tallslenderguy

i get this. i don't want tp be misunderstood. i put the Trump and his inner circle in a similar grouping as Xi Jinping, Putin, with some Hitler overtones. i do not have the tiniest bit of trust for him/them (and i have looked hard for any reason to). my personal take on trump is he is a sociopath, narcissistic nihilist en extremis, i do not think he, and those he has chosen as his inner circle, are equipped or appropriate to lead. What i see as a "maybe" silver lining is the possibility that more Americans are awake and engaged now. i think some of the discussions we are having in the political section of BZ get into a lot of details. While i appreciate and think the micro is important because it makes up the macro, i think at this point we have more hope of overall change in the right direction if this current regime goes away. i'm hoping the "disruption" will not be for naught, and will not result in a return to the former status quo. i do think the article tobetrained linked is an example of Sinema using the opportunity provided by disruption to get something good done. i see Kennedy Jr as unqualified and consequently subject to being swayed... some of those seeking to sway him may have valid and appropriate agenda, others not. For the most part, this administration strikes me as ham fisted where trustworthy, skilled and experienced surgeons hands are required. If there is a silver lining to this massive storm cloud, i think it would be more people in this country are engaged in questioning who we trust to govern, and why.

Read the entire article, thanks for posting it. Honestly, it gives me a better sense of you (i think), something i have be grasping at. Though of course, that's a side lane, eh? i've referred to the current regime as maybe having a silver lining. i feel Kyrsten Sinema takes a similar tone (though we might not be on the same piece of music) when she refers to the Trump administration as "disruptive." She sees "disruptive " provides "opportunities." i don't see the "time we are in" as... "magical," but then, i haven't taken the psychedelics that she has (and only half my tongue is in my cheek when i write that). i don't think Kennedy Jr is qualified to head up the department of Health and Human Services. He reminds me of the patient who has no medical, biology, science training, but watches a youtube video and makes an emotional decision based on their trust of someone asserting authority on a topic. i don't mind that he's questioning, i think he is not qualified to decide the answers to many of the questions he asks. i'm a medical professional (well, i was before the current Dept of Education decided i am not ), and i voted in favor of prop 109 November 2020 that allows the regulated medical use of psilocybin, the active compound in magic mushrooms. More recent research has discovered the effects of psychedelics on neuroplasticity... long story short, ramifications on treating issues like depression. [think before following links] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychiatry/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.724606/full my short answer would be, i think we should never lose, or set aside? " challenging views on how the country is run. To me, that is the essence of a democratic system. or at least ideally should be?

thanks tobetrained. i went to the link and here is a video of Richard Wolff from his site. [think before following links] https://www.democracyatwork.info/global_capitalism_affordability_why_so_much_costs_too_much_and_what_to_do_about_it

Yesterday. A new Guy, been chatting me up on Squirt. He'd never been with a guy before, so i set it up for Him to have anonymous walk in where i was waiting naked and ass up on my bed, door open. i've done this method for years with hook up, but the last several it's pretty much just been my FB (see above post lol). So we've talked for a few weeks and yesterday He decided to go for it. When He got to my house, He was wearing a hoodie (i always watch hook ups approaching through a window). When He contacted me He told me He was excited but very nervous, so i ,made it as easy for Him as i could. He came in and i stayed face down, so didn't see Him, and he took His jeans off, but left His hoodie on. i could tell He was trying to get hard, but He was nervous so i offered to suck Him. i'm pretty passionate, if i hook with a Guy, i'm all in and i love pleasuring a Guy and Guys can usually sense when it's not just mechanically going through the motions. He sort of got panicked and told me He was going to cum, which of course just encouraged me more, and He shot His load down my throat and continued to milk Him till He went soft. It was so fucking hot and sweet, He obviously enjoyed it, and that always fulfills me. As He left He said: "I'll definitely be back." After He left, He texted me: "you've got a hell of a mouth." Then added: "I can't wait to be 100% comfortable and do what ever i wanted to you."

Wednesday and Thursday my long time FB i write about often. 6 years now, 2-4x a week, still as sweet and awesome as ever, and we remain pretty much fuck buddies. Sometime nearer the beginning of the year he went from me rimming him to me fucking him. That was hit or miss, though i explained to him i'm very bottom, he didn't really grasp what that meant. He's bi and i'm the only guy he fucks around with. So i got a script for viagra so i could get hard for him, and then at 2-4x a week taking it, i was getting side effects. It took me a while to figure it out, i'd never have guessed that viagra could cause back and joint pain, gastric issues? i stopped taking it and all the symptoms cleared. i ended up telling him, he didn't realize i'd been taking it, and he was really cool about it. i thought i might lose him over that, because he really liked getting fucked, never bred him, just fucked him till he got so horny He flip me and breed me. Probably getting close to 1000 loads of His seed now :-). So now, He's back to me sucking Him and Him fucking me, like the first 5 years and He's started doing this thing that really mind fucks me. He's always gotten into "bitching me," He has the way of touching and holding me that makes me feel very possessed. i'm always face down and under Him, and now He's doing this thing where He reaches under me and holds my chest in His hands, sort of like i have tits? Idk, but it really drives me wild, no one has ever done that before, and for some reason, it's added a layer of me craving Him when i think of Him.

Posting two videos (Warren Buffet and Richard Wolff) that may bore some to tears, but i believe have a great deal to do with the political structure in the US (the world?), and that is the oft power behind governments: money. Two older and very experienced guys i follow. The one pressing question i'm left with is: what kind of moisturizer does Richard Wolff use? i think he's 83? And his skin looks amazing. And Warren Buffet is in his 90's, him too? But seriously, i find both of these guys extremely informative.

This seems like preaching to the choir to me? i'd guess most here have already accepted their self. Maybe post this to evangelical or fundamentalist Christian sites.

<3... i can certainly relate to being flummoxed. i suspect we're part of a majority in that. i also think it's a fact that the political process has refined techniques to exploit. What flummoxes me is the enormity of it. While i want and appreciate these discussions, i also end up feeling like i'm swimming in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean during a noreaster. i received a survey recently from our local city council. They wanted feedback on whether i'd be in favor of a six cent per gallon tax for 3 years to pay for repaving our streets. It was detailed, well written itemizing costs, but really hit the nail on the head, i've been bemoaning the local road conditions every time i drive. i felt informed and empowered. It was a three year cost to pay for a specific item that would end after three years. It had much more detail, but what i really appreciated was it identified the problem, proposed a solution, gave the cost and how it would be paid for. It was transparent.

i want people in my government who push, pull and stretch each other. In my life, i have agreed with policies coming from all directions... and i suspect that far more people are like me than not. At this juncture, i'm very concerned with preserving democracy in our country, even though it's become fraught with folly. i am seeing more people engaged because of the current administration, a possible silver lining to the dark cloud. i think our system is good, but over a few hundred years, it's become encumbered and exploited for nefarious purposes by the greedy and corrupt. And the greedy and corrupt will always be with us, the challenges, as i see it, are how to reverse the say just even the more recent 100 years of collective damage. To me, part of the fix is minimizing power, watering it down, i.e., making it very difficult for any one person or group to wield power solo. i think our governmental framework is worth preserving, but it's in need of repair.

Eek, i repent. Bur seriously, that was a throw it at the wall to see if there's any adhesion comment. i resort to my foundational assertion that i'm a regular guy talking about stuff that confounds experts. On the one hand, a flat tax seems to treat all equally, but then it doesn't take into account that all are not (e.g. financially) "equal." From my limited grasp, it seems a method more suited to starting out an economy, than it does applying to an already complex economic system. Looking at your response, the progressive tax system seems more suited to the realities facing individuals, while a flat tax seems to assume one total group would be equally affected. YES!! Agreed. Go back to my previous paragraph (where i to my credit "repent"), some guy (i.e. me) on the internet suggesting a flat tax does not constitute a "real leader," (at least, not on that topic). In this case, i'd be the patient who watched a youtube video and then chose my own judgement over my doctors. On the other hand, those patients questions can help challenge presumption that often comes with 'expertise' or professional authority. Sort of how the ongoing scientific process (ideally, more study is always needed) disallows static notions in a an infinite, fluid reality. A challenge is, knowing when we need to go to the doctor. Vive democracy. i'd (likely) be by your in the vehement fight. The notion of "take from these people to give to these people" strikes me as the opposite of moral. How to we reach the Star Trek era where "those with more" agree and voluntarily (even want to?) "pay more?" Yes, you are right of course. It's not as if we are starting from scratch here, society already is a huge system that has long relied on taxation. Day to day governance is more like tending the establishment garden vs a revolution that does a reset. Yes and no? (note the question mark). The wealthy benefit maybe more from the roads and infrastructure they use to transport their stuff to the workers they employ who buy the stuff they make to make the wealthy, wealthy (is that convoluted?). Pharmaceuticals. i did an investigation a few years ago on the cost of developing a new drug. Then, it was about 5 billion dollars. Half of the cost is subsidized by federal grants (i.e., tax dollars). Half of that 5 billion dollars is profit. So, as the 'patient' watching the youtube vid, i go to my 'doctor' with a cure. Why not skip the middleman. NIH hire, instead of fire, those same scientists working for the pharmaceutical company. The incentive for creativity could be enhanced by paying the research scientist more than the pharmaceutical company did, or maybe a bonus system to incentivize creativity, would still result in a much lower cost for drug development. It would still employ the same amount of productive people. The primary investors would be the ones to lose out, but then, what are they really contributing? The small investor whose few dollars a month go into a mutual fund won't take much of a hit on that side of the equation. I'll use the incendiary term here, the "oligarchs" are the biggest losers? But, have they produced anything or just exploited the productivity of others? The notion of risk of investment is pretty watered down by federal grants. i wonder how many are super wealthy because they benefit from our system of taxation? No, no particular direction other than publicly discussing and learning to perhaps better refine or qualify a direction to go. It seems to me that all government programs are directed to "one group of people," but the benefits vary amongst the members of the group. E.g., national defense (spending), benefits Lockheed Martin more directly than the person working at McDonalds (referential). Having fun with AI: "Usage Statistics: In 2020, it was reported that Walmart accounted for approximately 18% of all SNAP transactions in the U.S." i know i'm maybe missing your point, but maybe simultaneously making a valid point that "one group" is hard to label or define? But to your question: Some argue the current guys in charge used group programs like SNAP and ACA tyrannically. i don't presume to have the answers, just thoughts and more questions... but to me, this is part of the process of maybe finding answers. i've been pretty fiscally 'conservative' my whole life. I.e., i work hard to get out of and stay out of debt. i was first debt free at the age of 43 when i paid cash for my first house. i worked my ass off to get there. Then at 51, i got divorced and my former wife got everything (long sordid story), and i started over. i'm currently debt free again, and that's after paying of >100k in student loans from a career change at age 55, and own my house again (no mortgage), no credit card debt, etc.. my individual experience and philosophy is one remains solvent through hard work and not spending more than one has. Debt should be a short term tool vs an ongoing integral approach. i honestly do not know if that would or could work on a huge government level? my intuition asks: "why not?" my rational brain says: "it's complicated." Volume of taxation can be summed up as "driven by the activities of government," but it seems to me, the devil is in the details? Some activities are driven by the voting population. Some are driven by greed, corruption. Some are driven by systemic red tape. The list is probably really long, but it seems to me the activities of government often fly under the radar. Legislation often feels like buying a used car from a disreputable dealer, where the sales person is always leaving the negotiation to "check" with their "manager." I.e., the disguised or buried add on expenses are SOP. So, "what it takes on" is way more than the proposed used car. All my answers refer back to my first disclaimer lol. Education and engagement seem important to me to managing capability. i think US government does a lousy job of managing expectations. i think we Americans often expect a panacea when there is no cure, just management of an ongoing condition. I.e, "needs" will always be a part of life, part of education and expectation management might include replacing the notion of a total fix with need reduction that fits within means. I may want a Ferrari, but i can get by with a Toyota. Both are capable vehicles.

We agree. Whew. Glad we established that. Got it. Sort of an example. i quit my Hulu streaming service when Jimmy Kimmel was "indefinitely suspended." Apparently lots of other people did too, "collectively." Though i do not know how we can accurately measure the impact, it appeared to have an impact. This was where i was going earlier in the discussion when i referenced topics, taking a dive into sepsis and healthcare, looking at trust, experts and added a nod to Krishnamurti's assertion: You Are the World. "Where does [one] start in terms of solving a problem?" i think, realistically, it always starts with ones own actions. E.g., The question of "organic" labeling grew to the point of legislation. As an individual, i'd been an "organic" grower for years prior to that becoming a legislative issue. i promoted and supported that locally and state wide by growing my own food organically, providing organic produce at a local farmers market, participating as a member of a state wide organization that did similar stuff to me as an individual. When it became a national question, i contacted my representatives, signed petitions on legislative definition of "organic." While problem solving starts individually, much of it is more effective collectively. A point i'm making of the "endless trail," is any individual is limited by capacity in how much and in how many things one can be "expert." i used the example of healthcare. We cannot all get 12 years of education to be doctors, and that is only one branch of the complex healthcare tree. Doctors specialize because physiology is vast (infinite), then there's nutrition, pharmaceuticals, physical therapy... ad infinitum. i get sick, i go a doctor. Solving the problem of sickness starts with me, but i'm asking/demanding, relying on, someone else to "fix things for [me]." i think this approach applies, in varying degrees, to a lot of things. Healthcare, plumbing, government... on down "the endless trail." i think it's vital to be engaged as an individual. Honest, caring professionals from the endless list will both praise and bemoan stuff like youtube. On the one hand, it can be very helpful to me as a critical care nurse for a patient to be engaged enough that they have understanding about issues and interventions affecting their individual health. But, it's impossible for that individual to have the collective understanding and expertise of the "complex healthcare tree." So, they extend trust. But to whom? Ultimately, their own self by the choices they make individually who to trust with their issue. It may be the youtube vid vs their primary care doctor. But really, they are trusting their own emotions and rationale. There are trustworthy people, and there are liars and cheats. But there are also unsolvable problems. i saw a recent discussion/interview between HC Richardson and Rep Adam Smith. i found it refreshing to hear an American government member asserting that America needs the humility to be a part of the world community vs being in charge of it. That we cannot 'fix' everything, nor should be necessarily take on that responsibility every time we do. There are problems that cannot be fixed by us as individuals, collectively or by experts. Goes back to (i think need for) things like "grace," "love" ( i think love can more than an emotion, that i can have a very practical, principled side). Because the human condition is, we know and see in part. Ditto "massive topic." i think that there was a time when "conservative" meant "dislike [of] all tax, in general." Both sides of our political parties approve of taxes because both want to spend, the distinctions are where the money is spent and who pays for it. But, at least in current times, the "conservative" assertion of being anti tax is disingenuous at best. i may get crucified for saying this, but there is a secret part of me (no longer secret with this writing lol) that thinks there may be a silver lining to the current administrations slash and burn approach. No, i don't agree with the careless approach, but, on the other hand, when i consider the "massive topic," it is a sort of approach to making it smaller. i say "sort of," because, well, side effects. my point being, in the US history, we've created a "massive topic," that is not easily or simply addressed. The current approach has a lot of "just blow it up" approach to it, which may present opportunities for a do over? Many of our issues are from constant adding with never any subtraction. We run into sustainability issues, while continuing to introduce new and different stuff that costs additional sums. i think we both have a similar sense of right and fairness when it comes to "targeted tax." in my (ignorant, non professional) "do over" scenario, a more simplifies tax system strikes me as more egalitarian. A straight percentage tax on all income. Of course, that means defining "income." If there is a loophole, people will find it. A world where one can choose which group they want to be a member of, and that group (country?) decides how much to charge and for what services and infrastructure. None of that is going to happen, we have to work with what we have, adding snow here and there to the massive snowball, taking away snow here and there. To me Trump and his inner circle (guys like Miller and Vought) are examples of "despot, oligarch and monarch" approach. i think they exist because "we the people" (individually) became too disengaged from those we hired to run and "fix it." my hope is, the current situation will result in more people who "stop and think about that." Would you go into some detail about what you see as "the left [getting] their way previously" that would have resulted in "Trump being in charge of so much more!"

I follow several political podcasts, a few lawyers, The Bulwark among them. One of my favorites is historian HC Richardson, i appreciate that she doesn't use click bait manipulative titles for her podcasts, and often has some great interviews/discussions with prominent's. i found her analysis of the current state of affairs balanced and level headed.

i think "purely progressive" or its counter "purely conservative" (for lack of a better term) both represent minority sub groups of the "two worlds." i question the notion of "purely" on either side. i think the cyclical election shifts from one side to the other are a reflection of the... impurities of each group. I.e., each group is really a mix of sub groups, and ultimately, a mix of individuals. Re "the group" i referenced. i should have made that plural: i.e., "the groups," i think each side of the general divide is made up of groups that end up getting generalized into two groups, each with their extreme ends, but i wonder if most (ore enough?) of each group has sympathies with the other "world" that resulted in a shift to the other side, depending on the current direction of the wind? Then there is the 33% who don't participate in the voting process, the disengaged, which numbers change through the cycles. I'm thinking about the smaller sub groups that make up the larger "group." The attached poll info includes sub groups by demographic: gender, age, race and education. Will you link the particular poll you are citing? i did a quick look poll search, and chose The Economist site since that's the one you referenced and will attach the results. i need to dig further and look at sampling size and questions asked, so i understand this is not an apples to apples comparison, but the devil is in the details, eh? Different set of questions, but also looks at the overall Trump approval question, providing demographic info by state, age and gender, as well as specific topics of concern, like economy, immigration, crime, environment, etc. Lower down is a second poll, also from The Economist, on the 2024 election results that gives some similar demographic and by state info for comparison from that timeframe. 298 days into Donald Trump's term The president's net approval rating is -18%, down 0.2 points since last week. 39% approve, 57% disapprove, 4% not sure Last updated on November 14th 2025 [think before following links] https://www.economist.com/interactive/trump-approval-tracker Trump election results: [think before following links] https://www.economist.com/interactive/us-2024-election/results/president