it's part of common discourse.

If I didn't know your age, I would guess you are a teenager based on your fitful, dramatic reaction to an innocuous and pragmatic precedent that every forum member present has also gone through.


Then start your own debate forum and run it how you see fit. You don't seem to understand that you are powerless to change us, so your protestations are completely in vain.


I don't see you as subordinate to anyone here or elsewhere, and if you see yourself that way, you might want to reconsider your perspective.

J.P. will fit right in with Washington.



To quote Powers Boothe in Tombstone

"Well........bye."

"Occupy Washington", more likely.

So let me put it in a more direct manner:

What makes you so "special" that you take such exception to the rules the rest of us followed? Which begs the question, just who is the snob here?

Us, or YOU?

The fact that people were uncertain as to how many posts a new member must make illustrates that nobody was so traumatized by not being able to post topics immediately that they remembered the experience. The rules are not a problem for us.

The rules are part of what makes this forum special. If you can't handle what the rest of us are comfortable with, by all means, don't let the screen door hit you on the butt on your way out.

A candidate who is uninterested in actually debating the issue that serves as his platform? Color me surprised.

JP, I don't live in Maryland, so the question of whether or not I would vote for you is irrelevant. But, as you expressed a desire to be a member of this debate site, I have to ask: Since you were handed a thread on your issue in which you could've participated and then, according to the rules, been able to start your own thread - why not take advantage of it? Were you interested in discussing the issue with people here? Or were you just interested in posting your platform without having to address the challenges to it? If the latter, then... yeah, you're in the wrong place... you don't want a debate site - which is, by definition, about challenging the issues people put forth. But, if you're really looking to get elected, I hope you recognize that what you've demonstrated so far doesn't really instill confidence in your ability to be a good member of Congress - which, again, I have no say in whatsoever, so take that how you will.

I think JP has control issues. I guess the ambiguity of In order to avoid SPAM, new members must meet certain undisclosed criteria before starting new topics kind of irritated him. I post on another site that curiously uses the 10 post rule before you can introduce a link but lets you start a topic off the bat.

It's pretty simple. You are a guest in somebody elses house. If you want to enjoy guest privileges you put up with the few things you don't like or don't post. Complaining about the decor because everything doesn't meet your specifications seems kind of silly. If you are looking for perfection start your own place.

Apparently you and I (and others) have a far different perspective, as I am not going to the US Senate as some meek little subordinate member - hell no.

And if they fail to take me seriously then they will be in for one hell-of-a big surprise.

As such I simply do not see your point in your question as I do not consider such a question for myself. If I get elected then it is the Senate which needs me and not I that needs it, so the Senate will have to transition and bend for my purposes.

In fact this is a big negative which I see for the incumbent that I am running against, because he is a weak and meek puppet Senator who rubber stamps whatever his superiors tell him to do which I say makes him as being an inconsequential representative that needs to be replaced.



I do have a small forum on my website, but I figure when I win the election then I will create a large new forum that will spread all over the Internet and over the USA and the world.

My number one desire for such a forum is to let anyone join onto the forum, but then give extra merit for those who will verify their true identity just as I do, so then being anonymous will not carry the same weight. Of course I mean to give credits for compliance and not restrictions or punishments for those that do not want to comply.



I really have not asked the rules to be changed here, and you might see such as being "protestations" but that is only by viewing me as some subordinate which I am not, so my protesting as you see it is just my being polite in telling my own position and not protesting at all.

You see me as "powerless" because you do not understand what real power means or what it looks like.

I'd love to hear your stories about how you made the prison system transition and bend to your purposes.

It is hardly correct to say that I who does not bow am thereby being the snob to those that expect bowing.

But I do consider myself and all individuals as being "special", with no one being superior.



As is told on my "Biography Page" then me going to jail and to prison was a part of my "non-violent civil disobedience" which means the jail and prison were indeed being used by my control and NOT by theirs.

It is clear that many people view violence as the boss and brute force as justice and the strongest rules and might makes right but all of those are wrong.

In fact I see my own civil disobedience against the evil Child Support system as being so very empowering for myself and for my cause that I am still extremely proud of doing it, and proud of being incarcerated accordingly.

The experience was hard and difficult but it was a great adventure too, and directly after my last release from the MD State prison in 2003 then I started my plans to run for election on the platform of reforming those same evil Child Support and Custody laws.

I went to prison for three (3) full years based on a misdemeanor crime of "Destruction of Property" which was spray painting the MD State House with the righteous words in red spray paint of: "Child Support thieves" and "Thou shalt not steal" and of course I gave the Court and the Judge a hard time at my trial too.

Civil disobedience as told by the Mahatma Gandhi and by Martin Luther King were right on.

An understatement.


You mean graffiti on the Senate building? I admit I'd be pretty surprised if I read that news story.