tallslenderguy

Hey, cool discussion, thanks for starting it @Spider54. i think the distinction or "weird' is more individual than universal and that we reach that conclusion (and sustain it?) because we seek out people who share stuff like our desires and needs. i visited France and learned they eat mayonnaise on their pom frites (French fries), and my emotional, then cognitive response was: "weird." In their case, my desire for ketchup was not so much "weird" but "stupid, uncultured American" lol. Recently? i've found myself rejected because i'm tall and slender. To me, it should not get to that point, at least, not if they're approaching me... given my screen name. But i've encountered quite a few very fit, gym bodies guys who reject me because they want their partner to have a "big belly." Fit shaming? lol. Nah, because they're often super fit. Cognitively i can rationalize that they are individuals and there is nothing 'wrong' with their desire/need because it's different... or doesn't align with mine. But emotionally? my feelings don't necessarily or automatically agree with my rationale, and i may still feel inferior, or 'not good enough,' or something is 'wrong' with me, or_________, because part of the energy behind hook up is a desire/need for affirmation. Then another part of me says they're "weird" lol. The longer i live and ponder such stuff, the more i credit nurture over nature, though i think both factor in. And the more i go that direction, the more i identify and question culturally conditioned notions, norms that feed our desires. We are all conditioned to some degree or other by environment, and we all come into the world with genetic dispositions... and to further muddy up the waters, we (i think more often than not) cannot unequivocally identify why we are the way we are, let alone judge our position superior and those who are different as inferior or "weird." i consider myself fortunate because i have a FB who wants to breed me 3-4x a week, going on 6 years now. He's young, energetic, gym ripped and horny. i'm decidedly... opposite. But for some reason, our opposite desires complement each other and we apparently fill a need/desire in each other. And damn, life is fluid. All my profiles still read: that i'm "total bottom," but for the last year or so, we end up flip fucking almost every time... and i also end up eating his ass, even though i've long emotionally identified that as a "Top" desire. Weird.

Okay. 🙂

Arrrggghhh. i typed out a long reply, and trying to quote from another page, lost all of it. Damn. i need to go to the gym and i don't want to go through all of that again. Not trying to be a moving target, sorry i made you feel that way. i'm not trying to be a target or goal at all ;-). We agree (i think) that campaigns and elections are about way more than money. i think where we differ is i think money is a factor worth scrutiny and reform, while you seem to disagree? i like basing decisions on science as well. You cite a 2018 article from UF based on a 2016 study. i cited one from 2024 (i think, it was newer, i think the data went through 2020?). i looked some more and found a study published March 2025. i'm not a political scientist, but in medicine, "newer" is a factor when considering a study. As are qualities like size, replication, double blind, funding (i.e., conflict of interest). This study seems to have collected data from a longer period too. "The identification of the effect of campaign contributions on the behavior of elected representatives in Congress has proven to be a daunting task. This work does not prove the quid pro quo between donors and MCs. Existing studies credibly hypothesize that most of the favors to donors are buried in obscure microlegislation that remain outside the scrutiny of the public –and often, of the researcher (McKay, 2020). Though, this study shows for the first time a robust negative correlation between important legislative outcomes and the concentration of donations, for a period spanning decades of data. It also provides a general argument based on the concentration of contributions to each MC that sheds light on the association between donations and legislative activities. By reciprocating favors to donors, by seeking to secure their continued financial support, or simply by enjoying more leisure time as a result of feeling secure in their financial backing, MCs are less active in legislative activities related to the Congressional agenda and public policy. While further research is required to gain a deeper understanding of the specifics of this mechanism of influence, I believe these results show that the system of political donations distorts the incentives of MCs regarding their legislative effort." [think before following links] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047272725000179

lol... you are conversing with a guy who is certified in preventing and reversing disease process through diet, so i cannot put "PepsiCo" and "health" on the same planet, they are at opposite ends of the universe.

No. This is a vast topic. i really do not know what you are thinking when you infer, then imply, my "selection set?" Whether intended or not, to assert what my "focus is" can give the impression that's all i'm aware of and that i'm in need of counsel lol. That happened earlier in the discussion when you asserted that i think/contend that "small dollar donations are better." Rather that asserting what i think or say (e.g., what my "focus is,"), maybe quote specifically what leads you to that impression of me and state it as your read of me vs telling me and others what my position is. That way i can more exactly say "yes, you read me correctly" or "no, that is not what i think or am trying to convey" and then i can further try to explain or clarify. i do not presume to have this in "focus." I think the focal point is too vast for focus, so naturally, It is easy to identify and express limitations when the focus is narrowed on a broad topic, eh? It seems to me that "express[ing] the limitations" is often "your focus." And i think that's fine, and part of the larger discussion, but only part. While i am biting off pieces for sake of discussion, i think it's obvious that there is other stuff on the plate. i do think there is merit to chipping away at this, i.e., that we can approach attempting to 'fix' this in steps. Given the divergent view points, i'd question the chances of any attempt at holistic approach towards consensus. i reiterate that i believe "campaign financing" is not only about how contributed money affects the ultimate list ("selection set?" ) of those who get to ultimately run for office, but also how that money affects the elected's decisions and representation after the campaign and election process. But clearly, there's "other stuff on the plate." The study i cited above (tis a ponderous tome) goes into other factors about that influences the resultant "selection set:" "...this paper also provides further evidence on the impact of demographic factors, such as candidate’s age, gender, party membership, and incumbency status, on electoral outcomes." Agreed. What do you propose as realistic, alternative?

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.

This morning. Finished my rotation as a critical care nurse last night, so today is a "recovery" day for me. Got a call from my FB, which never happens in the morning on a weekday: "free right now." So, i got that way lol. For whatever reason, it sparks something in Him for me to wear lace or lingerie. To me, it feels a little awkward because i am not feminine. At 6'5" i'm tall skinny guy who gets asked out on dates by women at work... but never by a guy, and i feel like i'm always coming out as gay anew. Anyway, it turns Him on and i'm game for turning Him on... so i bought some stuff made for guys on amazon and damn, He really liked it. Got an awesome pounding and seeding this morning... great way to start the day. He smiled on His way out and said: "now you'll get to have My nut in you all day."

It would be helpful (at least to me) when you post a link to address a point, if you would give an excerpt from the link that you're using to make your point? You mention earlier that you did not watch the entire video that started this discussion. i admit, i don't always read your entire links either, but when you use them to make a specific point, it would help if you would include an excerpt as part of your response? i try to do that when i link something, and am thinking i can do better at that as well. A couple of points i am positing for campaign and campaign finance reform, is not to "neuter campaign financing," but to work towards making the playing field more level and working towards less corruption once someone is elected. You identify as a Centrist, so i would grant that you are making an individual "centrist argument," not "the Centrist argument." On a line with say: 'progressive' at one end and, 'conservative' at the other, there are infinite points in the center. To me, stating this as a linear consideration is woefully simplistic on my part, because i think there's a whole lot more dimension to the topic. No doubt, fear mongering is a technique used by both sides. You link the UF article, then "double down" with the BBC. Both valid from a particular point of view. Demonstrating that big money does not automatically or absolutely affect outcomes, does not eliminate the influence and effect of individual or SIG's. i'm not convinced by what you offer that our system would not benefit from both campaign and finance reform... while admitting, it's a complex topic and i think it's important to note correlation vs cause. You posit your point of view, appreciated. But the point you make with both articles speaks to electability. To me, a big concern is if and after the person is elected, who are they now beholden too. There is also another factor that money, or the lack thereof, can eliminate those without it who might make valuable reps. I will link a newer study that demonstrates that money is a cause for many not running in the first place. i believe the average American voter would appreciate having representatives who spend their time in office actually representing those who voted for them vs those who contribute money to them. i'm not a political scientist, but the notion of one pot of money divided equally between all those running would have both a leveling effect and as well as taking out corrupting factors. Here's some more point of view from those who agree that we could benefit from reform. The UF article you linked was from 2018 and based on info from 2016. This is from a Harvard Political Review article from October 29, 2024: "The 2016 presidential and congressional races combined for a cost of over $8 billion. In 2020, that number nearly doubled to over $16 billion. While these figures can be attributed to multiple sources, the contributions of a handful of elite groups and individuals to these massive fundraising hauls cannot be ignored. The process of raising these staggering amounts of money requires time and energy. It’s a key contributor to why our election cycles feel so long and draining. During a typical election season, it’s estimated that a member of Congress will spend half of their time in office fundraising to run for reelection. With members of the House up for election every two years, much of their time is occupied with campaigning rather than governing. Our system itself contributes to a drawn-out process. Although primaries delegate power to the general public to pick their candidates, they also force the campaign timeline forward. This results in campaigns that are launched months and sometimes even years ahead of the general election — all so that enough money can be raised to compete with other candidates. To see who our elections benefit, all you have to do is follow the money. Our finance-driven elections facilitate big corporations’ agendas. They keep power concentrated in the hands of the wealthy. And they give people the illusion of choice while establishing a series of quid pro quos between the interests of the powerful and our elected officials." Beyond articles, here is a more recent study on money and election outcomes. It's long, tediously so lol, but has a lot of info in it that i think presents evidence that can be used by both sides, with more of a focus on expenditure and (i think) some very interesting analysis of incumbents vs contenders. Excerpts are from the "concluding remarks:" 'In this paper, we have examined how money, in the form of campaign contribution, made by SIGs, and its spending, affects electoral outcomes. We collected data on the House of Representatives elections from all 50 states and Washington D.C. in the US over the period of 2000 to 2018. Based on the logit estimations (and also the linear probability estimations), we show that campaign expenditure and electoral success are positively correlated.' "Generally, all candidates, including incumbents and contenders, ask for contributions from different interest groups to finance their electoral advertisements (Ashworth, 2006). In exchange for the contributions, candidates promise to do favors for the contributors if they get elected. As with the previous literature, contributors believe that it is more attractive to invest in incumbents than in contenders due to two different reasons (Ashworth, 2006; Benoit & Marsh, 2008; Johnson, 2013). Firstly, incumbents already have established name recognition and benefited substantially from prior office holding strategies and stronger networks. Therefore, they usually have a better chance of winning. The present study has empirically shown that higher campaign spending does not help incumbents much to secure a seat. Hence, incumbents do not have as much a demand for SIGs’ contributions as contenders do. Secondly, interest groups find contenders less advantageous to start with as their winning chance is uncertain. This is also shown by our results. Moreover, because the accessibility of contenders to uninformed voters is more expensive, the outcome of contributing the same amount of money to contenders is more uncertain than incumbents (Bombardini & Trebbi, 2011). Therefore, SIGs tend to supply more contributions to incumbents than contenders. This can create an overflow of funds for incumbents. This overflow may lead to incumbents’ expropriation of public resources for their personal purposes rather than election (see, for instance, Le & Yalcin, 2018, 2023a, 2023b). Moreover, it can facilitate the entrenchment of incumbents in their positions by distorting policy to suit donor preferences. In that respect, incumbents’ alternative ways of using the spare funds that they receive from SIGs are clearly not in the public interest and should be regulated. Examining these issues, either theoretically or with data, will enrich our forthcoming research agenda." [think before following links] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440241279659

i just finished a 13 hour rotation at the hospital where i work, so do not have the time or energy to respond at length to what you wrote right now, but one quick response to the above. Yes, of course, "campaign finance is just one piece of the broader "money and politics" puzzle." This is why i phrased the question: "So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing? I.e "campaigns" referring to the "broader"..."puzzle," and "campaign financing" referring to one of the pieces.

Well, there's an element of the Republican party that wants to get rid of gay marriage... there's excerpts of them in this discussion:

i should have qualified my question: "as regards campaigns and campaign financing." So then, how would your apply science and rationalism to campaigns and campaign financing? i would not argue campaign finance reform from one side or the other... to me, it seems to support centrism because it could put an equal amount of money in everyones hands to spend. Does that make it perfect? No, of course not, but i do think it makes it better that Musk cannot influence Trump or Soros Harris. i'm not presenting the video as a panacea, i am saying that i think the way it is now needs reform, a major concern being individuals or special interests making large contributions. To me, it seems more centrist to look for ways to spread the influence out amongst all the voters. Re Tucker Carlson? idk, i would have to listen to what he said specifically and respond accordingly vs responding to the idea of Tucker Carlson. What i am may be missing and wishing from in your responses is the centrist position you would take instead? To me, identifying as "centrist" doesn't tell me a persons individual, detailed stance on any particular issue. i think it's fine to express an opinion against what one perceives as left or right, good or bad, rational or irrational.... i'm just wanting additional info of what you would do instead. What, in your opinion, would be the centrist approach?

Do you have any videos, ideas, approaches that you agree with? Something that presents how you believe things should go vs how they should not?

One of the reasons i am in favor of campaign finance reform is i think the current system breeds and sustains corruption with both parties. If i give $50 to a democrat or republican's campaign, i'll get a form thank you letter. Most of US voters are not "$170 billion richer since endorsing trump...." i don't think that coincidental. It makes perfect sense to me that anyone who contributes to a government representative, does so to get something in return. It seems evident to me that the higher the... 'contribution' the higher the return. Musk, as just one example, does not strike me as altruistic. "Elon Musk Is $170 Billion Richer Since Endorsing Trump ...the Trump administration has already given Musk plenty of return on his investment. On the regulatory front, his businesses face less scrutiny as some government investigations into them have been closed, stalled or thrown into disarray, thanks in part to Musk’s own efforts with DOGE to defund and gut multiple federal agencies. His companies, particularly SpaceX, are positioned to receive billions of dollars in fresh government contracts. On the global stage, Musk is striking deals and gaining approval to operate in foreign jurisdictions, often with the tacit or explicit support of the Trump administration. Then there are the personal benefits. Musk is far richer now than he was before endorsing Trump. His net worth stands at $419 billion—approximately $170 billion more than what it was on July 15, just two days after Trump survived an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania, after which Musk endorsed him. Tesla’s stock price has fallen by 20% since Trump’s return to the White House in late January, but remains 35% higher than in mid-July 2024. SpaceX is now valued at $350 billion, nearly double what it was around the time of Musk’s endorsement. And his third largest company, xAI Holdings, which now includes his social media platform X and artificial intelligence startup xAI, was valued at $113 billion in its recent merger, more than triple what the two firms were worth a year ago." [think before following links] [think before following links] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnhyatt/2025/05/24/elon-musk-is-170-billion-richer-since-endorsing-trump/

i don't think it's as simple as this. i'd speculate that Musk did not anticipate the standard trump back stab when one day trump is buying a Tesla and parking it in the peoples driveway; the next trump's eliminating electric car subsidies. On the other hand... Tesla is not Musks sole beneficiary of American tax dollars. "In 2025, Elon Musk's companies received approximately $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits. This funding comes from various federal agencies, including NASA and the Department of Defense, and is expected to continue growing with additional contracts projected to be worth around $11.8 billion over the next few years" [think before following links] https://www.congress.gov/119/meeting/house/117951/documents/HHRG-119-JU08-20250227-SD008-U8.pdf

my point is not whether more Americans voted in recent elections than in past (though apparently 2024 was 1.5% less than 2020). my point is the "more than half" that did not vote. "According to the Census Bureau, 65.3% of US citizens voted in the 2024 election, the third-highest turnout in the past 34 years. Turnout increased by 13.1 percentage points since the most recent mid-term elections in 2022, but decreased by 1.5 percentage points since the 2020 presidential election." "Over half of the adult population did not vote in 2024 because they were either not interested (19.7%), too busy (17.8%), or did not like the candidates or campaign issues (14.7%). Not being interested was also the top reason for not voting in 2020." [think before following links] https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-americans-voted-in-2024/ my point re money is simple, the majority giving little or nothing doesn't have the same potential influence as the individual giving 5 million or the super pac. Would Musk have gotten the DOGE position of power had he not contributed $132 million? [think before following links] https://247wallst.com/politics/2025/02/13/who-funds-americas-biggest-political-campaigns/ "Super PACs supporting Harris or Trump raised more than twice as much from donors giving at least $5 million compared to the last election." "Wealthy donors giving at least $5 million to support a presidential candidate are spending more than twice as much as they did in 2020. That’s according to our new analysis of data from the Federal Election Commission looking at super PACs that are devoted to supporting Kamala Harris or Donald Trump. Most of that increase is attributable to the effort to elect Trump, who has outsourced much of his campaign to affiliated super PACs that have raised almost three times the amount from $5 million-plus donors relative to those boosting his last campaign. Both parties have increased their reliance on $5 million-plus donors, but not to the same degree. Super PACs backing Harris raised about 50 percent more from these donors than those supporting Joe Biden had by this time in 2020. Most of the growth comes from the pro-Trump camp, where donors of $5 million or more in 2024 gave $522 million, almost three times the $180 million they provided in 2020. This is a complete reversal from Trump’s first run in 2016, when he relied largely on small donors and had relatively little big money support. This year, supportive big-money super PACs are outspending the Trump campaign itself. The vast majority of money given in donations of $5 million and up comes from individual donors, but some donors to the super PACs are groups that have raised money from others. That includes, most prominently, dark money nonprofits that do not disclose their donors, as well as corporations and unions. Although some of the original contributors of this money no doubt gave less than $5 million, we include the amounts here because the money was pooled and leveraged for political use by the groups’ leaders. Judging by occasional revelations of donations, it’s likely that large dark money groups rely heavily on megadonors." [think before following links] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/megadonors-playing-larger-role-presidential-race-fec-data-shows