All Activity

ah .. FUCK YEAH! TOPSONs!

Most twinks want young or Trans bottoms, the youngest guys i have gotten were in their 30s and that was decades ago

As A Faggot in A Wheelchair I love worshipping any cock while im in it, yes ill suck cock while out of my chair also but God Damn does it more fun, [banned word], Hotter when im in my wheelchair sucking on A Cock especially Huge Cocks at eye level tol me

OK. You're focus is on the election. I've tried to express the limitations of the "selection set," if you will. Can we try this? 2026 will be: a referendum on Trump a referendum about affordability and cost of living other things too I think we'll likely have a broad agreement there? Here's the issue with your "selection set" in regard to affordability: One of the key impactors of affordability, specific to apartment rentals, are companies like AirBnB. This has taken millions of rental units off the market. Cities are desperately trying to pass ADU-build incentives to get home owners to add more rental units to their marketplace. If candidates take this on, AirBnB and other similar services will have millions in brand advertising to compete against the candidate messaging. And, by definition of "brand advertising," this excludes any reference to the election or candidate so isn't money to a PAC, super PAC. It's just standard advertising. That Super PAC stuff is above and beyond this consideration. AirBnB has every right to advertise their brand and their version of its benefits. That is covered under free speech -- as long as it's not false marketing. This is what I mean about neutering campaigns. Candidates have to compete against more than just each other for "share of voice." (marketing term there) If you simplify the world to a point where the ONLY messaging is that of the candidates to the topic(s) at hand -- I agree with you. But that's a false assumption. There is NO election where that's true. environmentally-driven candidates: vs. oil/gas, or vs. "clean" coal, etc data privacy: vs. social, or vs search/AI, etc deregulation: vs. unions, or small business, etc and on it goes, processed foods, ride share, tech monopolies, screen time for kids, etc, etc, etc.

me too. It would be a dream cum true.

I love taking dick in public places outdoors is my favorite but also into public bathrooms and pretty much anywhere else there is a chance of getting caught

It's not that hard. I just chill out and every now and then I get the chance to suck someone off. Sometimes I get 2 or 3 back to back. 😍

I would love to stay with a poz couple or man when I visit this summer instead of the typical motel 6. Rent a room and take their loads whenever they want. Anyone help or no someone in PS that rents a room?

Visiting again - 7th to 17th Feb. Neg bottom/bator, can host in Kingsbridge.

Recently got fucked by A guy who Managed a Chuck E Cheese on one of the Tables at night, we met on grindr, had me Lyft to the Chuck E Cheese , he put me one of the tables and fucked my Ass So Hard a few times

You're safe with having to "defend" Musk... because, you are wrong on both counts. i am not asserting that "small dollar donations are better," that is presumption on your part. Here's what i envision (and i'm sure one can find rocks to throw at this and it would take more thought for a finished approach, but try to bear with me to see where i am actually coming from): i made reference to "one big pot of money equally divided." my idea is to divide the democratic process into many more individual pieces of influence, as in: "we the people." Musk and Soros are still free to follow their profound code of 'altruism' and donate vast sums. Since it can be argued they gain no substantial boon any more that Joe Shmoe, who paid 'nothing' but his taxes and his vote. Although, you may stumble at this because, if i recall, you believe altruism should not be part of the political process? (tongue in cheek). My point, for more clarity, is to work towards a system where no one person or group has more influence than another in the selection, voting, process... as much as can possibly be managed. So yeah, have at it billionaires and SGI's, feel free to donate, not to your cause, but to the democratic selection process, that way everyone can be equally pissed when they don't get what they want. To me, that would address issue two as well. Can i prove beyond a shadow of doubt that many large donators are buying influence? Maybe, if i spent lots of time and did lots of digging, but it's not a stretch (at all) for me to believe in the likelihood, almost naive not to consider it. But, as i see it, removing the donation from the individual to the many (i.e., anyone who votes), the democratic process instead, i suspect would soon demonstrate whether or not those massive donations would still roll in, individual or SIG. And again, the money part of this is just one factor in my mind, that needs reform.

My sister and I used to share a diaper. Either she'd pee in it first and then give it to me, or vice versa. I loved the feeling of her warm pissy diaper against my dick. Sometimes we would pee in our clothes too, and I would steal her pissed panties, hang them to dry, and rub my face in them while jerking off. I loved her pissy smell.

Oh I miss Vault. I was only twice but collected and deposited many loads there.

I'm not sure why the idea of a guy who thinks of himself as straight discovering how great it is to be fucked is such a turn on, but it really is. Which is why Mackyjay's stories are so fucking good. I've attached a pic of me ready to be filled.

From the linked U FL article, section 2: "Does money buy influence? Money matters in the most competitive races, open seat races that have no incumbent and those with high profile candidates. More money will be spent by the candidates in these races, but also by those who would like to influence the outcome. One concern that is often expressed is that winners answer to their donors and those organizations who support them. Since 2010, the role of outside money, or money from super PACs and political nonprofits, has raised alarms in the media and from reform groups. Some assert that self-financed candidates or those candidates who can demonstrate widespread support from small donors can allay concerns about the potential influence of donors on candidates and elected officials. The Center for Responsive Politics notes that outside organizations alone have outspent more than two dozen candidates in the last three electoral cycles and are poised to outspend 27 so far in 2018. However, it’s not always clear how useful that spending is. [snip dated examples] By 2016, it appears that super PACs were spending for more calculated effect, focusing on competitive races. In addition, much of that “outside money” comes from the super PACs associated with the two main parties. [snipped dated examples] Some candidates use their own money for their campaigns to avoid appearing indebted to donors. [snipped dated example] But self-funding does not resolve the democratic dilemma of responsiveness. First, Daily Kos found that most self-financed candidates lose – and the more they spend, the more likely they are to lose the election. Generally, the only exceptions are candidates like Rick Scott, who already hold elective office. Second, this way of improving responsiveness [better electoral outcomes by more spending] is limited because it effectively precludes anyone but the wealthy from holding office. Small donors seem like a democratic solution to wealthy donors dominating election giving. Several recent campaigns – Bernie Sanders, Rand Paul, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump – have created effective small-donor fundraising machines. More small donors means more widespread support, at least in theory, but that theory has limitations. Small donors are not yet giving enough to counter big money. In fact, the share small donors contribute relative to big money is declining. NOTE: both in volume and share of total, small dollar has increased since the article was written. See OpenSecrets.org for 2020 vs. 2016, See: section 2:The Funding Behind Record-Breaking Spending: [think before following links] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2020/10/cost-of-2020-election-14billion-update/ Moreover, political science doesn’t yet know enough about who small donors are – whether they are economically representative of the U.S. as a whole or even if they are more ideologically motivated to give, contributing to polarization in politics." But this last part is important. You made two very key statements which are pure assumptions, seemingly motivated by the original video and like conversations. That is, small dollar donations are better -- that is an assumption which is challenged directly above. But two, that someone rich is merely buying influence. And to support that, you made comment about Musk [and I'm MAD at you for making me "defend" him at any level! haha]. To make that example work: What did DOGE do with Musk that it would have not done anyway. Financial deregulation has literally been on the Republican platform for decades. What did they do that they hide from view or didn't run on? Project 2025 and the like was well discussed during the 2024 Presidential run-in. To the idea the Harvard article about influence, well there are $10s to $100s of millions poured into Democratic and other anti-gun candidates who are not getting their moneys worth at the moment! See: Minneapolis: both sides now support concealed carry. That's new. Do you notice how they don't cite this opinion statement? The assumption of corruption is down the conspiracy theory road. This article suggests candidates only stay true to their position due to "outside" money. How many times do candidates get dinged for "flip-flopping" due to money. That was Sanders criticism of Clinton. Which is it? I get lost with this snippet from the Harvard article. They state the contributors want incumbents, but their money doesn't help them. So why are they beholden to those contributors? They continue here. "can" and "may" -- suggestive language and opinion. It is not fact. If it "can" or if it "may" it could also be "doesn't" or "may not." And again, if incumbents are elected on a certain set of values, why wouldn't they stay true? Don't voters hate "flip-floppers?"

At The Vault (London), about two weeks ago. Publicly fucked four times with anon deep loads and clean-up duties for cum cocks. And I fucked twice just to empty my balls.

I’m straight but love submitting to real men. I believe I’m a faggot not gay. I only want used as a cock sucker cum dump.

My little rosebud needs to grow up. Is there any daddy for it?