Just bought a house and I wanted to enjoy the pool before I drain it. I tested the water and here are the results. I am getting mixed opinions on what to add and how long to wait for. Pool’s 25000 gallons. Could I please have some advice? Also, is it safe to swim in at current conditions?

This Dr is the only one who will do adult diagnosis in my area, she wants $2,375 - $3,375. Does not include other visits.
No financial assistance available for any reason, you pay or don't get in.
So yeah, self diagnosis is valid.

But I'm here on a weekend and full service isn't an option. I'll search for another or come back during the week. There's only one kiosk. (Edgewood St, Halethorpe location)

Rising to the presidency under hotly contested circumstances by rallying the government to legally depose President Howard P. Lovecraft due to his infirmity, the first days of the Hayes presidency were far from smooth. Despite having held office for just 28 days, President Lovecraft and his inner group of supporters had spread their tendrils widely throughout the government, rushing quickly to appoint as many like-minded individuals as possible to positions of power within the government. Even after forcing the resignation of the whole Lilienthal clique the day before swearing his oath of office, President Hayes found himself preoccupied for weeks with comprehensively rooting out the Formicist movement from the federal government and finding enough of his own allies to fill in the many gaps left behind after the Formicist anthill had been scoured. Especially as the vast majority of the Formicists given positions of power in government had been white men, Hayes was particularly lauded for his appointment of substantially more women and people of color than any of his other predecessors. Perhaps nothing else more symbolized his commitment to equal rights than his choice to fill in the vacant office of Vice President, the widely celebrated union leader and Florida Senator Asa Philip Randolph.
Sensing more enemies lurking in the dark than just those in the Formicist movement, President Hayes was also quick to meet with Representative Samuel Dickstein, the longtime chair of the House Un-American Activities Committee. Feeling that their work had been neglected by the Dewey administration, Hayes worked with allies in Congress to ensure an appropriation of more resources to the Committee. The result was a reinvigoration of the White Scare that had followed the Cape Cod Invasion in the earlier decade, with high-profile hearings once again delving into the unsavory history of the DuPont chemical company and making new inroads into areas such as the film industry. Perhaps even more incendiary was Attorney General O. John Rogge’s string of prosecutions of figures implicated in Smedley D. Butler’s Business Plot allegations such as business executive Grayson M.P. Murphy and even former General James G. Harbord. Completing the circle was Secretary of Education George S. Counts, returned to his office after a brief interruption during the Lovecraft presidency, who initiated a nationwide endeavor for a standardized curriculum surrounding the history of Grantism designed to achieve a “social reconstruction” underscoring the “moral equality of man” and critical of societal institutions “inimical to the underlying principles of democracy.”
Once his position had been secured, Hayes hoped to spend the next years of his presidency agitating for the final realization of President Dewey’s Great Community and perhaps even to drive it into further adoption across all facets of American life and the economy. However, another issue would instead come to consume his presidency. Starting as all things do in the Balkans, the disintegration of the Triple Monarchy of Austria-Hungary-Croatia led to a European crisis after the Kingdom of Italy occupied territory claimed by the German Empire. With the pleas of the International Court of Justice falling on deaf ears, the conflict rapidly spiraled into continent-spanning war after successive escalations by the powers of Europe. Even the socialist Republic of Spain, which had professed neutrality as the war broke out was near-simultaneously consumed by a civil war mimicking the patterns of the wider European war. But it was not only Europe that was thrust into the flames of war, Asia too exploded into open conflict in the summer of 1938. After long-rising tensions finally reached a climax, the Japanese Empire launched an unsteady attack that rapidly transformed into a full-scale invasion of China replete with horrific war crimes and massacres of civilians.
Hayes’ position on foreign affairs was nothing if not clear, furiously denouncing the “military madness and tyranny” of the French-Italian Pact of Steel and particularly attacking their sponsorship of the Nationalist rebels in Spain as an assault on global socialism. Likewise, Hayes echoed the sentiments of the late President Bliss in denouncing Japan for “sowing the dragon’s teeth of militarism”. Yet President Hayes did not solely content himself with words, and made several bold moves to counter the threat he saw in international Integralism. After the sinking of two passenger liners carrying American civilians by French naval forces, Hayes successfully extracted an indemnity from the French government to compensate the victims and threatened to impose an embargo of ever-valuable coal and iron if further transgressions were made. Holding a strong affinity for the socialist government of Spain that was under siege by the Nationalist revolt, Hayes also openly fostered the formation of American volunteer units to fight on behalf of the Spanish government, though his efforts to send material aid failed at the hands of Solidarists and Federalist Reformists reluctant to provide such aid to a radically socialist government. However, such skepticism did not extend to the longtime American ally of China (perhaps in part thanks to deeply established commercial ties), prompting the authorization of arms and supply shipments to China through the British port of Guangzhou as well as substantial embargoes on the flow of the same going to Japan. In order to disarm the threat of large-scale strikes posed by longshoremen leader Harry Bridges and mine workers leader John L. Lewis, Hayes met with both and, using the panache of a former union man still extraordinarily popular with the rank and file, credibly threatened to get both of them voted out of their union presidencies if they did not cooperate and thus secured the free flow of goods out of Pacific harbors.
Of course, these issues of foreign affairs did not totally consume the domestic politics of the nation. In August of 1937, the Council of Censors published its first annual report on the operations of the government, producing a document harshly detailing millions of dollars that had been misspent or unaccounted for in federal appropriations and noted dozens upon dozens of instances of incompetent management among the civil service in the administration of the Great Community. Hoping to forge his own identity as the Speaker of the House even after his Formicist allies had been overthrown in the executive branch, Walter Rautenstrauch thus pushed the first substantial civil service reform bill in 50 years through the House of Representatives, designed to enact stringent requirements on newly created positions across the Departments of the Treasury, Commerce, and the Interior. Although the bill passed through the Senate thanks in part to public pressure from the Council of Censors, it earned a controversial veto as President Hayes attacked it as an antidemocratic measure designed to lessen control of the people over the government. Economically, the country showed signs of recovery from the depths of unemployment seen earlier in the Depression, but this coincided with increasingly rampant inflation as prices began to skyrocket across a wide variety of goods in the market as well as an increasingly staggering national debt. Yet with the House of Representatives largely deadlocked and the Senate determined to preserve the Great Community, little change was made to the economic policies of the nation aside from the nationalization of the merchant marine after several Federalist Reformist Representatives under the leadership of Royal C. Johnson crossed the aisle on the basis of preventing war profiteering and ensuring national defense. Also notable was the long-awaited referendum on the future of the Congo, in which independence won by a large margin, though Hayes moved to push the future independence of the territory back by another ten years in light of the dangerous international situation.
But as Americans once again head to the polls, several new incidents have brought foreign affairs to the fore of the national election. Following the brutal Battle of Nanjing, the USS Asheville was sunk by Japanese aircraft during an evacuation mission of American nationals and many of the remaining survivors were strafed by gunfire in the open water, among a litany of other acts of violence and brutality perpetrated on American civilians. Furthermore, reports streaming into the country from China detailed crimes against humanity perpetrated on an unimaginable scale by the invading Japanese army. Meanwhile, the House Un-American Activities Committee shocked the nation by reopening the previously cold investigation into the Cape Cod Invasion, announcing that the State Department turned over new documents suggesting that Ulysses Grant III and other ringleaders of the attempted overthrow of the democratic government had had extended communications with the Italian foreign ministry, leading many tabloids to conclude that Mussolini had himself sponsored the effort to return the Grant dictatorship to America. Thus, while weighing these new developments against the myriad other considerations surrounding the ongoing wars abroad, the American people now must decide how to react. As President Hayes has put it while stumping for the Social Democratic Party, “shall we ignore the call of our homeland, of liberty-loving Spain, of outraged and devastated Belgium, of heroic Britain and China, of starving Croatia?”
Social Democrats
​
https://preview.redd.it/p5psghl4am2b1.png?width=337&format=png&auto=webp&s=30237b7e1df93820aca50e6793224cb5d65a69bc
On domestic issues, the Social Democratic Party is remarkable for the unity fostered by President Dewey and his Great Community. While there remains much debate on the extent of government control over the economy and the mechanics of how they should be transferred out of private control, virtually the whole of the Social Democratic Party agrees that the nationalization of monopolistic industries such as the electric power, natural gas, and utilities industries are the most immediate priorities for extending worker control over the economy and putting an end to exploitative practices by business. Although largely content with the current regime of large deficit spending, dovish monetary policy, and a hefty taxation scheme, Social Democrats have continued to press for expansions to the land value tax in particular as a means to raise additional revenue to address the national debt while combating the pernicious effects of land ownership. Additionally, thanks to the advocacy of President Frank J. Hayes following many other predecessors, the Social Democrats have mobilized in favor of a system of universal sickness insurance to continue the extension of the expansive social safety net implemented with President Dewey’s Great Community. Blaming the greed of private businesses for the recent uptick in inflation and claiming that they have used the economic recovery as an excuse to extort average workers, President Hayes and the Social Democratic Party have called for the implementation of price controls on basic necessities and essentials of life if the inflation continues. However, while broadly unified on the matter of domestic matters, the same cannot be said of foreign affairs, where there remains an acrimonious split in the party.
The Interventionists are those who broadly support the struggle of the Spanish Republic, the Chinese Republic, and the Anglo-German Grand Alliance against the Integralist powers of France, Italy, and Japan. Framing the ongoing world war as a struggle of the forces of liberty and labor against the military tyranny of the Integralist ideology, the interventionist Social Democrats believe that action must be taken against France, Italy, and Japan lest Integralism once again threaten the United States. To this end, the interventionists have wholeheartedly backed the theory that Mussolini’s Italy were the backers of the Cape Cod Invasion that sought to restore Grantist rule to America, and point to the little-disputed French and Italian support for Nationalist Spain as evidence. Thus, under the leadership of notables such as New Jersey Senator Upton Sinclair, Montana Senator Jerry J. O’Connell, and Minnesota Representative John Bernard, the interventionists have come to support the rearmament of the United States, the sending of arms and material aid to Spain and China in particular, and even the entry of the United States into the war if it proves necessary. Some interventionists, such as Californian Robert A. Heinlein, have even gone so far as to claim universal military training as a fundamentally socialist concept that could be incorporated into a wider scheme of national service. However, many of the Social Democratic interventionists remain uncomfortable with the idea of allying the nation with the authoritarian monarchy of the German Empire, especially due to its repression of left-wing elements, but see it a necessary and lesser evil due to the less expansionist and ideological tendencies of the Kaiser. Broadly speaking, the interventionists tend to be more moderate than their isolationist counterparts, supporting a more limited vision of worker control of the economy and social spending, though there remain some radicals deeply committed to the international preservation and spread of socialism.
The Isolationists meanwhile have harshly denounced international conflict as the “fruit of the perpetual economic warfare of capitalism” and insisted on the strict neutrality of the United States through the enforcement of an embargo on all belligerent powers with no further distinction to avoid sponsoring any type of warfare. Under the leadership of Connecticut Senator Devere Allen, New York Governor Norman Thomas, and Wisconsin Governor Daniel Hoan, the isolationists have attacked any efforts at the militarization of American society, believing that it will inherently lead to the oppression of the working class and return of dictatorship to the country. More than anything else, the isolationists have harshly denounced the thought of entering the war by alleging modern war to be inherently suicidal and causing an incalculable strain on the working class. Moreover, those within the isolationist camp have strongly questioned the underpinnings of the interventionist argument, arguing that Germany is as much of an enemy to the working class as the Integralists and questioning the commitment of Chiang Kai-Shek to any socialist ideals. Perhaps the most controversial position has come from civil rights activist W.E.B. DuBois, who has argued that an intervention against Japan would merely foster a return of European colonialism in Asia. However, with most of the Social Democratic isolationists having an affinity for pacifism, few are content with simply letting the world war play its course. Instead, the isolationists concur that the American government and the wider socialist movement must agitate for a general strike by workers of all the belligerent powers to bring an end to the war, and perhaps realize worldwide socialist revolution. In general, the isolationists skew more radical than the interventionists, often favoring the inflammatory Declaration of Principles authored by Devere Allen that supports wide-reaching nationalizations of much of the economy.
Solidarity
​
https://preview.redd.it/c001z7tmam2b1.png?width=599&format=png&auto=webp&s=20542930aae80c50c884622316fd26056502465f
While Solidarity has long held members of both conservative and progressive stripes, the differences between them has become largely diminutive in the face of the sweeping leftward march of President Dewey’s Great Community. Attacking the fiscal policies of the Social Democratic Party as reckless and irresponsible, Solidarity is unified in the demand for federal spending to be drastically cut as a countermeasure against explosive inflation of prices and to avert the looming possibility of a sovereign debt crisis. Moreover, Solidarity argues that the overly expansive size of the federal government under the Social Democratic administrations has lent itself to the rise of governmental corruption and labor racketeering, and thus has come to largely favor civil service reform. Still cognizant of the risk of a return to economic crisis, Solidarity remains supportive of a dovish monetary policy designed to expand the money supply and thereby avoid a slip back into the deflation of the Great Depression, and many of its progressive members favor reasonable antitrust measures and other regulations to prevent the exploitative industry practices. Although the distinction has been encroached upon the Social Democratic Party under Presidents Dewey and Hayes, Solidarity also has a reputation as the strongest defender of civil rights in American politics, with many of its populations favoring greater action to end discrimination in private business and ensure the equality of African Americans and women in American life. Much like their Social Democratic peers, Solidarity has also been beset by a growing rift between two camps of thought on foreign affairs ever since the dream of international arbitration died alongside its champion former President George Foster Peabody in the midst of a world war.
The Interventionists are those that support the struggle of China against the invasion by the Japanese Empire and the Anglo-German Grand Alliance against the invasions by France and Italy. Believing the Integralist powers to be aggressors impossible to reason with who have destroyed the world peace so painfully architected by their party two decades ago, figures such as Connecticut Governor Raymond E. Baldwin, House Leader Charles Phelps Taft II, and former presidential nominee Wendell Willkie see little alternative but to take drastic action to preserve the world order. The interventionists, feeling an affinity towards the democracy of the United Kingdom, have also been quick to frame the conflict as one between the democratic way of life and the aggressive authoritarianism of the Integralist ideology. Thus, they favor a measured rearmament plan to prepare the United States for an eventual conflict, as well as policies designed to contain the war-making abilities of France, Italy, and Japan. Although some hold a distant hope for being able to arbitrate this world war in much the same way as the last, most of the interventionists have become convinced that an American intervention into the war, particularly in Europe, will be necessary to avoid world domination by aggressive Integralist powers antithetical the civil liberties and democratic values which Solidarity has cherished since its foundation. While expressing some hesitancy to the idea of intervening on behalf of the German Empire after its recent dissolution of the Reichstag, the interventionists have a greater faith in the German commitment to the restoration of the Hague system of international affairs and believe that they may be able to pressure for the reintroduction of democratic government in the country. Unlike the Social Democrats, the Solidarist interventionists are skeptical of the socialist Spanish Republic and largely reluctant to commit to supporting it. On the whole, the interventionists tend to be more progressive than their isolationist colleagues, favoring a greater degree of regulation in the economy and more willing to compromise with the Social Democrats to preserve the Great Community.
The Isolationists instead believe that the collapse of the Hague system is the ultimate proof that the United States should turn inwards and avoid foreign entanglements. Rejecting the idea that America is responsible for the preservation of democracy abroad, the isolationists believe that the interventionists are merely intent on drawing the country into a bloody and expensive war that may well invite the very tyranny they claim to be opposing. Instead, as typified by leaders such as Michigan Representative Arthur H. Vandenberg, Ohio Representative Robert A. Taft, and Florida Representative Zora Neale Hurston, isolationists instead support a strict program of embargo on all belligerent powers designed to show no favoritism to either party and ensure that further incidents such as the sinkings of the USS Asheville or the SS Scharnhorst are avoided. Thus, they argue, the country would be able to avoid being drawn into the war and focus on maintaining its prosperity and addressing its many domestic issues. Moreover, they believe that if the United States is able to steer clear of the raging international conflict, it might naturally emerge in a dominant international position after the war has run its course. The isolationists also distrust broad rearmament programs, believing that wantonly strengthening the peacetime military could result in a return of Grantism and military dictatorship in the country. The isolationists tend to be largely conservative, taking a harder line against government spending and believing in a restrained role of government in regulating the economy.
Federalist Reform
​
https://preview.redd.it/fioi3a40bm2b1.png?width=505&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d512790aaf7f523f06a4c1004b9d9e5cffc69cd
Broadly dominated by its New Nationalist wing, the domestic platform of the Federalist Reform Party remains largely centered around the ideas pioneered by its thought leader Charles Edward Merriam though there remain some more conservative skeptics. Although much like Solidarity the party sees the deficit spending of the Social Democratic Party as fiscally irresponsible and philosophically disagree with the nationalization of industry, the Federalist Reform Party holds a markedly different view on the relationship between the government and the economy. United around a belief in the need for a strong executive to successfully regulate the economy and push forward their governmental initiatives, the Federalist Reform Party supports cooperation between government planning experts and the private sector to avert cutthroat competition, direct the economy towards more profitable investments, and regulate the excesses and failures of the market economy. They also support a more limited program of public works spending to help stimulate the economy under the framework of a balanced budget. Blaming President Dewey’s removal of the country from the gold standard for the recent inflation, the Federalist Reform Party has called for more hawkish monetary policies if not an outright return to the gold standard to help control inflation in conjunction with a balanced budget. Hoping to strike a middle ground between a respect for labor and controls against radical leftism, the Federalist Reform Party generally favors the maintenance of many current union protections while also calling for a criminal syndicalism law that would outlaw the advocacy of the use of violence to effect political or economic change. Yet perhaps one of the party’s most defining traits is its stringent denunciation of corruption in government, calling for it to be comprehensively rooted out through civil service reform and anti-corruption efforts while blaming the Social Democrats for fostering the growth of graft and crime from within the government. Unsurprisingly, the Federalist Reform Party has also become bifurcated along the lines of interventionism and isolationism in the face of the global war.
The Interventionists of the party see it as in the nation’s best interests to intervene in the world war on behalf of the Anglo-German Grand Alliance and the Chinese Republic. Displaying a more coldly practical perspective, the interventionists, led by figures such as House Leader Harry Hopkins, former Senator Harold L. Ickes, and newer faces such as W. Averell Harriman have noted that the deep commercial and financial ties between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, and China leave it little choice but to intervene in the conflict. Moreover, they argue that if France, Italy, and especially Japan are left to succeed in the world war, they will surely pose a direct military threat that America will sooner or later be compelled to confront. Instead, they believe that the United States should intervene sooner rather than later to ensure that it can better project its influence in whatever new order may result after the end of the war, and have particularly taken aim at the threat posed by Imperial Japan with its formidable navy. Although holding few of the reservations that the other parties do about committing to open war, the interventionists agree that the country is woefully underprepared for an international war after years of military neglect by the previous presidential administrations. Thus, they have pragmatically suggested that the country rely on providing material aid to its future allies while embargoing its anticipated enemies and embarking on an ambitious rearmament program. The cornerstone of such a rearmament program would be the implementation of universal military training compelling all young men into a period of military service in preparation for an eventual war, a program which they hope to maintain in the long term due to other claimed benefits such as the installation of a spirit of discipline and nationalism. Having a certain affinity for more authoritarian government, the Federalist Reformist interventionists have not shied away from aligning with the German Empire, but have been rather critical of the alleged corruption of Chiang Kai-Shek’s China and have ruled out entirely the idea of intervening on behalf of radical socialism in Spain.
The Isolationists of the party, largely ruled by Chicago Tribune publisher Robert R. McCormick but also supported by Congressional figures such as Hamilton Fish III, have argued that America has nothing to fear from the global war should it pursue a prudent policy of national defense. Much like the isolationists in the other parties, they have largely called for an embargo on all belligerent powers to avoid offending any particular side or otherwise drawing the country into the war. Yet much unlike the other isolationists, they have nonetheless strongly supported a national program of rearmament and universal military training under a policy of armed neutrality to guarantee the nation’s security and safety from foreign threats. This, they argue, is the best course to ensure that the country is not attacked or otherwise forced into the war. Disagreeing with the assessment of their other Federalist Reformist peers, the isolationists argue that the United States has nothing to fear from any foreign power due to its naturally defensible position with oceans separating it from any dangers. Likewise, they argue that commercial bonds can easily be reforged either with fellow neutral nations or with the victorious powers. On the whole, many of the isolationists are also conservative skeptics of the New Nationalist movement who favor less government intervention in the economy and blame overly powerful unions for the nation’s economic woes. While the political scene has become rife with fiery condemnations for opposing opinions on foreign affairs, the Federalist Reformist isolationists have acquired a more unsavory reputation than their counterparts in other parties. Still lurking within the party are those remaining hardliners and outright Grantists who openly sympathize with the Integralists and have pragmatically backed the isolationist position in the hopes that France, Italy, and Japan can continue to press their advantageous position to victory. With figures ranging from radio priest Charles Coughlin to former Georgia Senator Eugene Talmadge, their political views range from populism bordering on the Social Democratic platform to archconservatism, but they remain united by their admiration for Integralists such as Mussolini and their stringent isolationism.
View Poll

These seemingly benign habits, such as removing gel manicures and using your nails as tools, can seriously harm and weaken your nails. We discuss bad nail habits in this post, as well as advice on how to strengthen your nails and improve nail hygiene.
A vital component of our bodies are our nails. They perform the vital function of safeguarding our fingerprints in addition to being an nail supply warehouse attractive feature. Additionally, they may alert us to certain underlying health problems. Unfortunately, the majority of us do not know how to properly care for our nails, destroying them unintentionally out of habit or ignorance. These are the five things you should quit doing to your nails in order to improve their condition.

1. Quit removing your gel manicures by peeling

Gel manicures are getting more and more fashionable. But did you know that the way you remove your gel manicures can affect the health of your nails? If your gel polish begins to flake or lift, the worst thing you can do is try to peel it off, as this might harm your nails' top layer. The end outcome of this is brittle, fragile nails. But if you want your gel nails securely removed, you might think about going to a professional nail salon rather than pulling them off.

2. Quit using your nails as implements.

The majority of us abuse our nails by using them as implements. People occasionally use their nails to open cans, lids, or scratch-off stickers, for instance. Unfortunately, these practices put your nails in danger by having the potential to cause significant harm. Additionally, your nails were not created to resist pressure; as a result, if you continue to use them as tools, they will become brittle, split, and shatter. In order to prevent hurting your nails, it would be logical to force yourself to use implements like scissors, screwdrivers, and can openers.
​
nail supply store online

3. Give up using acrylics

Acrylic nails are highly common because of how long-lasting and robust they are, yet they can harm real nails. This is due to the fact that acrylic nails are frequently bonded together chemically during application. Of course, using such chemicals might thin out your nails and eventually weaken them. Additionally, the weight of the acrylics may easily exert additional pressure on your nail beds, which may cause pain and infections. So giving up acrylics in favor of a gel manicure or a natural look would be beneficial for maintaining the health of your nails.

4. Quit biting your fingernails.

One of the undesirable behaviors that can harm the condition of your nails is chewing your nails. In addition to being harmful, there are signs that chewing your nails can result in serious harm, such as infections and ingrown nails. Therefore, if you already have a problem with nail biting, you need to find a way to break this harmful behavior. For instance, you may paint your nails with bitter-tasting nail polish. To prevent access to your nails, you might also put on gloves. You can also look into other stress-relieving techniques, like exercise or meditation.

5. Don't remove any more protruding nails.

Most of us automatically remove our hanging nails. Although we believe it to be safe, it can actually do more harm than good. For instance, removing perfect match gel polish dangling nails may cause damage to the nearby skin, raising your risk of infections. By using good scissors to cut our nails instead, we can break this unhealthy habit. Applying a tiny amount of antiseptic cream or oil to the region will also assist to stave off infections.