SomewhereonNeptune

On 9/22/2025 at 1:55 PM, PozTalkAuthor said:

I've always been against violence and murder; if you kill a person for their ideas, you just make these ideas stronger....

...What makes Kirk's ideas so popular? Maybe the fact he has a BETTER way to communicate, a good charisma, whatever? A good idea, but with a questionable communication method, nowadays becomes ineffective. The system is toxic, like it or not.

Let me say, it's like mosquitos. You can spread poison through the entire house, but if you do not take care of the pot outside, with water where mosquitos deposit their eggs, it's like the crocodile chasing its tail.

My 1,5 cents. 

Kirk and TPUSA was an organization based on conservative values as a response to the liberal culture on college campuses. He actually invited dialogue between people, generally in the form of debate. In any of the hundreds of video clips that are posted, he may have been vigorous in his debate performance, but I never saw him as being hateful, racist, or rude to people in those interactions. But he would argue the logical points behind some of the more outlandish positions.

He was a very effective communicator and solid debater. I agree that without the toxic system that is out there now, there might not be the cult of personality around Kirk.

Did he deserve to be killed for his views? No one deserves to be killed for civil discourse. Being more right-wing, I have seen some pretty wacky people on the opposing team. I enjoy hearing other points of view, because by challenging my own views it validates those views or disproves them based on logical arguments. 

On 9/22/2025 at 11:10 AM, viking8x6 said:

I'll be happy to explain myself, @SomewhereonNeptune.

1. The question had already been asked once. @TaKinGDeePanal is not obliged to respond, and shouting (all caps) a demand for an answer is simply rude.

2. @rawfuckingonly says "You made a claim so you best back it up." But if you go back and read the post from @TaKinGDeePanal, his actual claim is about your (@SomewhereonNeptune) assertion regarding the example set by moderates and conservatives. The only role the clause about the bullet plays in his post is as a time reference dividing a "This Is War" behavior from one of  "prayer, vigil, and remembrance". Whether the source of the bullet was proven or merely perceived to be from one source or another is not cogent to his statement.

 

Gotcha. It was kind of confusing, but I'll own that as I've been a bit loopy with some low blood pressure and balance issues lately. Whoops! 

Thanks for explaining! 😀

Interesting points. I can understand some of them from your perspective, but in saying that, I'll respectfully disagree on many. I think you'd expect that.

20 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

What did they like about it? National Guard can’t do law enforcement. They were reportedly picking up trash. 

You're cherry picking. ATF, FBI, other federal law enforcement has been deployed to Washington. The National Guard cannot do law enforcement, but they can be a sort of neighborhood watch and advise the other patrolling agencies. The immediate impact on crime has been a reduction, which is what DC residents have stated they liked.

23 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

That’s not DOE’s fault. Each state sets its own curriculum and standards. DOE programs have made substantial contributions to students and schools. It ensures that public schools don’t discriminate against children with disabilities and sets standards for schools to meet when educating these kids, including Individualized Education Programs (IEP) for each of these children. (As a classroom teacher, these add a lot of work to adapt curriculum for each of these students.  Not fun at all, but important. I do wonder if there’s a better way though.) In addition to providing for children with disabilities, DOE enforces civil rights laws to ensure that schools don’t discriminate against race, national origin, gender, age. There’s much, much more the DOE does, including providing money for schools and programs. But unfairly, DOE gets a bad rap. There are TONS of issues that contribute to our schools’ weaknesses. I’ve not been a classroom teacher for 25 years and things are much worse for teachers now. Nowadays classroom management is a nightmare. Cell phones, computers in classrooms (important, but nearly impossible to ensure all students are on task), overcrowded classrooms mostly due to decreases in state funding, increased focus on state-mandated testing, and distance learning. (I can’t imagine being a teacher trying to adapt to entirely new instruction methodologies to teach online.)

If you look at the amount of each state’s funding per student, you shouldn’t be surprised to learn that it’s highly correlative to the states’ academic outcomes. And it also shouldn’t surprise you that red states provide significantly lower funding and have poorer academic outcomes. Massachusetts is #1.

I don't disagree with you on this point, but...wouldn't the individual states do better with deciding how to administer that money since they can direct that funding at a local level? I'm more a believer that there can be some type of minimal Federal standard and then leave it to the individual states to apply additional standards as needed, or change the formulas on a state level to apply the newly received funding that has been decentralized to address their own deficiencies - special education, disabilities, behavioral challenges, using it as a lever to fund underfunded programs in inner cities.  I'm not a big believer that we need layers and layers of bureaucrats in DC that are far removed from communities to do that.

The current funding equations don't always make sense. You live in affluent area, the schools are generally better funded (not always). Urban area? They suck. Money in the hands of the states can directly address based on voters. Keep in mind that tax equations don't always result in better outcomes.

34 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

She’s a smart cookie. How about comparing her to Trump?

It seems to me that Palin normalized the acceptance of incompetent candidates. You can draw a pretty straight line from Palin to MAGA.

We'll agree to disagree there. Just as we likely disagree on MAGA, or Jimmy Kimmel, the double-standard applied on censorship when it applies to Republicans (Dems seem to think that's fine, see the stories on Google today, the admissions by Zuckerberg on Facebook, the list goes on) versus Democrats (see the outrage applied to Jimmy Kimmel versus Rosanne Barr, both suspended by the same network). Sorry mate. Palin was...how shall we say this...not terribly bright. Just like Harris who isn't a god communicator unless she memorized her lines, just as she did making the book tour rounds the last couple days (MSNBC, GMA, The View). I'll assume you watched Maddow last night?

I'm not disputing that Trump tends to ramble on about similar points, but after he's made a statement there's not much confusion about it, right, wrong, or indifferent. Again, we'll politely agree to disagree.

44 minutes ago, Pozzible said:

I kinda disagree here. Seems to me that the racism went underground during Obama administration. I see a huge resurgence of public racism since then. 

How much have you watched her? For real, not on a Newsmax story or a Trump commercial. Did you watch the Trump/Harris debate? Personally, I’ve never heard word salad from her. But I tried to avoid Trump commercials and Fox News “reporting.”

But Trump says that he’s deporting the worst of the worst. The criminals. That’s not who ICE is rounding up in these raids. They are among the ones who want work. Hard work. Low paying work. Vital-to our-economy work. 

Re: Racism. So how do we explain the rise of anti-Semitism? I see a definite rise in that, but it's perfectly fine to be pro-Palestinian, which is absurd if you're part of the LGB community...unless you like being thrown off roofs.

I've watched Harris. I do watch a variety of news sources, not simply sitting in front of Fox or Newsmax, but I often can't say that for my friends on the left where sources like The NY Times have repeatedly tossed fact checking aside and bury their corrections the next day on page 26. We've lost a lot when the fairness doctrine was repealed. It'd be a real refreshing change to see the media forced to eschew opinion-based programming and focus on reporting "news". Like CNN used to do. 

As for deportations, I'll agree that the net has been very wide and not always 100% precise, but let's talk about the activism of judges who are more intent to legislate from the bench as seen through the lens of people like "Maryland Man". As a liberal, let me ask this:

Is this the hill that progressives are intent to die on? 
Do liberals really want to keep criminals in this country when they've entered illegally and committed crimes here?
And is the best answer to provide that we need to go back to the Democrats of 1861 who demanded to keep slavery ("Who'll pick our cotton?") to justify illegal immigrants to stay in our country despite their illegal entry ("Who'll pick our vegetables?")?

There is a way to get migrant workers. It's through a specific visa for the purpose. And they should be paid something more than slave wages. The 1861 ethic needs to change, or Americans need to take on that work. We need to not pay Americans for sitting around without some obligations (or illegal aliens, for that matter).

1 hour ago, Pozzible said:

[Again, @hntnhole wrote that.] I’ve assumed that was the case too. However, last night Harris insisted he was perfectly capable of governing, he just couldn’t manage the rigors of a national campaign. This actually makes a lot of sense to me. We saw Biden give a terrific State of the Union address. Yes, he was reading from a teleprompter, but he also went off script multiple times and bantered with the legislators. He looked and sounded sharp. It’s hard to reconcile that with what we saw in the debate. (And while we’re at it, compare Biden’s SOTU address to DJT’s speech at UN today. WOW.  What an embarrassment. One commentator said it was reminiscent of Castros speeches there.)

First, don't know why it was attributing me versus @hntnhole. But I disagree that he was capable of governing. Several sources from people who worked in the West Wing cited Biden to be out of it. Or taking a nap. On the debate prep, he was clearly tired and in cognitive decline, so several times he was reported to go off and take a nap. You're setting a very low standard on what Biden was doing. Hell, he fell UP stairs and by the time he'd gotten to the debate, it was clear to anyone with a functioning brain cell that he was unable to even act as President. We still don't know who was actually running the autopen.

And I'm assuming that you watched either MSNBC or CNN commentary on the UN speech, which I found self-serving. As to the points that he made on the state of the UN, I'm afraid I need to agree that the entire UN is feckless. Which is also a term I apply to congress and the senate.

1 hour ago, Pozzible said:

it did bother some Democrats. I think it would have been a disaster. There were about two months to plan format, and then organize and conduct debates. Other candidates had no staff in place. Additionally, funding for running the convention and fall campaign was a huge barrier. As I understand it, campaign funds for Biden/Harris could be transferred to Harris who was already on the ticket. Other candidates couldn’t have access to that money. It just wasn’t a realistic option. Sure, in an ideal world, we would have preferred a process. She wouldn’t have been my choice, but I would have been wrong. And when Kamala was announced as nominee, the enthusiasm from me, my friends, and the party as a whole was remarkable.

I feel sorry for people who feel somehow tied to the party, only because you think that they're going to respect you, your vote, or what the public wants. Let's be honest. They don't care and haven't for decades, and they're simply changing their positions because...well, it's Trump. Not surprisingly, the same positions they took just a few years ago or even as recently as the Biden administration are the ones they're trying to rewrite now. The problem is the Internet: It's forever. Seriously, let's look at Jasmine Crockett. She's not from the 'hood and was educated at some of the most expensive schools in the US and lived in a very privileged area in suburban St. Louis, not the 30th Texas district in south Dallas.

I pity that you didn't get an option to choose. That choice was preordained for you like that would be absolutely fine to people and you shouldn't care who it is. Humphrey wasn't on the ticket in '68 before he was put onto it. And as for money, they had $1.4 billion of it, so where was that spent? Celebrity appearances!? How much was Beyonce paid to shill for an appearance for Harris? Oprah? It doesn't seem to me that it made any difference in the outcomes, did it? 

Ok, I grant that you were enthusiastic about Harris, but after the debate, you have to admit the bar was lowered quite far. But we can't change the past, and hopefully for your party, you can come to terms with why you lost before '28. Instead, it seems like they haven't quite reconciled the reasons for losing, or where that 80% of the voting public that sits in the middle of those fringes that vote in primaries. For their sake, please don't double-down on open borders, free housing/healthcare/SNAP/Cell phones for illegal immigrants, trans-rights, men in women's locker rooms, and trans women/biological men competing in women's sports. That didn't help with middle America. "We're not Trump" won't work next time.

Glad we can banter productively on here.

10 hours ago, rawfuckingonly said:

@TaKinGDeePanal

I'll ask you for the second time now:

When was it proven!? How was it proven and by who?

ANSWER THE QUESTION AND BE SPECIFIC.

You made a claim so you best back it up. LET'S HEAR IT....

 

I noticed that Viking8x6 downvoted this one. I've mentioned in the past, we've discussed how where statements without substantiation have been, shall we say, 'discouraged'. Now it seems like the shoe is on the other foot and is somehow objectionable. I think the question is a fair one, and wondering if Viking's is 'moderation' or personal and just doesn't happen to like the inference?

My point: Everyone has a right to dislike something, and to challenge the assertions by asking for the facts. Heck, I've felt a bit like I had to substantiate my own more conservative points, and we don't need to go back to see that. But if we're setting a standard for one, we should be fair and set it for all. Saying so might not be popular but it's the right thing.

For instance, for all the people who are saying that Kirk is a deplorable individual, I'd sure like to see proof of that and not simply quotes pulled out of an incorrect context.

So do we accept the pablum of one faction without question but make the other jump through flaming hoops, or do we approach both skeptically but fairly?

On 9/18/2025 at 10:29 PM, Poz50something said:

Thing is, at the moment, there is something that gives the fact that it’s AI away…even in almost-realistic vids, it something about having 6 fingers, or something unnatural in the movement that gives the fact that it’s AI produced away. If one looks closely. Some da, we might not be able to tell the difference. And there are always people who aren’t so sophisticated enough to tell the difference. 

If you don't tell it in the prompting, it'll mixup letters on signs or logos or turn your Exxon station into a Axton station or similar. Indeed there are subtle clues that depict it. 

There was a video mentioned during an Oval Office press conference recently depicting workers throwing items out of a White House window on a day the President was not at the residence. That was debunked because all the windows are locked down and have bulletproof glass. Clever try though.

9 hours ago, viking8x6 said:

Philadelphia isn't in the FBI statistical report that was the basis of the US News list. 

FWIW, the FBI has this to say about ranking the list: 

[think before following links] [think before following links] https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/caution-against-ranking

 

 

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli

You can make almost any statistic seem bad by skewing the comparative groupings. If you base it on crime per capital, the most dangerous place in the US can be anything from a small town besieged by drugs in the backwater of somewhere to a major metro area. So Chicago, where a good weekend is more like anything less than a dozen murders, might look better that somewhere else with the right comparatives. To wit, I could roll through that Philly neighborhood and not be bothered, but when I rolled through say Belle Glade, Florida, I got tailed from entry to exit and it wasn't by police.  (Driving a Range Rover, but packing 2 pistols -- make my day, punk)

2 murders in a town of 1,000 looks worse on paper than a city with 1,500 murders and a population of 2.6 million.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Thanks for your erudite and detailed commentary. 

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree re: the racism situation; I don't believe that completely dealt with, as it should be by now. 

And I think there are a number of reasons. We are more inclined to locate with "our own kind" than ever before. In NY, I lived in a Village that was 91% white, about 2.5% black and 2.3% asian. By comparison, the next village over was 100% white, 100% ultra-orthodox Jewish, with no desire to assimilate with other cultures or neighboring communities. One example. Should we talk about Dearborn, Michigan for their overwhelming Muslim majority? In many ways, I think racism among other demographic groups may be, in fact, self-imposed. (Author note: In my subdivision, there are exactly two (2) black families, I'm sandwiched in between them both like an Oreo cookie, and it makes no difference to me -- the area is overwhelmingly white, followed by Hispanic).

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I didn't compare Obama to Harris intellectually, since there's no comparison to be made.  The way I see it, The choice McCain made for Veep was a ridiculous choice, considering some of Palin's public utterances.  Obama is/was far more intellectually adept, and won the election based on his estimable abilities. 

You mean Harris had an intellect? 🤣 We're of like mind on Palin. Now we could talk about whether his election left the country more united or divided, or whether black people benefitted by his presidency, which is another topic, but I digress.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

As to the "gay" quotient in public service, as the public education system continues to churn out poorly-prepared graduates, the brightest potential leaders that happen to be gay are more and more acceptable (so long as they're "regular" persons, and not "flaming" gays.  That might be attributable to less discriminating public policy advocated by Liberals, as opposed to those who espouse racialized ideals re: who is most able among us.  

Oh, you might be referring to that failed experiment called the Department of Education, which in 45 years has led us from first-to-worst in aptitudes and preparedness. Or might that be Randi Weingarten's teacher's union? In either case, or as I see it, the education system has focused away from actual teaching into a sociological experiment and forgotten their charge to 'teach kids'. They're as confused on the square root of 324 as they are biology. Look, we've accepted that people can be gay and not parade it in front of us but be competent and capable.

I disagree on the notion of a 'radicalized ideal' versus 'merit based hiring'. I don't care 'what' the person is if they're fully capable of their job, so if I'm going under the knife for a procedure, determining who gets the job based on DEI versus qualifications doesn't put me at ease. (Are you here because you're good at your job and fully qualified, or is it because we needed to hire a black lesbian cripple so we could check off 3 DEI boxes and get the trifecta?) That's as much hiding the underlying issue that education in some locations may not be funded as well as in others or needs to have more focus to lift minorities out of the cycle of welfare, for instance. fix the underlying issue.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I don't see the point:  for too many Americans, she's black:  for too many Caucasian Americans, that's all it took/takes.  Folks who make judgements about others based on racialized preconceptions and nothing else don't need any other qualifier.  Actively being publicly "racist" has diminished in the US, thankfully, but that doesn't mean that underachieving Americans have stopped carrying that depravity within themselves.  The "ICE" raids on Home Depot's and the like across the country have proven that Caucasians are far more likely to be ignored, while Americans with a certain degree of melanin-content in their skin make the racism current, obvious, and deplorable.  We - as a polyglot of immigrants - have still not completely irradicated that curse.  

Actually, we agree on this point since you earlier stated that:

Quote

"I didn't compare Obama to Harris intellectually, since there's no comparison to be made. "

So I think we're agreeing that Harris had exceeded her competencies and running for President was as much of a stretch as being a Senator or a VP.

On your other point, ICE is going to Home Depots because that's where undocumented aliens are likely to be found as a statistical average. And because, well, people that are coming over the southern US border are, by and large, not caucasian. Bear in mind, everyone knew that the gates were open and little to no enforcement was being done, so over time anyone wanting to get in used that information. Chinese, Indians, Russians, Eastern Europeans, in addition to Hispanics were leveraging the wetter entry points across the Rio Grande. Again, hard to contend that problem if there was no enforcement and the overwhelming majority of entries and gotaways were hispanics. If it looks, quacks, waddles and flies like a duck, chances are it's not a cow. 

While we're on the topic, of perhaps ancillary interest is the overall lack of vetting that has resulted in tens of thousands of unaccompanied minors crossing and being put into living situations that were never properly vetted or that resulted in child exploitation/human trafficking. 

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

I don't know anything more than anyone else about medically-caused deterioration, but whatever it is, all of us saw it clearly, bluntly, and obviously.  The person Biden was debating had/has nothing whatsoever to do with that.  I have come to believe that everyone in the Biden Administration was anguished by his abrupt decline, and did their best to "cover" for him.  The fact that he insisted on running again only brought the medical issues to the fore.  

We all saw the video of it right before our eyes, and what galled me (and others) is how the media tried to gaslight us until it became so obvious that the emperor had no clothes that it couldn't be avoided. Enter Mr. Wolf for instant damage control. (Pulp Fiction reference) What should have galled Democrats was the lack of anyone given the ability to primary him, or to select a candidate other than Harris. I made a comment elsewhere about RFK, Jr., who was locked out of the process by Democrats. Had they not done so, you'd have had a candidate and perhaps a different occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania. Recall in '68, after another RFK had been assassinated and they moved toward an open convention in Chicago that quickly became a backroom deal to front Humphrey to run against Nixon. Plus in 2020, there was this rush to get other primary opponents out of the way to make way for Biden to become the heir apparent.

Think about those when '28 rolls around and wonder why they're not letting the voters decide. 

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Yeah, but one is clearly a Top and the other isn't.  Apparently, Studebaker-ville produces more Tops than Conway, SC.

Thanks for your most interesting and cogent thoughts.  It's the exchange of ideas, perceptions, beliefs like this that I most enjoy here on BZ.

Anything specific to lead you to believe Bessent isn't a top, or are you privy to something we may not be?

And to think a few months ago I wasn't as inclined to post in here because it was more a shout-down of ideas and seemed less tolerant of other views. Very happy to see a free exchange of polite dialogue, even if some is tongue in cheek. Cheers!

20 hours ago, Pozzible said:

My mention of Gabbard and Kennedy were totally tongue in cheek. I think they’re both just abominable, dangerous human beings.

And you mention how horrible the crime situations are in Chicago, LA, and SF. While we’re at let’s throw DC into the mix.

Camden, NJ has fallen from its #1 ranking? Wow times have changed, but it's still no great prize. Used to live in the same county and have been back to visit since. I can believe Baltimore, Memphis and Oakland because they've always been 💩but some of the others in that list are peculiar. And some of those missing are odd. Philadelphia's Kensington neighborhood is a drug supermarket with junkies in every corner and very open dealing that has been beyond police control for some time.

I've watched some of the more independent reporting on how residents are responding to the DC swarming and they've been pleased with it. Of perhaps ancillary interest is the protest in DC to remove the Federal law enforcement and National Guards recently -- not only was it an almost entirely "white" affair, precious few were actually from DC itself. Protestors for hire yet again.

I had a feeling you were sarcastic on RFK Jr and Gabbard. From your position on the left I can see RFK not being appealing, but what was it about Gabbard that you thought was disturbing?

6 hours ago, hntnhole said:

To the "why she lost" question:

Much of her campaign was a bit prosaic.  Then, there's the fact that she's a woman (with a beautiful smile), and and of African American descent to boot.  And, while her choice of VP is a good and decent man, he didn't generate much in the way of coattails, which is the primary duty of any VP candidate.  There was precious little of a potential for hard-nosed negotiations with other world leaders, and that lovely smile just isn't enough when one runs for President.  There are plenty of misogynist's in the electorate, for whom that would be enough to vote for someone else.  

Then, there's the racism problem.  There are far too many Americans still infused with racism, and that hill would be a tough climb.  While Biden's physical decline was obvious, she apparently felt that stepping into her VP role a bit too forcefully might turn some voters off even more, that die has already been cast.  I still think that Jill Biden is mostly to blame for pushing Joe too far, which also means she pushed to keep Harris out of doing more.  

C'mon, @hntnhole, who doesn't love a yellow school bus? 🤣 Actually I mostly agree with you (surprise). However, I don't know that we can call the racism card after 8 years of Obama. We've elected black leaders, had diverse cabinets, and have had a progressive increase in women in leadership positions in government.  Nikki Haley was of Indian ancestry. Tulsi Gabbard is part Samoan. Patel is American born of Indian decent. Elon Musk took time out to do DOGE, and he's a great example of a successful African American. 😀 Both Buttigieg and Bessant are gay. Sorry, don't agree that we can cry racism any longer, I sure don't see protests about "Oust the queers", and not a single person protesting Tesla is doing so because they have a problem with African Americans.

So yes, she's multi-racial and racially ambiguous. It felt disingenuous that she'd make appearances in black venues and suddenly change from her normal diction into a more vernacular sounding accent that really made you wonder: Did she really think she needed to do that? And how much does she really hold in common with most blacks in the US? The cackling, the word salads, all made it seem like the college kid who didn't do the reading for the assignment but insisted on talking about it. Like you, I didn't think she had the mettle for going toe-to-toe with world leaders, but she was also an example of 'failing up'. She went from prosecutor in San Francisco to Attorney General of California, then Senator, then VP. And when she was VP, Biden made her "Border Czar", and we could see how that went.

I suspect we might differ on the border control situation and CBP/ICE so I won't do a tangent there, but we need to address criminal illegals.

As for pushing her VP role too far, so many are coming forward to say that Biden was losing faculties for the last couple years. Jill could have been largely to blame, but we have a 25th Amendment for just those situations. 

18 hours ago, Pozzible said:

I don’t personally believe the candidates were the problem. Consultants and staff seemed to drag them down.

Kamala’s comment about whether voters would accept a Black woman and a gay man was likely correct. I don’t see it as racist at all. Just a political calculation. And Buttigieg didn’t seem to connect with Black women in the primaries  And they are the heart of the party.

Ok, so my thoughts, and bear in mind my own political stance. I agree with you that consultants dragged them down and I don't think they've done the reckoning on "why" they lost. They seemed to get the voters they always have, albeit less than previously, the swing states all moved right, and they banked on the same policies that didn't connect with voters. When inflation is critically high and employment is sagging -- which the adjusted numbers showed around 2 million fewer jobs created -- voters care more about kitchen table issues and less about trans-rights or far left ideology. That didn't land as they expected.

And in "the significance of the passage of time", Kamala's word salads didn't do her favors. 

I think she underestimated voters. We've had diverse cabinets under both Biden and Trump, so I'm not buying that voters cared about Buttigieg's bedroom preferences. We have a current Treasury secretary who is gay and people don't care.  Let's see how Winsome Sears does in the Virginia governor's race and then we can conjecture on how people feel about a black woman. But I think she doesn't give much credit to the American voters and the excerpt from her sounds...well, pretty bigoted.

18 hours ago, Pozzible said:

There are several good potential candidates. Josh Shapiro, Wes Moore, Buttigieg, Pritzker (he’s been on fire lately). Whitmer and Newsom both feel a bit packaged and polished (just a gut feeling). AOC would be a brilliant, exciting candidate. The primary debates should be terrific. (Oh, maybe Marianne Williamson, RFKjr, and Tulsi Gabbard will hop in the race, too.🙄)

My thoughts on your list.

• Shapiro - I honestly didn't think he wanted to run in '24 on a VP ticket and probably would wait until '28 or '32 for his turn. I suspect he saw the mess it became and decided to stay away. He'd be a great candidate. Honest. I actually like him.
• Wes Moore - no opinion.
• Buttigieg - East Palestine, Ohio and being a lackluster mayor of South Bend, IN will probably come back to haunt him, fairly or not.
• Pritzker - his record as governor of Illiniois is too assailable. Crime is a huge problem in Chicago, and he and Brandon are ignoring his citizens' own pleas for help. High taxes and dwindling population don't do him any favors. He's also another big billionaire, so it's a glass house for him to avoid throwing stones.
• Whitmer - polished, but is Michigan doing that well? Asking for a friend. 😉
• Newsom - oh boy! Make America California Again? If Pritzker was assailable, Newsom is style over substance. LA and SF both have crime and homeless crises that aren't changing despite their solutions; taxes are outrageous and causing outward flight like Illinois; the Palisades Fire was a complete mess, exacerbated by hydrants that didn't work and subsequent bureaucracy that seems to be holding residents' land from redevelopment to become potential low-income housing? If I were a swing voter, I don't think I'd be sold.
• AOC - tell me what she's actually doing other than cultivating sound bites for the 24-hour news cycle. Has she done anything for her district? Oh yeah! She chased Amazon's HQ2 away from considering NYC. 
• RFK Jr. - I don't think Dems are appreciating his efforts in HHS and are being sold on the notion of him being an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist that they're not hearing the efforts to remove chemicals from our food so we're closer to Europe than DuPont or Monsanto. Plus, the Democrats locked him out of any potential primaries in '24, so no love lost for the party from his view, especially after serving in the Trump administration.
• Tulsi Gabbard - I like Tulsi. She's smart, polished, competent, and she left the Democratic Party complaining that they've left most voters behind and is now a Republican. She'd be a great candidate. But I don't think the Dems would have her.

Excerpts have been revealed in various sources from Kamala's new book, "107 Days". For someone who wants another bite at the apple in '28, she seems to have stepped in it. Among the more interesting revelations:

• Tim Walz was not her first choice for VP.
• She wanted Pete Buttigieg but thought the country couldn't handle a "black woman candidate, her husband being a Jew, and a gay VP" but would have chosen him if he was straight.

Nothing like throwing people under the bus to start a campaign, eh?

So here are some topical questions:

• Should she even run again? She currently places a distant third in a hypothetical primary campaign, behind Newsom and (even though she called Americans racist as an excerpt when referring to) Buttigieg. 
• Has she stepped in it and killed her chances for political notoriety due to writing the book?
• Do the identity considerations in selecting a running mate (race, gender, sexual orientation) along with her other comments portray Americans as racists, or is Harris projecting her racism upon the voters?

Some controversial questions to kick things off, but anyway...discuss.

20 hours ago, SomewhereonNeptune said:

to the time you take your morning shit

That was what I meant. Mine varies. 

16 hours ago, Pozzible said:

So you give CVS a fake phone number, are you giving them a unique, fake email address? A fake name? A fake birthday? A fake ID? Are you paying them in cash? Are you getting prescriptions filled there? The doctors’ information alone is enough to tie it all together. 

Do you use a VPN? Does your VPN provider have an audited, no logs policy? Is the provider based in the US or hosted on US servers?

The phone number I give is 867-5309 in whatever area code I am. So do a lot of people, it's a pretty common hack. The number comes from a Tommy Tutone song from the early 80's. That gives you the loyalty savings without needing to be a member. If my shopping times out right, I can possibly be there for the free turkey when you reach X dollar amount. Email, birthday, name, ID don't matter in that instance, and my scripts aren't done at CVS. Only various sundry shopping. If I go to a (choose grocery here), that number usually works. 

I use a no log VPN provider and it's usually routed through a non-US VPN. Posting on here for me requires it since access is blocked in my state obviously. Anyone from Louisiana has the same issue.

Can we be completely anonymous? No, I'm not stupid enough to think that. Can I fuck with someone's head trying to figure out shopping habits? A little, or at least enough to cloud the metadata picture of me.

15 hours ago, verbalBTTM said:

The ACLU sued the state of Maryland to stop that level of surveillance, but we all know it didn't stop. The problem is that the technology is so good, and it's the perfect tool to maintain control if so desired.

You can thank Edward Snowden for the insight into the reach of data gathering. And I think that's just the tip of the iceberg.

On 9/16/2025 at 4:31 PM, Poz50something said:

My worry is that one day, the technology will be able to doctor such evidence to reach conclusions that lazy prosecutors want to reach. 

One day? Look at what AI does right now. Given enough information and the correct prompts, you can have AI create a video, vocals, and detail that puts someone in a very specific place while they're actually nowhere close. If you ever want to create reasonable doubt in a defense case, I'm sure AI could be used to do so, provided the prompts and detail is accurate. Just one problem: At the current rate of ingestion, the state of Ai is such that we'll reach the point where there is no more information organically to intake. Sometime in 2032. What happens then?

On 9/16/2025 at 12:10 PM, tr4veler said:

I've been noticing more and more guys stating preferences that are very racialized and others that are very misogynistic. Things I've noticed:

- a lot more guys explicitly stating racial preferences for partners, in all directions (e.g. no whites, no blacks, but also parties that are black tops/white bottoms only, white bottoms who express a preference for black tops, etc. etc .) or who state their own race in their posts, as though it's part of their own sexual identity (e.g. come fuck my white/asian/latin ass)

- a lot more guys who equate submissive with feminine and female.  Lots more "turn me into your little fem sissy bitch" or the like.  

You mean besides the stereotype of "I only want BBC" (and they don't clarify if it's 1, 2, 3, or 4)? I thought it had always been that way. 😉

10 hours ago, verbalBTTM said:

Speaking for myself, I was always anon online, and then things changed. Hiding became impossible if you lived in the modern world. From RFID tags embedded in everything you own to the time you take your morning shit, Skynet is aware of everything in real-time and can predict your movements and thoughts with a high degree of accuracy. Unless you're willing to live like Ted Kaczynski congratulations, you're in the matrix. 

Mine varies. 🤣

I grant you that a lot is known about each of us that we're not completely anonymous, and the amount of intelligence gathered is increasing almost exponentially. It doesn't mean that all of that information is accurate or a few bogeys couldn't be thrown in the mix to fuck a bit with the algorithms. Anyone can operate under multiple personas, and as long as we keep going down the road of RFIDs and chips and encrypted credit card numbers versus cash for payment, we're enabling that direction.

Helpful Trick: When you go to CVS, do you actually give them your phone number, or do you give them (XXX) 867-5309? Try the latter sometime and have it print out that CVS receipt with the coupons. I once got one around 10 feet long of offers, some I might buy but most I wouldn't. Do that with any "loyalty card" and see what you get. In a small way, you've thrown off the system and benefitted from everyone else who racks up loyalty points from doing so.

4 hours ago, TaKinGDeePanal said:

BTW, where were the prayers when an actual politician (Melissa Hortmann) was assassinated?

You're probably barking up the wrong tree here as I was very saddened at the deaths in Minnesota -- both the kids in the church/school and the legislators (the Hortmans). I'll say 2 things:

1. One is more local, the other national/international. Simply the range of people who knew each person. Nonetheless, neither of them were right.
2. I'm fatigued of the canned responses such as "Well what about..." or "This other thing..." because it tries to create a division where none may exist, and it comes across as passive aggressive.

I was watching a panel show on Monday and one of the panelists started down that road and was waylaid by the responses as it came across as being insensitive to the current situation. That panelist has a reputation of doing the "Well what about..." response a bit too often. 

But as to your question, no violence like that is acceptable. Neither should have happened.  Along that line, I will stand by my statement that the examples in the wake of events on each side of the (George Floyd, Kirk) couldn't be more different. We may see this point differently, but I've watched more people reject the tactics used in the former and embrace the examples of the latter. 

8 hours ago, descartes70817 said:

A man can have a wife, get her pregnant every year and still have sex with other men every single day without disobeying the "go forth and multiply" commandment. This leaves me asking "who benefits", from increasing their population, and the answer is "priests and kings/tribal leaders" every single time.

Actually, we've created a system where we all benefit from continued population growth at a certain rate. It's called Social Security, and the funding comes from current wage earners to pay current recipients. Unless birthrates make an increase (they've been decreasing in the Western world for years), it'll create an aging population (think Japan) that will have a difficult time meeting obligations. Fewer people to buy products, goods, services. A shelter surplus due to more homes than occupants as they die off. Japan has this now too, you can buy really cheap homes in the country now. Europe is already feeling this effect too. China will start to feel the effects of their "one child" policy. Korea is feeling this as well, Russia is aging and population declining. 

The fact is that fewer people are having kids and they're doing so later in life, and China can't continue to provide kids for adoption indefinitely, and Elon Musk will run out of women to impregnate. 🤣 The population growth is not coming from the first world any longer. We've worried so long about a population explosion that we forgot to notice the implosion that we've begin to create. And let's not even begin to discuss Margaret Sanger and Eugenics.

3 hours ago, Pozzible said:

CCTV is one thing, a matrix of all our data is quite another. After reading the NYT article, try reading the Wikipedia page on right to privacy. Kiss that goodbye. Everything we’ve ever done online is captured. Every hookup made, every story read, every movie watched, every post, every comment. And all of it instantly analyzed. I suspected we’d eventually live in a dystopian Huxley novel. Just came sooner than I expected. 

Well now we have a world online with social media where it came along, was free, and most of us volunteers our interests and everything about ourselves. What we buy, what we eat, what we watch, who we like and how we're all 6-degrees of separation. And we did all of that voluntarily. 

If we were smart enough, we'd ditch our online identities (mostly) and adopt a different or more anonymous persona so that the data we're providing is completely misleading. Let them think you're really "Steve from Austin who is a womanizer, drinks craft beer and is a rabid Cowboys fan with a pizza addiction". 😉

I suspect that the President is sitting back and letting shit happen and simply taking the tact of saying "I told you so". Or depicting that Chicago's mayor and Pritzker can defend how great last weekend was because there were only a dozen murders. 🤣

You inevitably get the government you accept. Clearly Brandon and Pritzker don't care about their citizens or their decreasing numbers, so until those citizens decide to end the lunacy and vote for leaders who prioritize law and order, they're stuck with that. 

3 minutes ago, Infected said:

And this surprises you how?  As technology improves and becomes more wide spread, expect this to happen.  If you don’t like it, move to a less populated area or one with less technological usage.  Seems like a simple solution to me.  Live in a major city, expect everyone to be watching or spying on you.  As for me, I love my rural upbringing and current lifestyle where the nearest neighbor is a Holstein cow by the property fence line. 😝

London has been one of the most surveilled cities in the world for years due to the sheer penetration of CCTV. Let's ask our UK friends about whether this has changed their behavior.

13 hours ago, firstexp said:

I agree with what you said.
Extremism is to be condemned.
Expressing one's opinions is a right.

"I don't agree with you but I defend your right to say so"

E.B. Hall

Thanks @firstexp.

12 hours ago, Pozzible said:

Have we, though? I definitely would have agreed with you about a year ago.  Now, not so sure.

I'm not sure either. I guess seeing the things happening across the board, I fear that we can't converse for all the yelling at each other. 

First of all, I suspect we can agree to disagree on a number of things, and that's ok. If we can still talk about them in a civil discourse, we're doing better as a group than much of society at the moment.

For those who know, I'm libertarian and conservative. I'm also staunchly pro-Second Amendment (the gun isn't the issue, the capacity and stability of the person holding it sure is though). Where the far left has gone is looting, rioting, and 'mostly peaceful protests' that have perhaps been "mostly" but certainly not "peaceful". I think the moderates and conservatives this weekend set a good example by coming together in prayer, vigil, and remembrance. We can argue that perhaps, but that means we'd still be talking and having a civil discourse. I'm happy to do that, but I suspect that we won't reach much agreement. Kirk lived his faith, embraced liberty, and carefully studied and debated his topics. And he wasn't afraid to go on campuses where he wasn't always welcomed and engaged in discourse. People like King or Lincoln or Jesus did the same and lived his convictions without fear.

I don't condone violence. I won't celebrate his death. But if the goal of assassinating Kirk was to silence those who disagreed with the radical left, I'll tell you it's had the opposite effect. I'm not going on social media and posting videos of doing the happy dance because someone was killed. But those who are seem to be learning that actions have consequences, and becoming a societal pariah is one of those. Unemployed is another. 

7 hours ago, hntnhole said:

Killing people who are different than ourselves is simply not excusable, and that goes both ways.  What the shooter did is inexcusable, as is excusing hatreds via ancient texts.  What was "wisdom" thousands of years ago is, of course, interesting, but we have progressed far beyond those ancient hatreds, haven't we?

Here we agree. I'm not going to say I agreed 100% with everything Charlie said, especially his views on gays, etc. I'm writing on here, so I accept people as they are and don't expect total conformity. I applaud his conviction despite not always agreeing. 

Keep in mind that a lot of us on the right are very accepting and tolerant, as those who've had those conversations have learned. Including this writer. Hopefully we can exchange views without downvoting or flaming or any other vitriol. As a society, though, we need to get along and cultivate understanding and sanity. 

Peace.

On 9/13/2025 at 3:51 PM, hntnhole said:

At first read, I shuddered .... I haven't ever used Nextdoor, and I did notice your proverbial tongue-in-cheek, so I'm hoping for the best on your behalf.  

Thanks. I won't turn this into a political stump speech, but we had to really hold tight reins on discussion of the assassination since it was ripe for deep and nasty political debate and even some distasteful memes. Or explaining to people who obviously do not care to read why the guidelines prohibit national politics discussion in General feeds to the replies of every Karen in a 10 mile radius "asking for the manager". We tell them to go enjoy TikTok with the other crazies. 

If you don't have the experience of living in an HOA or needing to find a plumber or electrician (or losing/finding a pet before the Chinese takeout does), you're missing nothing on Nextdoor.  Though maybe your looky-lous are talking about your sling over there. 🤣

On 9/13/2025 at 9:29 AM, verbalBTTM said:

Most boys, especially twinks who hook up with much older men, do it for a few reasons, and it's usually not for the leathery signs of aging on a man.

 

1. Free drugs and dick

2. They're sugar babies

3. Have a daddy fetish

4. Prefer staying at a beach house for the weekend

 

I hope that answers your question.

Surprisingly, I lack the leathery signs of aging, just boyish good looks, great skin, and knock-on-wood a face that doesn't look a day over 39 despite being shaved bald. 😉

Yes, I've encountered #1 and #2 above, and that doesn't go far at all. I'm kinda red pilled against paying for sex in one way or another. As for #4, I'm 20 minutes drive from one of the best beaches in the US without having to be on it, so no one's had any designs on that one (though the private pool has garnered interest).

But I've encountered #3 more organically on some other sites where I get the whole daddy fetish or "I'm turned on by older guys". The conversations where the other party isn't of consenting age end abruptly since I don't crave a guest appearance with Chris Hansen. 🤣 I live in Florida not far from 'America's Favorite Sheriff' Grady Judd, so a news conference with my picture doesn't thrill me either.

It sounds like your adventures or situation taught you a lot and were positive. Happy for you. Like I said earlier, I don't want to be the reason some dude's life gets totally messed up or goes into therapy to overcome it. I can see and appreciate the other views down to a certain point, but I suppose any interest I may have in someone younger would be mentoring or protective in nature. And as others have far broader experience than me, the chances of that are negligible.

8 hours ago, hntnhole said:

The moderators don't do stuff like that.  They're mostly referees, controlling what can be posted, what can't, and they're here for our protection; not theirs.  This site (or any other, for that matter) could turn into one big fat mess without the guidelines being explained and enforced.  

Would you mind coming over on Nextdoor and reinforcing that to the Karens who think the Guidelines shouldn't apply to them? The past two days (we can all imagine why) have made the LGBT Politics threads here look downright meek.

Some of the things that get said from behind a keyboard on a literally hyper-local (read: down the same block in the same subdivision) neighborhood-focused network make you think they have the intelligence of a baseball score. Especially in a state with Constitutional Carry laws. 
____________________________
Yes you have First Amendment rights. Keep in mind that everyone also has Second Amendment rights.

14 hours ago, verbalBTTM said:

You've really captured how age provides us with wisdom from life experiences. At one point, we didn't appreciate the reasoning behind the limitations in age of consent laws. 

I suppose that as hot as it may seem that someone young and hot is into us, I don't want to be a predator in the situation. Like am I the "dirty old [banned word]" that's into little boys (answer in that case is an obvious "yes"), but I'd always wonder what he'd see in me, or if the roles were reversed, would I see a dude my age now being an instant "ick". Not a dad/son experience but a grand-dad/grandson experience.

And your point about being a mentor is more how I'd approach it. Someone older as a protector and to provide guidance in the right setting, but the other party would need to request that so I didn't feel like it was predation.

10 hours ago, ellentonboy said:

I'll stick with 18, even that age makes me question my decision.  I am not really comfortable having sex with someone who could be my son, but I have had sex with plenty of guys in their 20s who were hot and experienced.

I still think guys 30 to 55 are optimal.  They are experienced, and they usually know what they want and how to go about doing it.  Of course, there are exceptions, but I would take an experienced 40 year old guy any day over a 20 year old who doesn't know what the hell he is doing.  That's just my view .....

The "young enough to be my son" thing isn't that big of an issue at my age. That would make the guy somewhere between say 25 and 40. But the topic made me do soul-searching a bit to where I'd need to ask the following:

• For those who actually had an "early experience", how did you feel about it? Did it form how you are today? Did you or the older person take the initiative?

I'm hoping this doesn't run afoul of the guidelines. Not asking the details of the encounters or anything titillating, but how do you look back on it now? Might be interesting to hear those who responded with say sub-16 responses for proposed consenting age.

Uh oh...here comes Neptune saying something controversial or prone to be downvoted. (Ahem)

Now this is a really good question. Years ago, I probably would have said 16. That was around the time of my first experience and the consenting age in my state. But by the same token, that also had the capacity to mess with my brain, my emotions, and my feelings, and at 16 the idea of sex versus love are still formative. 

11 hours ago, verbalBTTM said:

Once a young person, as in our case, reaches the age of maturity (18), they are better equipped to understand the consequences of their decisions. While we all develop at different rates, by 18, most have experienced enough of life to form a general understanding and are expected to take responsibility for their choices. Before this age, individuals are rightly viewed as children, as they lack the life experience to fully grasp the repercussions of their actions.

This. Plus, growing up I'd routinely watch a priest sit in his van at a park that was known for being a pedo cruising spot. And he had predilections for 13 and 14 year olds. Know any 13 year olds able to process the full impact and notions of sex? Didn't think so, though quite a few of us had those experiences and most of us survived intact.

Entering my seventh decade, rarely would I suggest 16 or younger. Unless this was something that truly came out of the thoughts and actions of the younger party doing so of free will. But even that is sketchy to me because (and this will be controversial but it needs to be said) we have kids who are not yet maturationally developed at 13 or even younger being supported through gender transition and sexual reassignment. Breasts or penis, something's being altered at an age where they are possibly not able to process the future ramifications of their decision. 

Yeah, maybe some folks have had gender dysphoria, and I have cousins and nephews who are going through it, but pulling hormone blockers or chemical castration or mastectomies at ages below 16 is...is...well, crazy. I've spoken to detransitioners who went through procedures before 18 who not only now regret it but are trying to return to their genetic state, which adds more complexities. And I'm not prudish about these things, but my heart breaks for them.

Leave it the way it is, or move it to 18 where it isn't. Let kids enjoy being kids before they do something that will put them in therapy for several years. 

I can only echo the absolute dated feel of BBRT. No one has done frame navigation since the late 90's, and there's a reason for that. We have better development tools but apparently BBRT won't spring for a site update that uses them. And while people knock on BBRT for 'Oinks', Adam4Adam is even worse in many cases with its 'Winks' (I know, here's SoN complaining about A4A again, will he ever give it up?). I can count at least 5 or 6 winks per day from non-pic/limited-effort profiles or those who have descriptions that make it seem like the Gay eHarmony. I've stopped responding.

I concur with @ellentonboy on NKP. It's either more fetish based or more focused on 'pigs' and 'parTyinG'. They do seem lacking with their Groups implementation, so if you see a Group don't get too excited. There are only a few Poz Groups over there, most are blue ballers from what I gather.

I wonder how BZ would do if it enhanced their current search capacity to be more friendly to people trying to meet. Forums are great and an organic way to foster friendships or hookups, but there's already some search capacity here that could be leveraged for hooking up. Seems like there's a missed opportunity.