tallslenderguy

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

No doubt it's a big challenge. i think it comes down to lots of money vs lots of people. i believe one of the biggest reasons our country has gotten to where it is is because 'we the people' have been (largely) disengaged. i believe i have been. Not completely, i vote every election, but i now believe that is not enough. Individually, i've written government representatives... and discovered the only ones who will even receive correspondence are the ones in your voting district. i've also sought out groups to belong to that have common concerns to join my voice with them. Ultimately, i think we can make this happen but it will take a united effort. i'm beginning to believe that we have a lot more that unites the majority of us in this country than divides us. There are definitely powers at work that want to see us divided. It's part of modern warfare for countries like China and Russian to use the algorithm and social media to purposely divide Americans and cause chaos, but both democrat and republican parties also engage in continuous divisive rhetoric. A fact that keeps haunting and energizing me is that, frequently, only two thirds of those qualified to vote in America. But i don't believe voting is enough, that we have to stay involved, and do stuff like voice our views and hold our representatives accountable. Here's a link from Pew Research on where Americans land on the political spectrum, with an excerpt on those who land in the "political middle:" "Is there a ‘middle’ in politics today?Surveys by Pew Research Center and other national polling organizations have found broad support, in principle, for a third major political party. Yet the typology study finds that the three groups with the largest shares of self-identified independents (most of whom lean toward a party) – Stressed Sideliners, Outsider Left and Ambivalent Right – have very little in common politically. Stressed Sideliners hold mixed views; Ambivalent Right are conservative on many economic issues, while moderate on some social issues; and Outsider Left are very liberal on most issues, especially on race and the social safety net. What these groups do have in common is relatively low interest in politics: They had the lowest rates of voting in the 2020 presidential election and are less likely than other groups to follow government and public affairs most of the time." [think before following links] https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2021/11/09/beyond-red-vs-blue-the-political-typology/

This has become an important topic to me, and i think it's a central piece to the puzzle of managing the democratic process.

For those following or interested in this exchange, yesterday @tobetrained and i had a back channel about this thread. He gave me leave to add it to the thread if i chose. i've decided to do so, with a wee bit of embarrassment on my part because i did get a bit vulnerable. i'm often big on promoting openness and vulnerability as part of honest communication and connection, so i've decided to put my money where my mouth is and share the back channel exchange un edited because i think it adds to the overall picture and detail of discussions like this, stuff that often goes unsaid. i colored tobetrained text blue and mine yellow to make it easier to distinguish. tobetrained 69 Replied: 20 hours ago I apologize. I do very much appreciate our conversations. I hope we can disagree and still communicate. tallslenderguy 4,696 Replied: 19 hours ago This is really gracious. Thank you. i'm not "angry," my feelings are hurt and i feel misconstrued lol (that's an embarrassed, but honest, admission and "lol"). It particularly hurts because i do value and respect you, and consider you a person of substance. i feel like you often talk down to me, like a teacher with a child. On the other hand, i also realize that the written word can be rife with hazard, and that one can infer tone into the written word that isn't implied... or a variation of both. In the "wake up" of the question, i wrote: "Waking this thread up. We have a years worth of the Trump administration and agenda. A year ago, we had several supporters and defenders of the Trump administration, but none of them responded to this question. But my questions remain, i do want to understand, because i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group (e.g. "MAGA"), and that there is the ever present inclination (and danger?) of stereotyping... which i think we as gay guys should know better? In an effort to parse out the diverse: 1. Did you vote for Tump? 2. What were the reasons that you voted for Trump? 3. Do you believe you got what you voted for? " i see a decided difference between the way i phrased my questions and: "how can you think like this?" or, "why can't you think like me?" i may take this to a neutral party and show it to them without any kind of background and ask their read of it, to see if there is something i am missing, but it seems to me that you are inferring tone that was not there? Your response did not quote most of what i wrote, purposefully, to try and convey a sincere desire to understand. you inferred tone i did not imply. There was no intended bait. Realizing how easy it is to put tone that is not intended by the writer, i was genuinely trying to show my interest in understanding their point of view. Not on a macro level, but from individuals: "i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group...." i really don't. i was genuinely trying to parse out the individuals and their reasons. Your example of the flag over city hall in WeHo is a perfect example to me. i think that it's just as inappropriate to fly the rainbow flag over a government building as it is to place plaques of the ten commandments in court rooms. That's exactly the kind of information i am looking for. i know i do not relate to most Trump supporters. When i get answers like 'immigration from someone, it really doesn't tell me the what and why behind their choice. Or_______________. You are one of the few people who has brought up some points i agree with. For instance, Europes seeming hypocrisy over Ukraine, buying Russian oil. i made a (sincere) comment that i thought you would be a valuable representative because i think we need voices that exposes the extremes of both sides. tobetrained 69 Replied: 19 hours ago I promise, I'm not trying to talk down. I'm just hyper-analytical. You typed:"Your response did not quote most of what i wrote, purposefully, to try and convey a sincere desire to understand." But I didn't omit and copy selectively. Included in your first post were two video clips that were selected to present a certain view which would bias any responses. I equally omitted those videos from my comments for attempted brevity. Another person did something similar but with written examples -- I can't remember who. I do remember thinking at the time, 'what response are these guys going to get?' tallslenderguy 4,696 Replied: 18 hours ago i believe you. The videos i selected of Trump were not selective either, i looked for unedited speeches vs edited news clips. my selection was based on something recent (at that point) that anyone could verify as unedited Trump. I.e., i did not want to present a news clip that had been edited and either side could point to and say "bias" or "fake news." my intent was to provide an entire, unedited speech from Trump presenting his views. tobetrained 69 Replied: 17 hours ago got it. also, if you want to summarize this convo for that thread, feel free. I'll leave that particular sub-thread where it is.

Yes, what you think and feel about many of my views has been evident to me. i do not think i'm being obtuse because i do not agree with your view on some things. Here's how i read your above comment: You see and understand clearly, and you've tried repeatedly to educate me, but alas, have failed to get through to me. You state: "...being a tyrant and being a fascist are two wholly different things." Why and how do you mean? Is that one statement supposed to finally get through and i repent? i see trump as a tyrannical fascist. i see him as both. Not just based on my sole feelings or opinion. I'm not alone in seeing him as such. Do i think i can't be wrong? No. But so far, you have not convinced me otherwise. Here's a separate (from you or me) take on fascism from Britannica: "...Although fascist parties and movements differed significantly from one another, they had many characteristics in common, including extreme militaristic nationalism, contempt for electoral democracy and political and cultural liberalism, a belief in natural social hierarchy and the rule of elites, and the desire to create a Volksgemeinschaft (German: “people’s community”), in which individual interests would be subordinated to the good of the nation." This reads an awful lot like trump and his regime to me. He has used the military to take over Venezuela. He threatened to use the military to take over Greenland. He wants to take over Canada. He has used the military to 'police' Americans who protest against him. trump asked former defense secretary Mark Esper: “Can’t you just shoot them? Just shoot them in the legs or something?” trump threw himself a military parade for his birthday. He 'hired' Elon Musk to change/dismantle large pieces of government agencies and programs. As i see it, the list is very long and fitting. i think the label "tyrannical fascist" fits. To me, trump is the very essence of "excessive." Hitler grabbed Austria and Czechoslovakia cause he needed them for ____________. After WW2, Stalin grabbed half of Germany, all of Poland and Czechoslovakia, and more. Two great examples of fascist and communist tyrants. trump has grabbed Venezuela, then quickly tried for Greenland, and has made no secret of his 'needing' Canada too. They all seem like birds of a feather to me. The fact that trumps style is fascism vs communism doesn't really matter to me, both systems are "extreme" in my book. Yes, of course "extremism happens on both ends of the continuum." As does tyranny. Stalin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un come to mind as examples of tyrannical extremists "collectivists--communists, socialists, etc.." And yes, of course, we do not want to swing 'extremely' in the opposite direction of trump and just get another tyrant of the opposite color. i disagree with at least some of your "thesis." i think tyrants from two extremes are holding the power of several countries that, i think, are a threat to the whole world. i think trump is one of them. i do think we might agree that a silver lining to the dark cloud of trump is he has inadvertently gotten a lot of countries and Americans engaged and looking to take more responsibility, countries and people who were not before. Where i think i disagree mostly with you is i see more people in the center territory than you do. i think what throws us who and what we include in our "center." Though it reads otherwise to me, i'm going to give you more credit than you seem to give me and take your question at face value as a question vs a thinly veiled assertion. i think the question is a good and proper one we should all continually ask ourselves. Yes, i really do want to understand people who think and feel differently than me. Which is not to say i will agree with them or stop arguing what appears a better way to me. my questions are sincere and i genuinely do try to listen and hear others. i realize i do not always succeed, that it has to be an ongoing endeavor. my purpose when i phrased those questions was an attempt to find common ground, to parse out the smaller, more individual details that bring us closer together vs only focusing on what divides us.

What i was attempting to do in that particular post was to make a point that there are different types of authority, not just focus on one definition. i think we are on the same page? Ultimately, i think it comes down to the individual attitude and approach. How one wields words and position. In that way, i think "one" can apply to anyone. Even something as obscure as an exchange between people on a BZ forum can contain examples of what i am trying to say, where one can express as fact or truth or feeling or thought. "Fact or truth," can come across as more authoritative, instructive, than expressing individual "feeling, opinion or thought" on a topic. i used religion and, often, use healthcare because they are two areas i have more experience and knowledge about. In religion, many respond to a "pastor" as a position of authority. Some religious even have special or particular garb, uniforms of a sort, that can have the effect of imbuing them with an automatic authority (with some). E.g., though two people might have and use the same exact title: "pastor," the way they utilize that title can be very different. One might assert they speak for "God," while the other more simply shares a belief. It's a vast topic, eh? Between individuals, each has their own personal cognitive and emotional response to perceived authority. Taking it back to the political/governance arena. i think there are more than "two political extremes" at play? Or, if i were to reduce it to two extremes, it would not be republican vs democrat, or conservative vs liberal. At this point i see it as fascism vs democracy. But really, i think part of what complicates this is the many individuals that result in many groups that authorities are attempting to manage. i think trump, and many of his power structure, call/ed themselves "republican" to give them broader appeal. But i think fascist better describes him/them. And by saying that, i'm not excusing any particular party of what i perceive as nefarious motive.

^^i think this nails it. ^^ Where i am coming from is likely vulnerable to triggered subjectivity lol, so please forgive where it may bleed through. my desire and goal is objectivity. i escaped a fundamentalist religious cult culture that i'd been raised in and conditioned by from birth. One of the results of my escape is a super sensitivity to authority. "Pluralism" by definition (especially when speaking about government?) is "the co-existance of two or more groups, states, principles, sources of authority" (that's the google search result/definition). Here's a more detailed explanation from Britannica: "pluralism, in political science, the view that in liberal democracies power is (or should be) dispersed among a variety of economic and ideological pressure groups and is not (or should not be) held by a single elite or group of elites. Pluralism assumes that diversity is beneficial to society and that autonomy should be enjoyed by disparate functional or cultural groups within a society, including religious groups, trade unions, professional organizations, and ethnic minorities." my sticking place of authority is the form it takes. Beyond arithmetic, i find it impossible to believe in absolutes... i.e., every belief involves an element of faith. The scientific approach, ideally, recognizes this is what we know now, but further research often demonstrates our knowledge was not complete, or downright wrong. The authority i'm most apt to get along with in a pluralistic setting, is the one who may argue a particular point, citing evidence, reason, etc., but who always holds some reserve doubt. The understanding and premiss for ongoing openness being that, in an infinite universe, our conclusions are not absolute? The sticking points, challenges, of pluralism arise (i think) when some consider their group to possess absolute knowledge vs belief. As an example, i'll choose religion since i'm pretty familiar with it. There are some who identify as "Christian" who live that as a belief, while the fundamentalist approach of others approach life choices convinced their basis is knowledge (absolute). They cannot be wrong, and because they cannot be wrong, they cannot truly engage in objective debate. As i see it, the issue with authoritarians like trump, those he surrounds himself with, and their 2025 agenda, is they cannot be engaged. I.e., their "authority" is not the type that is open to further learning through ongoing 'research' or debate, rather, they know the truth and their only goal is to rule and implement accordingly.

i appreciate what i perceive as the intent of this, and perhaps i can add to the point of my questions for clarification. i think that proposing "what did we do wrong" is to propose self reflection, which i will always agree with. To ask: "why did you vote for Trump," is different that asking "why do they vote this way." i think you may infer something that is not implied. It is not a question with judgement attached, it is a literal query asked with the intention of trying to find out and understand the reason/s individuals voted for Trump. i do not presume their reasons to be good or bad. Thus the follow-up question: "do you believe you got what you voted for." i believe we can gain insight into our self through self reflection, but i believe it is never a perfect process because we are all imperfect beings. So, while i think it is important to develop skills of introspection, i believe it is valuable, even vital, to look for input from others, with the understanding that they, like us, are also imperfect beings. To me, mature exchange involves mutual acknowledgment of our ability to be wrong, and a desire to see something as it is as best as we can. In that mutual pursuit of insight, i think we can help each other see and understand better. i can ask myself "what did we do wrong," but that does not mean i will see the same things that another might see. i may totally miss seeing things if all i do is ask myself. Asking those who voted for Trump: "why did you vote for Trump," is an open ended question that can be answered by them pointing out what they believed is/was wrong with Harris, for instance. Or, they may simply cite a Trump position and answer what voted for vs what they voted against. Either way, it can give us more understanding of their point of view to ask them vs just speculating on our own.

Waking this thread up. We have a years worth of the Trump administration and agenda. A year ago, we had several supporters and defenders of the Trump administration, but none of them responded to this question. But my questions remain, i do want to understand, because i do not believe all of those who voted for or originally supported Trump can be fit into one neat group (e.g. "MAGA"), and that there is the ever present inclination (and danger?) of stereotyping... which i think we as gay guys should know better? In an effort to parse out the diverse: 1. Did you vote for Tump? 2. What were the reasons that you voted for Trump? 3. Do you believe you got what you voted for?

bout a half hour ago. i got Him a toy, one of those hollow butt plugs that looks like a dog cock. you put it in and the knot holds it in place for the Top to be able to fuck it inside of the bottom. He's not vocal at all, i think He liked it, but didn't necessarily prefer it. About half of Tops seem to like loose and sloppy, the other half want tight? i can squeeze, but He pounds me to the point that i'm always loose and sloppy when He leaves... and He seems to like that. i cut the tip off though so if He came, His cum would still breed me :-). He pounds hard, and about half way through, it came out, so we fucked half in, half out. Both were awesome... always is.

i suspected you would take that stance re social welfare and healthcare and i think your response demonstrates the point of how different people see, and respond to, the same word differently. We all have a degree of egocentricity that convinces us we are 'right, good, etc.," and we've learned to find and group with others that grows our egocentricity to ethnocentricity. i think dissent on topics has merit, even when there is disagreement, if each can appreciate the person behind the view. We live in a world where others might have a contrary point of view. That "world" has always been, but now we all have to figure out a way to live together with tech like nuclear weapons vs earlier times when we only had rocks to throw at each other. So, to my original comments, the goals of: "peace, goodness, kindness, inclusion" are all pursued in a process of sitting down with each other and attempting to communicate and connect... come close enough to center for all concerned vs simply imposing our version of "good" on another, where the national version of that can lead to things like war, death, destruction.... i think this involves our discussion in another thread What is the Answer/s where you asked (and later modified) "Do you believe in the individual or the collective." To which i responded (essentially) that i see both as reality we have to deal with. i figure "centrist" is as good as it gets, and i see it as the ideal goal of democracy. Though, from where i sit, "center" will be fluid and different because of our individuality, while collectively we might come to a more centrist, 'inclusive' place to work from.

lol, and the discussion goes on, eh? But even in your simplified version, i appreciate your response, it helps give me more of a balanced read of where you are coming from. i think you'd make a good representative. Would you agree the word "altruism" can also be "highly subjective?" E.g., some would argue that any form of government sponsored social welfare is a form of "political altruism," while others would argue stuff like healthcare is a "right." Wandering around BZ we see individual, subjective definitions of "Top, bottom, versatile." my point being that subjectivity is part of the mix that we have to deal with, even in governance? An observation often attributed to Lincoln (and the origin probably just as often disputed): "You can please some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot please all of the people all of the time." It seems to me that democracy can be the process of compromised consensus? Where even though my idea of Top and another guys idea of top are different, but we find enough common ground to fuck.

i do understand and was aware of all of your points prior to your listing them. There are indeed flaws in everything, and you make valid points. i'd be interested to know how you think society and government should be done? Or you may wish to correct that and rephrase it, but your posts often leave me wondering what you consider to be a right (righter?) approach to governance and why? And, as you see it, how can you or one work towards that?

Not "simple"... or easy. my comment was not intended to suggest simplicity, rather a set of ideals and goals to work towards achieving, standards to apply when making decisions, ways to measure success, or failure. i don't think i used the word "democracy?" As for fragility? i think the current US condition is as good as an example of fragile as any.

It seems to me you are making the same point, just using a different analogy. Senators, judges, congresspeople, etc., are not "puppets" or "water," they are human beings that can choose at any given moment to do the right or wrong thing. Much can be done, and needs to be done, with election reform, but people can decide to change at any given moment. i do think there are honest people who want to do the right thing (i'm not talking party affiliation here). i do think it's possible to have honest and sincere representation. Of course, all people are flawed, and we can always find the flaws. i think MTG is a good example. Many of those who do not agree with her politics, still applauded her speaking up against trump and what he's doing... and she could easily be identified as one of his former "puppets." But she really was never a puppet, she was complicit and then decided (for whatever reasons) to not be complicit anymore. One think i am hopeful about the current mess is that 'we the people' will be more awake and engaged in our government. At the end of the day, i believe it is we the people who will decide on whether our government represents us or the would be puppeteers.

i agree that much of evil power and influence flies below the radar, but all of these "puppets" have volition, they are not simple wooden marionettes with no will of their own... they are complicit participants.