tallslenderguy

i appreciate the historical perspective HCR brings to political discussion.

^^ sorry, lots of typos and some autocorrect, and just some left out words, hopefully some of what i'm thinking conveys?^^

i brought up more than one topic. Will you be more specific about what you linked this article in response to? There's a lot here and connected to much of what you've written. It also seems we are coming from very different places, which i think puts broader value on this discussion, but also makes it harder to see the others points as they see them. Something i think factors (almost universally?) into this discussion is size. We've only selected a tiny portion of issues, but they're all big. Healthcare is a little more familiar to me because i work in healthcare, front lines. i have 1600 hours taking direct care of Covid+ patients the first two years of the pandemic. i'm also heavily invested in education and professional certifications regarding preventing and intervening in many of the major disease processes that beset western culture because of diet and exercise. i have a computer folder full of very specific studies on the topic, as well as continuing education. (bear with me, this is going someplace). Some of my patients trust me and my education as an authority. But i don't extend the same trust towards myself or peers, i go another layer and look for evidence. The thing is, before i became a professional, i didn't really understand what constitutes "evidence" like i do now. We have journals, peer review, professional experience where some can spot and point out flaws in studies. Long story short, "we know and see in part." So, "grace and trust," and questioning always (should?) factor in. The ability to doubt and always realize and add: "i could be wrong." One of the things i look for in a 'good' study is "more research is needed." To me, that's a humble admission that "we know and see in part." The process of ideal science tends to spread power and authority out vs concentrating or giving it to one or less people. i use healthcare and science as an example because i live it every day and am immersed in it. But to me, the framework can apply to so many things. We cannot all be healthcare professionals, so we end up trusting (or thinking we know enough from a youtube or book to accept our own conclusion rather than trusting an authority). We cannot all be engineers. We cannot all be plumbers, electricians, chefs, presidents, senators, ad infinitum. i think there has to be a mix. i educate my patients all the time, especially when it comes to their specific issues. But they still (usually) do not know as much as me or the doctor or the physical therapist or the pharmacist. And i go to all of these people as well to bolster my understanding of the infinite universe that is the human body. i often disappoint my patients (emotional) expectation for a panacea by telling them things like: "in medicine, we often kill ants with elephant guns." Sepsis is an example. Someone comes into the hospital with the signs and symptoms of sepsis. If we don't intervene, they will typically/statistically die. So, we load them with draw blood first, to help confirm the general diagnosis of sepsis, then give them fluids and then broad spectrum IV antibiotics. It's an elegant gun because we know they have an infection, but we do not necessarily know from what. That's one reason we draw blood prior to antibiotics, so we can culture the blood and know better what we are dealing with. But that takes a day or two for something to grow in a culture, and if we waited to treat until we knew better what we were treating, a lot of people would die. So we hit them with broad spectrum antibiotics, and often find out a couple of days later that one or the other was not even effective. Meanwhile, those antibiotics all have side effects. A major effect we are learning more about now is killing of beneficial bacteria in our gut that we live in symbiosis with. i have a bunch of medical examples, but the point is, reality is individually detailed, response is general, collective. "Governments role in the problem." i think 'we the people' have stepped too far away from government. Or put another way, i think we need to be more involved. To me, it comes down to balance and where we put our individual weight (i.e., time and effort). i can get some education about government and be more engaged. i can get education about healthcare and be more engaged. i can get more education about business and be more engaged. i can get more education about sports and be more engaged. You see where i am going with this no doubt, the list is endless and always involves some degree of trusting others. i think our government has potential to be representative, so "governments role" has the potential of being our role. But it will never be perfect because "we the people" are diverse individuals with diverse wants and needs. So, we end up having to kill ants with elephant guns. i like to work at a teaching hospital professionally, and go to a teaching hospital when sick because i'm always going to get a group of doctors looking at my patients or me vs just one authority. It's not a perfect comparison, but i would rather live in a democratic system than a more dictatorial one where one persuasion calls all the shots. To me, done 'right,' "government role" in a representative context is we the people collectively doing things like addressing the problems of defense, general welfare. As an individual, i can ride a bike, but i still have to ride behind someone's diesel pick up truck. As an individual, i can not smoke, but i may have grown up in an era where private money interests used doctors to advertise tobacco and smoking cigarettes as a healthy practice. When tobacco was exposed, many of the tobacco companies bought food manufacturering companies and applied the same principles to processing and engineering 'food' to be addictive by adding sugar, salt and fat... along with a lot of invented ingredient that our bodies are not adapted to. It's a vast topic, i can provide substantiation. The point i'm making is, size matters. As an individual, it's possible for me to choose from the infinite list of need to know topics that affect my life. Or, we can engage at a macro level and elect a government to "provide for the common defense and promote the general welfare." i think governments role in the problem is ever changing with circumstances. i do not see a black or white, simple answer, rather it seems an ongoing question with ever changing answers. sorry, this got long, and i know leaves so much out. Vast topic.

Haha, you were maybe braver than me going after the practical/economic side of this question. Really, we have to go there eventually to answer the question? i think with the underpinning principle of "grace" (for lack of a better term? you do seem to get where i'm going with it though). i left a culture of religious absolutism (fundamentalist christianity), so i'm molded by my history, and response to it. In that case their 'trump' was "God," and good luck winning a disagreement with "God." But i see that same attitude of absolutism everywhere (for instance, i've met more than a few fundamentalist atheists). To me, it's mostly an emotional disposition that creates rationale to support it. Sorry, seems like i'm getting into the weeds, but i see this as foundational. As i see it, the notion that i know and you don't removes the opportunity for true debate, because at least one side cannot be engaged (i.e, because they already know the answer/s, so the only think left is for the other to agree or capitulate to the truth. To me, it comes down to actions born of personal responsibility that derives from "pain only a moral person would feel--doing nothing." Your wrote: "Society is 'a system' and systems need to be as self-sustaining as possible either independently or in groups. The human body is a great example of inter-related systems to provide an analogy...simply: it's better not to need a ventilator to breathe than to need one. Most times, government programs are the ventilator." i'll add to your analogy, maybe break it down further. If "government programs are the ventilator," then governors/police/judicial etc., are the doctors that decide one needs the ventilator. And they can be "wrong," inadvertently or by intentional corruption. Of course, we've developed a system to deal with that too, but it always seems to come back to balancing act between trust and grace. It is likely best not to need a ventilator, but our systems all seem to rely (ultimately) on a degree of trust/grace to be self sustaining, and i think that is where things often end up broken(er?) in an already imperfect society. So, i'm nodding my head at "Financial market regulation is an absolute necessity due to greed and market manipulation," while simultaneously wishing it was a ventilator we didn't need. i find myself wondering if we've not upset homeostasis in how wealth is currently distributed in the US. In that vein, i appreciate this simplified assessment of division of wealth. Of particular interest (to me) is a graph he uses throughout his assessment of low, middle and high earners and how all three are increasing income at a similar rate along side the growth of the economy. Towards the end of the analysis, he shows how that has changed (dramatically).

i have not read your response yet... so here goes. my initial (and continuing) thoughts and feelings to this question is to feel 99% inadequate to the task of answering. IOW, IDK, and any other answer seems presumptuous. my own particular moral code includes a primary idea that violating another's autonomy ranks up there as a top guiding principle. Though, intuitively, giving away money for a 'good' cause feels like a 'good' gesture on the surface... but, i'm back to worries of presumption. When my sons were teens, i posed a sorta similar question to them (and me) on the topic of love: "Is it love to give a child chocolate cake for breakfast because they want it?" i think the answers to this kind of question reveals more about the person answering than it actually does to answer the question? (aside: your question also makes me feel vulnerable lol). At that point, i was trying to help them see that there isn't a universal answer to the question. If they answered no, objecting about health considerations i'd insert, what it the child was dying and only had a week to live? An intro to situational ethics. But, $100 trillion is not a piece of cake, eh? Money is power and influence. i do conclude that one person is ill equipped to handle that amount of power, but there is still no getting around it... well, maybe AI lol. At this point, the democratic process is looking, not so much "good," as it is potentially more universally considerate. i think something i would include as a possible "prime directive" in a democratic process would be the principle that 'I' can be wrong. To me, that is one of the biggest dividing factors in the human race (i.e., the notion that i (and mine)'know' i/we am/are right and i/we "know" you (and yours) are wrong. To me, that introduces (imposes?) grace in the process of decision making, because we all are in the same position of knowing and seeing in part.

Ah cool, fun and interesting question. i despise AI as a substitute for individual expression. i've been on a few gay dating sites where scammers were using it to reply to attempts at engaging... which i get coming from scammers, but when i see guys using it as a tool to connect? Makes me a wee bit crazy. i'm going to answer the question, thinking on it, and would also like to read your answer to the through experiment as well, and that we both answer prior to reading the others response? What think you?

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Would you unpack this one some more? What (and who?) , in your opinion, constitutes "unpopular things" and a grandstanding"ideological purist? What are issues that you believe should be front and center? What to you would constitute, in a diverse US, taxation with representation? You've written some on healthcare, for instance (and i may have missed if you've answered this one, so point me?), what do you see as a solution/s to healthcare needs in the US? But, of course, that is just one of many issues, and i don't want to direct your answer, more looking for your list of what you think a government should provide, what constitutes: "... a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." (BTW, my tone here is really wanting to understand you perspective in more detail, not a challenge or disagreement, i am appreciative of your input and contributions to this vast topic)

@tobetrained i think you provide thoughtful criticism, it leaves me wondering, who (if anyone) resonates with you to support as a government representative and why?

Today... had been awhile. We started out Him being total Top and me total bottom... but this year he got versatile and was getting into being fucked. Even still, i didn't cum (for six years He breeds me 3-4x a week). So, i really love giving him pleasure, so i got viagra to get past my head so i could fuck him. Then i turned out to be one of those guys having some pretty severe side effects from viagra, so i stopped taking it and the symptoms went away. i explained today, turns out he really didn't understand what "total bottom" meant since he didn't related, but He was totally cool with it and asked if He could still breed me and if i was okay with Him sucking me. I;m cool with Him sucking me, i never cum and it just makes me hornier for HIs cock. Recently He does this thing where He likes to get on top of me 69 when He sucks me so i can suck Him too. Even though i have tried to explain, He seems to get lost doing that and essentially just sits His total weight on me with His cock down my throat. He is balls deep and stationary the whole time and i'm sorta amazed and turned on that i can just hold Him in my throat that whole time and still seem to be able to breath. If there is any moving, i have to do it, forcing my head into the mattress, and He seems unaware until He gets up with this glazed look in His eyes and says: "let me fuck you." Easily over 1000x, and He always leaves me with His seed in me. Damn, i always feel so good. He's sort of oblivious, always sweet, and always wants to breed. love Him.

What politician have you fully listened to that you do not have similar concerns with? i have maybe a similar response to mike johnson... his constant smirk and lies. i can tell mike's gay and homophobic because trump constantly has his hand up mikes ass. i do force myself to listen to them both though, trying to find content mixed in that i can maybe latch onto vs listening to what others say about them. So far, both just manage to nauseate me. You mention not liking Sanders. What is it about him that you dislike?

"Trust, but verify," has a funny and ironic history turns out. Often attributed to Regan, who popularized it, but was quoting a Russian proverb to the communists. [think before following links] https://www.rbth.com/lifestyle/330521-reagan-trust-but-verify-chernobyl And i found this usage of modicum that also turns out to be fun... and in keeping with the situation: Mod·i·cum /ˈmädəkəm/ noun 1.a small quantity of a particular thing, especially something considered desirable or valuable: "his statement had more than a modicum of truth" my take on MGT is she is republican through and through, and that she is also a politician angling for power. i think she's doing a pretty good job of appearing to be loyal to trump by blaming his advisors for things she disagrees with, so she can play both sides, and preserves support of her constituency. i attribute most of her 'trustworthiness' to her play to preserve and advance her own power. Kinda cynical of me, but i trust she is doing some of what's right because she wants to be in it for the long haul and knows trump and those who support his policies are going hurt a lot of her voters.

A moment of emotional transparency for me. When it comes to politics and our politicians, trust is probably one of the biggest issues with me, and i am hearing this addressed in this interview. So tired of being lied to by politicians who want to keep power. Weirdly, the only politician in the republican party i feel a modicum of trust for right now is MGT. i don't agree with her politics, and she comes off as a bit crazy to me, but i'm hearing some honesty mixed in from her. i like Kamala, i like so much of what she is saying... it resonates, and i want to trust her. i do trust Jon. All emotional responses, i know, with some rational reason behind it all, but still, lots of emotion. Meanwhile, i think there's some great content here.

She states right up front that she is not advocating that people become Independent. i feel Stephen did a good job in a short interview when asking about the title: "... do you recommend that everyone leave the [democrat] party, and if so, where would they go? Organization is how you face tyranny" . my overall feel about Pierre was mixed. i think she made a salient point to Colbert's query: "I'm not suggesting that every one leave the party, i am not saying that we need a third party, i'm saying right now the two party system is not working." i feel she becomes disingenuous when she answers Colbert's question about why democrats are dissatisfied that she wrote the book as a "road map" and her main issue with the democrats is there's "no fight, no teeth." Interestingly (to me) her answers played well to the audience, less well to Colbert. Which i found disappointing, because i thought Colbert's audience would be more critically informed. i listen to audience response in Trump rallies, political discussions, because they are the voters being influenced. i was disappointed with her answer because it played well in the moment, but i do not think that's why the current administration is in power.

i listen to a broad spectrum of people on both sides. my posting the video was not intended as an endorsement of Jean Pierre. i don't think Colbert threw her soft balls or endorsed much of what she said. my point is to hear the voices of those in power positions.