jross

Agree 100% with this ^^^. Separately, when minors are involved, no abuse, and the divorce is not consensual, society should support policies like waiting periods and education to potentially save the family.

True. This varies from state to state.

To those against the idea of waiting periods that encourage couples with minor children to take time for reflection and consideration before finalizing a divorce... Y'all never seen impulsive decisions made when someone is in a state of fury? The majority of countries have waiting periods. The happiest countries have waiting periods. Y'all know why the US government gives perks to married folks? The deterioration and never-was of the family contribute to so many issues in this country.

Ronald Reagan signed no-fault into California as governor in 1969 and is on record for regretting it. He also said... Divorce is where two adults take everything that matters to a child – the child’s home, family, security and sense of being loved and protected – and they smash it all up, leave it in ruins on the floor, then walk out and leave the child to clean up the mess. Hillary Clinton has been anti-free society on record since the '90s https://relayto.com/matt-politicano/2016-democrats-on-no-fault-divorce-4s6hppb2 One example As I say in my book, I think getting a divorce should be much harder when children are involved. For much of the 1970s and 1980s, many believed that a bad marriage was worse than a good divorce. Now, however, we know that children bear the brunt of failed marriages. . . . Most marriages dissolve because of far less desperate circumstances. Divorce has become too easy because of our permissive laws and attitudes. Just look at our culture today: Good marriages are seldom celebrated, while every tiff or spat in a celebrity marriage becomes tabloid fodder. For too many people, “Till death do us part” means “Till the going gets rough.” With so many marriages failing — nearly half end in divorce in our country — we need to do more to encourage parents to work out their problems, stay together and strengthen their families. In cases where problems can’t be reconciled, parents ought to put the needs of their children first in working out the terms of divorce. They must understand that their parental responsibilities continue even after a marriage splits up. The good news is that attitudes about marriage and divorce seem to be changing. Some states are beginning to examine whether their divorce laws are too lax. Grass-roots campaigns to help preserve marriage are flourishing around the country. – Hillary Clinton, January 27, 1996

Let's reframe. Do you agree with this?

Mikey J. would never go for this... but it seems like a good secular idea. Do you know what should come with marriage? Prenup education and boilerplate agreement on the commons: children, inheritance, assets, alimony, debts, etc. Two people work out the high-level details when the relationship is delightful to avoid the shitshow if it becomes dreadful.

Is it also the children's business, where two parents have equal accountability for their upbringing? Allowing a spouse some time to mend their family, if they choose, is fair.

Disagreement might come about this proposal. What alternatives are there to reduce unnecessary divorce for the parent-of-minor scenario? https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Parental-Divorce-Reduction-Act-PDF.pdf for the children... https://divorcereform.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/DR_talkingPoints1.pdf

Both my sisters no-fault divorced their husbands of around 14 years because they were unhappy. One had 4, and the other had 5 minor children. The 'hell' these children (and spouses) have gone through... It is fair to the spouse and children to have the parents go through counseling over some period before the divorce goes through. The counseling might teach the impact of divorce to adults and children. It might teach them how to have crucial conversations and maintain their relationship. It might save a family. Studies show that family is good. ...not interested in the exceptions (see statement on 'not trapped' in harmful).

Married parents with kids should never be trapped in a (sustained) unhappy or harmful relationship. But what about other reasons for unhappiness like boredom or financial stress? It's not selfish to seek happiness, but it's important to consider your children's well-being. Choose daily to commit to your spouse and prioritize your children. Unhappiness is temporary; it too shall pass. Emotional damage to children may never pass. To walk out on one's spouse and children because you 'feel like it?' Selfish and damaging.

The point of sharing is to support Offthemat with how stupid our youth are. This post is not meant to derail the conversation off track from Israel attacked.

That's a common opinion, unfortunately. I have 9 nieces and nephews that disagree with you.

I always appreciate the great research and sources that you utilize /s, like proving your point that no-fault divorces have been overwhelmingly good things... https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/restoring-america/community-family/there-is-no-republican-plot-to-end-no-fault-divorce-but-there-should-be https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/02/13/when-divorce-is-a-family-affair

Nuance. ... privacy (HIPAA), security (confidential docs), IP (copyrighted material), protecting children (xxx), materials calling for imminent lawless action ... https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/print/19990531/33480-paladin-press-pays-millions-to-settle-hit-man-case.html

Yes, regardless of educational improvements and such, other parts of life were diminished, and that's why after the initial 250K golden exile, another 260K working-class immigrants came to the USA as part of the Freedom Flights. Again, more immigrants in two individual immigrant waves than from 1900 to 1959 combined. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Flights

Uncle's comment supports that China strives to do what it says in its constitution. We've been talking now about Deng Xiaoping Theory. China is ruled by a single majority party that suppresses political consent and criticism... as it favors the CCP political party and the "collective" taking precedence over individual liberties. It spies on its citizens and censures... showing elements of authoritarianism and totalitarianism. State-owned enterprises in China are still common and often have monopolies... You can point out that different ideologies overlap, but much of the ascribed country behavior fits Communism... the party name is Communism... the constitution says Communism...

China is failing on the classless front. The country's wealth disparity rivals the USA.

Communism is not a monolithic ideology

...support it depends on what characteristics and actions you want to emphasize. Since you say China is not what it says it is, and China is not what it says it strives to be, how does Plasi label the ideology? China describes its economic system as "socialism with Chinese characteristics" but does that mean the 'country' is not communist?

Well, my family friend 'Angel' (who left China and still has family living in China) also says and criticizes...

I answered your question strongly. It is a subjective question with pros/cons documented by folks who lived in both situations (quora). Rather than debating subjective opinions, I pointed out that the actions the Cubans took were the answer. Sure the initial departure was the ruling class, but that's the minority overall.

Well, their constitution says:

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP),[3] officially the Communist Party of China (CPC),[4] is the founding and sole ruling party of the People's Republic of China (PRC). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party https://www.britannica.com/topic/Chinese-Communist-Party

What does it imply when considering there were 125,000 Cuban immigrants in America across 50 years before the revolution, 250,000 Cuban immigrants in the first 3 years post-revolution, and over 1 million Cuban immigrants in the US across the next 50 years?