tallslenderguy

A good question me thinks, did a search and found this interesting article... i kind of like that it's from Aljazeera ... perspective wise. Here's an excerpt and link: "Looking towards the Middle East, Harris’s selection of Tim Walz as her running mate locks in the missing piece on her ticket and provides further insight into what her administration could mean for the region. A sparse record on foreign policy makes it difficult to ascertain Harris and Walz’s exact stances on various critical issues. Still, we have enough clues to paint a picture of their future Middle East policy which, despite some nuances, looks like it would mirror that of President Biden. Subtle differences on Gaza Harris’s carefully crafted “As Israel defends itself, it matters how” approach to Israel’s war on Gaza since October 7 and her recent declaration of “I will not be silent [on suffering in Gaza]” in the wake of Netanyahu’s Washington, DC, visit have created some distance between her views on the conflict versus those of Biden in the eyes of American voters. Reports that the National Security Council had to “tone down” her language during a speech delivered in March, in which she referred to the conditions in Gaza as “inhumane” and directed Israel to increase the flow of aid, further highlighted this distinction. Although Harris has drawn a contrast with Biden through her slightly tougher rhetoric towards Israel on the growing death toll in Gaza and even did not preside over Netanyahu’s address to Congress on July 24, these choices do not hint at a deviation from ongoing, mainstream Democratic policy. After all, despite skipping his speech at Congress, Harris had a one-on-one meeting with the Israeli prime minister the next day, and publicly reaffirmed her ongoing support for Israel. In a campaign rally this week, Harris was interrupted by individuals protesting the war in Gaza, which she deflected from and said, “if you want Donald Trump to win then say that. Otherwise I’m speaking”. Her response was telling, and may indicate how she does not want the Gaza war to be one of the core issues of the campaign." [think before following links] https://www.aljazeera.com/opinions/2024/8/8/biden-vs-harris-on-the-middle-east-same-dance-different-steps

i remember this. my oldest brother was also gay, and i watched at San Fransisco General Hospital as He died of AID's in the 80's. He had pretty much every opportunistic disease that came with HIV, and was 90 pounds, Kaposi sarcoma, it was awful. And i flew back to Virginia and continued to receive bare cocks and loads. Out of the probably thousands of cocks i have received, i can count on one hand the number of condoms has been on them. i understood the rationale behind pulling out then, and had similar fears as anyone else, but to me pulling out is even worse than a condom. i cannot remember a Top ever actually pulling out to cum on me? i've had Tops pull out because they still wanted to fuck and didn't want to cum yet... i don't really like that, but i can accept and respect that, but interrupting an orgasm and wasting a Tops seed is just something i have never been able to accept, even when it carried a death threat. i'm really glad i made it to the era of U=U and that HIV is no longer that big of a deal, i never was a chaser and was always nervous about getting HIV, but the drive and desire to completely connect with the Top i'm with has always had priority and has only deepened as i have gotten older.

i don't think Trump has ever used or relied on substance to get a following. He uses short trigger phrases that appeal to his followers and sort of unites them: "immigrants are bad," "Joe is bad," "Kamala is crazy," etc., ad nauseam. He hasn't come up with any phrases that appeal to his followers with these new people, but i don't think he's never relied on evidence or substance, he just makes stuff up on the fly. He's on unfamiliar turf now and at a loss for three letter phrases.

Ah, i'd stop well shy of the title "medical expert." i know diseases like heart failure, diabetes, kidney disease, etc., more than i do sexual function. But one thing i do know is how to find reliable sources that are more evidence based vs authority based. There are several guys on BZ who have similar understanding and know the difference between speculation from and authority and study evidence. And science is always an ongoing process, the best studies always seem to have a disclaimer that "further studies are needed." The body is an infinite universe. One of the articles below alludes to the possible psychological effects, but couches the notion of "harm" with qualifiers like "it depends on the individual." You always read me so well, so You get how big a deal the psychological side of sex is to me. For me not cumming from having my penis stimulated is not an aversion to having an orgasm, but a question of how my Top relates to and perceives me. There seems a natural, and largely unconscious, inclination for us to transfer our individual notions andfeelings onto others. E.g., a Top may feel/think that because He loves having His cock stimulated and cumming that that is a universal thing, that all guys have cocks and all guys love cumming that way. For me? Psychosexually i do not perceive myself as having a "cock," but then to me a "cock" is something a Top has, or a Man Who wants/needs to penetrate, fuck, breed, etc., has. i don't have one of those, so if a Man treats me like Himself, we are not connecting (and You know what a big deal that is to me lol). On the other hand, there are some Men Who not only get how i am, but they are looking for and want/need guys like me. They don't see me as having a "cock" either. It's not pretend or role play, They really both get me and are particularly looking for guys like me. Those Men have found ways to use my penis and make me cum without seeing it or treating it like a "cock." i won't take up a lot of space here going into detail, but it has a huge mind fuck side to it for both of us and because there is compatibility, a huge bonding side to it as well. So, for me at least, it's not a matter of not cumming, but how it happens, when, why and how often can also factor in. Really, if i'm not cumming from having my penis stimulated for awhile because i am getting bred often, i'll end up cumming from getting bred. Meanwhile, here's some medical info on the topic: "People who choose not to ejaculate are unlikely to experience harmful side effects. The body breaks down unused sperm, which does not build up to trigger further problems. It may not be harmful for a person to not ejaculate, but it depends on the cause. Ejaculation refers to the expulsion of semen from the body. Typically, sexual stimulation causes the central nervous system to build arousal to the point of orgasm. During this process, sperm from the testicles travel through the epididymis and into the vas deferens. From here, it enters the urethra through the prostate’s ejaculatory ducts, mixing with seminal fluid, which comes from the seminal vesicles, and prostate secretions. The contraction of the pelvic muscles expels this fluid, now called semen, from the tip of the penis. Several factors can prevent stimulation leading to ejaculation. Ejaculation usually occurs with an orgasm, but not always. The causes of preventing ejaculation can be intentional or unintentional. " Intentionally preventing ejaculation Some people choose to delay ejaculation, such as during edging. Edging is when a person builds sexual stimulation almost to the point of orgasm but stops just before it occurs. Edging is unlikely to cause health problems. In rare cases, preventing ejaculation can cause epididymal hypertension, or “blue balls.” Other people intentionally prevent ejaculation entirely, such asTrusted Source those practicing Taoism."" [think before following links] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/side-effects-of-not-releasing-sperm#side-effects "There isn’t conclusive evidence regarding how ejaculation frequency is tied to health. Here’s where the research currently stands. A 2018 surveyTrusted Source of research papers on this subject found that limiting the time between ejaculations may improve sperm quality. However, the study authors caution there’s not enough evidence to say for sure. A well-known 2016 study of almost 32,000 males that lasted from 1992 to 2010 suggests that ejaculating often (about 21 times a month) might lower the risk of prostate cancer. But this study used self-reported data. It’s hard to know for sure whether people’s answers are truly accurate, since they weren’t observed in a controlled lab setting. People don’t always remember things with 100 percent accuracy. A 2004 studyTrusted Source with this same group of males didn’t find any significant link between ejaculation and risk of prostate cancer. So, even though the 2016 study gained more than 12 years of extra data, the study didn’t change at all. Don’t take these kinds of results at face value. And a 2003 studyTrusted Source of more than 1,000 males with a diagnosis of prostate cancer also used self-report methods. Researchers asked a few questions that most people probably don’t know the exact answers to, like when they first ejaculated and how many partners they’d had up to that point." [think before following links] https://www.healthline.com/health/how-long-can-a-man-go-without-coming#risks

Of course, we're all individuals, so there is no one type of Top, bottom, versatile, etc., guy. For me, it's not "selfish" for a Top to not touch my penis or make me cum. That said, reading replies and just my general experience, i don't think it's unusual for a total bottom to not be concerned about coming? i'm one of the total bottoms at the far end of the spectrum and in my ideal world, i don't cum from having my penis stimulated. i don't perceive myself as having a "cock," Sure, i have an organ between my legs, but even though i'm not fem, to me what i have is wired more like a clit than a cock. It feels good physically to have it touched, and i can orgasm that way, but it's not wired for penetrating and fucking with. If i cum from being penetrated and fucked, that's awesome, but not something i expect. The only orgasm i want or need is the one a Top has inside of me. For me, that is my orgasm. As long as i am getting regularly fucked and bred and a Man is having His orgasm inside of me, to me that is me having an orgasm. It's not fanciful or altruistic for me, like i am somehow serving or inferior, i love that. i don't see it as 'selfish' when a Man doesn't want me to orgasm from stimulating my penis, for me, that's understanding. That means my Top understands that i'm a total bottom, that i'm not like Him and He is not transferring His desires and needs onto Himself thinking i need to cum like He does... i don't . The orgasm i want and need is the one He fucks inside of me.

Here's some info about Vance, Trumps chosen running mate, thinks and feels about project 2025. "...Vance’s authoring of the foreword to an upcoming book by Kevin Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation who has advocated for a “second American revolution” he hopes will remain “bloodless.” Roberts is the head of Project 2025 — a far-right policy blueprint from which Trump has fought to distance himself. In a review of the book, Vance wrote: “We are now all realizing that it’s time to circle the wagons and load the muskets. In the fights that lie ahead, these ideas are an essential weapon.” “I’m a little surprised they didn’t vet him as thoroughly as they should have, or if they did, did they not know he was writing the foreword to Kevin Roberts’ book,” said a Republican strategist and veteran of multiple presidential campaigns, granted anonymity to speak freely. “So, you’ve got Trump trashing this Project 2025, and Vance writing the foreword.”" [think before following links] https://www.politico.com/news/2024/07/26/republicans-jd-vance-attacks-00171473

Yes. Most of the Tops i have been with are like You in this respect, or at least claim to be. i can either take them at face value or impose my own ideas on them of who i think they are or perceive them to be. It gets back to my opening statement that i do not think there is one standard definition and that we may have general ideas for the sake of crude identification, the "Top" is in the details that may or may not mesh with the receivers desires/needs for a "Top." i have encountered guys who start out Top and evolve into versatile or even total bottom... lots of stories on BZ from guys who have changed that way, and vice versa, guys who tried bottoming and found out they don't want/need that. To me, neither sets a "standard definition" that i feel all should aspire to fit into. i think it's the other way around, words are there to help us convey the individual using them, not as a standard they have to conform to. The FB i relate in my OP is a good example... he seems to be finding need/want beyond the Top needs/desires that bonded to my bottom needs/desires for several years. i've even tried to fuck him because i really love him and want him to get what he wants/needs, but despite trying, i only get hard when a Top wants to breed me and i could not do it. And even if i could physically pull it off, i (personally) still do not believe that's a good idea, because even if he gets the physical part of a top in him, he would not be getting the psychological part of a top in him... and to me, that's as important, if not more so, when it comes to good, whole and sustainable sexual relationship with another. i think it's incorrect reasoning to say that because i have a functional penis i should Top, and worse, i think it's sort of obnoxious to imply or say that one is being selfish or is somehow inferior because they don't have the same desire or need that "I" have. There's all sorts of examples. i've encountered guys who wanted to suck on my hole and eat scat from it. They could posit that since everyone has a functional mouth that everyone should eat shit. Sure, everyone with a mouth has that capability, but not everyone has the need or desire. i do not think it makes one or the other any better or worse, superior or inferior, selfish or unselfish. It means they have a particular need/desire and instead of imposing that on everyone with a mouth, they need to find a compatible match, someone who needs/desires them as they are. And, those people exist. What it comes down to, as i see it, is compatibility. i only want to be with someone who wants/needs me as much as i want/need them. If another guy is a bottom or versatile who needs/wants a top, i'll give a hug and a kiss, but won't pretend to want/need something i don't because they want/need it. If i really like a guy and have a connection with him, i may try to help him get what he wants/needs, but i won't pretend to be that person. But that's me, and i have always found enough compatible Tops to sustain that i'm not delusional lol.

This is how i see it too. It makes me cringe when someone implies, or outright says, i cannot be the way i am. It triggers old religious feelings when i was shamed for being gay. It was an awakening for me when i realized the gay community is just like any other, with all the same biases and attitudes to go along with being attracted to the same gender lol.

Where i see the divide runs deeper into ones psychology. It may be this is burned into me pretty deep because of my background. Processed out of a religious mindset where i (truly) believed there was no such thing as being gay. And many still think that way, including my ex wife and sons. That being gay is a life style choice. They have a similar view, that obviously i can top and can also do so with a woman... so in thier minds and "attitude," i'm both straight and top because clearly, i can do both (i was married to a woman and produced kids). i don't think it's hard to understand that there are Tops, bottoms, versatile, Bi, straight, ad infinitum, variations of human sexuality, but i think some find it hard to accept that not everyone is like them.

i don't believe there is a standard, one size fits all definition for any of us, that we use labels like "Top, bottom, versatile, Dom, sub, etc.," as a starting place to convey who and how we are, but we can only find out what that means to the individual employing those labels is we ask them, communicate. That said, i wanted to throw it out to the community and get a discussion going on what you perceive and identify as "Top," what does it mean to you? For me, i think the number one attribute i associate with Top is He is a penetrator. That can have a very involved list beyond physical. For instance, i see "Cock" as much more than a penis. i also associate the energy and drive to use that cock as part of the cock as well. In that context, as a bottom, i see myself as having a penis, but not having a cock because i have no desire or need to penetrate another. A close second to that would be i am attracted to a Top's desire to be in control. Not in a forceful or mean way, just that They want to be in control sexually, take the reins, the lead. What got me thinking about this is i have had a FB for about four years. The first couple of years it was all fucking. Then one day He wanted to try sucking me. At first i was hesitant, but i really like the Guy and so i let Him. The one thing that made it okay for me is He just seemed to enjoy sucking me, but has never made me cum that way. i actually like when a Top uses my penis to edge and make me more horny, but then redirects that horniness to His cock and His orgasm. i actually love that. my FB doesn't really communicate well, very quiet despite endless effort on my part to communicate, i've just learned to accept Him as He is. Next, He got to a place where He wanted me to suck Him. i actually really enjoyed this because He was very verbal when getting sucked, tho only time i got much feed back at all. He's a very quiet fucker. So, for me, His verbal expressions of pleasure when i suck Him still felt "Top" to me, even though i was doing all the work. Then He threw me another curve and wanted me to rim Him. i love a Mans ass, but it's typically all a visual thing for me. i have not desire or need to fuck or penetrate, and i perceive rimming as a Top desire/need. But i compromised... which i think is a bad thing in a sexual relationship, i think sex should always be based on mutual desire in order to sustain it, but that's just me. But i like this Guy, so i did it. Long story short, now when we get together about 70% of the time is me giving Him oral, and mostly eating his ass, and the other day he expressed that he wished i would "stick my dick in." I've been feeling that energy from him, that he was wanting me to go further and fuck him, but he finally expressed it verbally. He's young and Bi. i think i'm probably the only guy he's been with sexually and that he's still learning about his sexuality? idk, but despite my clarity all along about being bottom and not doing those things, it's like he just glazes over and doesn't really get what i am saying. i came right out and told him (again for the hundredth time) that i am not wired that way... he just doesn't get it. i told him he needed to find a top, and even suggested i know someone who'd be happy to Top him, but he seemed hesitant, which sort of reinforces my thought that i'm the only guy he's been with. That is an example though. He's one of only a few guys i have ever rimmed, and now i see he is more centered on his hole and that feels bottom to me and i sort of wish i had never agreed to rim him, because now that is mostly what he wants. He always ends fucking and breeding me, but the energy feels different.

i appreciate you sharing your question and perspective, because a lot of gay guys were born in an era or setting where they were conditioned to feel/believe condoms were "the standard." For many gay men, wearing condoms was never the "standard," and didn't really become a prevalent consideration until the advent of HIV and AIDS. All the other STD's were around and prevalent in the gay community prior to HIV, but condoms were mostly a straight thing for preventing pregnancy... not avoiding STD's. I.e, historically speaking, gay men using condoms for sex is the "new standard." Here's an excerpt from and link to a study on the topic (it's old, done in 1993, but still has some relevant info?): One note i didn't think of was the 10% of gays who used condoms prior to HIV used them for "hygiene" not STD's. "Even though the uptake of condoms by homosexual and bisexual males definitely ranks as one of the most dramatic health protective behavioral changes ever recorded, HIV prevention campaigns nonetheless continue to encourage these men to use condoms during anal intercourse. Maybe 10% of gay men used condoms prior to 1980, and then primarily for reasons of hygiene, but 78% of gay and bisexual men use them for anal intercourse by 1987 and were regularly used by 50% of all men engaging in anal sex." [think before following links] [think before following links] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8110858/

i love your response. i see you as part of the solution, and i think you are spot on with this. we struggle and finally find place of self acceptance, only to find the world is still largely the same place, whether it's the gay community part of 'the world' or church, or __________. It's so fascinating, we don't even think about it, but after that struggle of coming to a place of self acceptance, we transfer that self acceptance, then our feelings (more than our cognition) wonder that others have not come to that place of accepting our self. To me, what you express is maturity. As you note, all people experience this, it's not a gay or straight thing, it's a people thing. To me the question and challenge becomes how we respond. For me, it makes me more aware and helps me to see when i am doing this and it helps me keep my eyes open to spot it when it happens instead of just going on automatic pilot.

First off, i'm sorry for the marks and effects "blatant rejections" have caused with you. Truly. Apparently being gay is not a cure for ego or ethnocentricity that leads to such notions and attitudes. i've thought and wondered about this through the years, especially after processing out of a religion that had conditioned me from an early age to think of my gay self as "sick and sinful." i found a lot of gay guys with religious backgrounds end up in a similar religious setting that accepts, and even affirms, their being gay, but still keeps a lot of the same ideas and attitudes. i believe a lack of inclusion can often, though, be traced back to ego/ethnocentricity. There seems to be an almost natural inclination for us to treat our own ideas, notions, feelings as universal reality. Even after we leave Kansas and realize there's a whole other world out there, it often just broadens the scope of our ego/ethnocentricity. And, i think a lot of those centricity's fly under the radar, that our self is not aware of them, that we derive a sense of security from what we feel we know. It takes a whole lot more effort to live with our eyes and ears open, always looking and listening to see and hear what is vs reaching a conclusion and applying it universally. And, as a consequence, we miss seeing and being able to accept and connect with the "bisexual" (or_________), in front of us because we cling to our ego/ethnocentric ideas over what our eyes and ears reveal in the moment. ❤️

i'm a tall skinny white guy, and i like the fact that Kamala is a woman, Indian and Black. For me, it has nothing to do with credibility, but perspective. She will bring diversity and perspective to the office, and i think that's an asset. Credibility is a different topic to me, though i do find Trump to be incredible.

Here's Kamala Harris' family tree with pics, starting with her parents. [think before following links] https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/politics/a61676033/kamala-harris-family-tree-explained/

Here's an excerpt from the Rachel Scott interview with Trump where he suggested that Harris is "suddenly black." Scott quoted several of Trumps past remarks, calling him out and asking why black people should vote for him, and he totally deflected the question and called her "rude" for quoting his racist and inflammatory remarks. This is classic Trump, he does not know what it means to be accountable for his remarks or actions. It seems he will say or do anything for power. He has no shame. He shamelessly compares himself to Abraham Lincoln. He has absolutely no boundaries. Link is below if you want to watch the interview. "The Republican presidential nominee made the comments during a sit-down interview in Chicago with three prominent Black journalists at the National Association of Black Journalists (NABJ) annual convention. The more than 30-minute interview began with Rachel Scott of ABC News addressing the “elephant in the room.” Trump’s appearance had divided the conference, and a co-chair had quit after it was announced. Scott challenged Trump with a litany of his past statements. "A lot of people did not think it was appropriate for you to be here today,” she said. "You have used words like 'animal' and 'rabid' to describe Black district attorneys,” she continued. “You have attacked Black journalists, calling them 'a loser,' saying that the questions that they asked are quote 'stupid' and 'racist.' You've had dinner with a white supremacist at your Mar-a-Lago resort. So my question, sir, now that you are asking Black supporters to vote for you: Why should Black voters trust you after you have used language like that?" Trump replied: “I don't think I've ever been asked a question in such a horrible manner.” He went on to call Scott’s question “nasty” and “rude” while touting that he had been “the best president for the Black population since Abraham Lincoln."" [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-falsely-questions-kamala-harriss-race-and-calls-out-interviewer-as-rude-at-nabj-convention-212512988.html?.tsrc=1013&ncid=crm_-1353366-20240801-1&bt_user_id=MkkiN%2Bl3KTAgN8d7m%2FeyeYDlpuOixjgxu51JNmEfgvA4%2FX13q%2BHEer4jebJmy4QQGBsG5ItIealRQ6BAWHX9Ypf0sxOZrdVzoTHwAL5RCxK9MZX4LE2ZHOX70QYoZ64m&bt_ts=1722515544583

Ditto what pretty much everyone else has already said. Clearly, you care about this person, but a healthy relationship involves two parties that each care about the other, so there really is no "relationship" to "maintain" at this point. A clear boundary that you can set with him is no contact unless he decides to get into some sort of rehab situation where he truly wants to quit. i'm a critical care nurse, and we all cringe on the unit where i work when we get patients who use meth... i got one last night a couple hours before my shift ended. They had a cervical collar on, several broken ribs, and a list of other broken bones after getting hit by a train. By their account, they were "running from demons who were chasing them away from Jesus." i've never had a meth patient that could be reasoned with. i my experience, the drug has this consistent effect of making the user hyper-self-centered to where no one else matters. In my experience, you cannot engage or connect with someone strung out on meth, you only exist to be used by them.

What i really love is all of the choices we have... good, descent choices.

i'm increasingly excited and encouraged by the turn the democratic party has recently taken in it's offering of presidential candidates. The more i see of Harris and learn about her, the more i like her. She's both seasoned and fresh, something i think our country wants and needs. And now, i see one of the top possibilities for her running mate is Mark Kelly. Wow. He would round out the ticket beautifully i think. A true and accomplished citizen of our country, yet relatively new to politics and a background that brings some wonderful perspective, and i think balance, to the ticket. Here's some info on him: "Kelly’s third career would not bring much to the ticket. He’s a neophyte politician, a first-term senator just beginning to create a record. Even so, his mind-bending first and second careers as a Navy fighter pilot and a NASA astronaut are his ticket to ride. They earned him entrée to the U.S. Senate in his initial run for office. Kelly fought in aerial combat. He flew multiple space missions. He married a U.S. congresswoman and then devoted his life to her rehabilitation after she was shot in the head and nearly killed. He has become an evangelist for better gun laws and a safer country, even as he owns guns and shoots for recreation. Any of that would seem exceptional, but there’s something more about him that makes him not only a powerful antidote to what ails Harris and today’s Democratic Party, but also makes him a formidable foe to Republicans. His mom and dad were cops. And they have helped set the mood for the 2024 election. This is a law-and-order election that favors the Dad party – the Republicans. We’re tapped out on Mom, who sees every malcontent as victim and every victim as child who must be swaddled and smooched by Mom’s generous big government. We’re done with that. We’re done with all the word play and feel-good therapy. It doesn’t work, for starters. It makes the country more angry and more divided. We can’t afford it, and there are larger problems on the horizon that need our attention. There is no way the son of two police officers from West Orange, New Jersey, is ever going to denigrate cops." [think before following links] https://www.yahoo.com/news/kamala-harris-doesnt-scare-republicans-090715646.html?.tsrc=daily_mail&segment_id=DY_VTO&ncid=crm_19908-1202929-20240728-0&bt_user_id=C4RLkmcnGyjK347zfz6rIDVdbWOml9OT%2F4QGUDtfsvkhPP7%2BbDqVfAPJ15Lu2Rv%2B&bt_ts=1722177976791

For me, the question of Biden vs Trump was a much more basic question than the bills they support or help get passed (though those are certainly important). To me the choice was whether to have a loose canon vs a secured canon in the White House. From where i sit, Trump is an egomaniacal, power hungry toddler. i don't think he has the desire or capacity to serve. He wants to dictate, not serve. it never ceases to amaze, scare and discourage me that there are so many people willing to put him in power.

Not into self stretching, that's a desire i connect to from a Top, here's a pic a Top took of me after inserting.

It's probably easier to count the number of honest, true claims Trump makes. As of January 2021, according to the Washington Post fact checker, Trump had made 30,573 false claims over four years. Here's just a few. Donald Trump stated on June 8, 2024 in a Truth Social post: Lower insulin prices were the work of the Trump administration, not “Crooked Joe Biden. He had NOTHING to do with it.” By Jacob Gardenswartz • July 12, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 6, 2024 in a campaign rally: Joe Biden’s immigration order limiting asylum is “pro-child trafficking.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • June 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 15, 2024 in remarks in Detroit: Crime statistics “no longer include data from 30% of the country including the biggest and most violent cities.” By Louis Jacobson • June 18, 2024 Donald Trump stated on June 2, 2024 in an interview on "Fox & Friends": Joe Biden wants “to quadruple your taxes.” By Louis Jacobson • June 4, 2024 Donald Trump stated on May 10, 2024 in a Truth Social post: “Biden wants to immediately stop all aid to Israel.” By Amy Sherman • May 15, 2024 Donald Trump stated on May 2, 2024 in remarks to reporters: “I’m not allowed to testify” because of a gag order. By Amy Sherman • May 3, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 16, 2024 in statement to the media in New York City: “This trial that I have now, that’s a Biden trial.” By Amy Sherman • April 19, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 8, 2024 in a video posted on Truth Social: "All legal scholars, both sides, wanted, and in fact demanded” that Roe v. Wade be overturned. By Louis Jacobson • April 10, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 2, 2024 in a speech: "Crime is down in Venezuela by 67% because they're taking their gangs and their criminals and depositing them very nicely into the United States.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • April 10, 2024 Donald Trump stated on April 8, 2024 in a video posted on Truth Social: Democrats support abortion measures that result in the “execution” of babies “after birth.” By Louis Jacobson • April 8, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 22, 2024 in a Truth Social post: The New York civil fraud judgment against Trump and a plan to seize Trump-owned property “is simply a 'taking.' Much like what is done in communist countries." By Amy Sherman • March 25, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 16, 2024 in a rally in Vandalia, Ohio: "Your Social Security will be destroyed by the people coming in. There's too many of them. It's not sustainable." By Louis Jacobson • March 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 9, 2024 in a speech: “Biden has implemented a formal policy that illegal aliens who intrude into the United States are granted immunity from deportation.” By Maria Ramirez Uribe • March 15, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 9, 2024 in a rally in Rome, Georgia: "In February alone, nearly 1 million jobs held by native-born Americans disappeared." By Louis Jacobson • March 12, 2024 Donald Trump stated on March 2, 2024 in a speech: “Eighty-two percent of the country understands that (the 2020 election) was a rigged election.” By Paul Specht • March 7, 2024 Donald Trump stated on February 16, 2024 in a statement to the media: President Joe Biden “directed New York AG Witch Hunt” into Donald Trump’s real estate. By Louis Jacobson • February 20, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 11, 2024 in a campaign ad: “Haley’s plan cuts Social Security benefits for 82% of Americans.” By Samantha Putterman • January 18, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 15, 2024 in a speech after the Iowa caucus: “This is the third time we’ve won but this is the biggest win” in Iowa caucus. By Amy Sherman • January 16, 2024 Donald Trump stated on January 3, 2024 in a TV ad: Nikki Haley “opposed Trump’s border wall” and “Trump’s travel ban.” By Maria Briceño • January 5, 2024 Donald Trump stated on December 16, 2023 in a rally in New Hampshire: “They want to make our Army tanks all electric.” By Amy Sherman • December 21, 2023 Donald Trump stated on December 4, 2023 in a Truth Social post: The Lincoln Project is “using A.I. (Artificial Intelligence)” in its “television commercials.” By Loreben Tuquero • December 19, 2023 Donald Trump stated on December 2, 2023 in a speech in Iowa: “With the historic Abraham Accords, I even made peace in the Middle East.” By Amy Sherman • December 5, 2023 Donald Trump stated on November 11, 2023 in a rally in New Hampshire: New Hampshire has “a worse drug problem per capita than any other state." By Amy Sherman • November 15, 2023 Donald Trump stated on November 8, 2023 in a rally in Hialeah: “Just like the Cuban regime, the Biden administration is trying to put their political opponents in jail, shutting down free speech.” By Maria Briceño • November 15, 2023 Donald Trump stated on October 7, 2023 in a news release: "Sadly, American taxpayer dollars helped fund these attacks, which many reports are saying came from the Biden administration.” By Louis Jacobson • October 11, 2023 Donald Trump stated on September 27, 2023 in a speech in Michigan: When I took office, “the auto industry was on its knees gasping its last breath.” Trump administration “tariffs and taxes saved the American auto industry from extinction." By Louis Jacobson • October 5, 2023 Donald Trump stated on July 24, 2023 in a campaign video: “Under ‘Crooked Joe’ Biden, there has been a catastrophic increase in shortages of essential medicines.” By Michelle Andrews • October 2, 2023 Donald Trump stated on September 17, 2023 in an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press": The price of "bacon is up five times" under President Joe Biden. By Louis Jacobson • September 18, 2023

i don't think it's actual, well thought out, rational validation many look for or even understand cognitively. i think most of what passes for validation or affirmation is often false. The saying: "image is everything" comes to mind (there was even a clever ad campaign for Canon cameras that used it). We are subtly, and not so subtly, conditioned from early age to behave in a fashion that gets us approval and affirmation. Whether it's who and how we are, i think, often is pushed to the side... or even unknown. Approval, validation, affirmation are often given to a projected image and the real person remains afraid and unseen, unknown. Instead, many live on image approval and validation, which proves unsubstantial long run, because the real person remains hidden and alone. i don't think much of what passes as validation is rational, but emotional and unsubstantial... a fix of sorts, self medication. i know, i'm a ray of sunshine lol. It's a big topic for me because i am forever looking to connect with the real person, to hopefully help them feel safe and wanted enough that they feel free to show me their real self. Not an easy feat. People are afraid, and people often don't even know their hidden parts, or how to articulate them.

lol, yeah, totally get both sides of this discussion. The emotional, sexual side of my brain says: "Cock pic equals Top." The rational, experienced side of my brain knows better. i don't think there is a simple, one size fits all answer to this query. Are there guys out there who purposely mislead, sort of a 'bait and switch' approach? Absolutely!!. Anyone who's been living in gay hook up culture for awhile can attest to this. But they do not represent all gay bottoms. Reality is, there are infinite variations of who and how we are, no two alike, even though we have enough similarities that we group and categorize each other. And profiles on gay sites? They are the bane of my existence lol. i'm one of those guys who writes a book, especially on sites that are (supposedly) geared more towards relationship than simple hookup. But again, we're all different, and even if the site is supposed to be relationship oriented, that does not mean guys looking for a hook up are not going to show up and effect the environment with hook up attitudes and approach. i encounter and identify a broader list of guys online profiles (and this list does not begin to be exhaustive, there is no such thing in an infinite universe, it's just longer). i don't see most profiles as misleading, though they are a definite category, to me, most are simply clueless or purposely hiding for one of many reasons. 1) Guys who have a 'profile' with virtually no information, just a screen name, no pics, profile, not even the little boxes like "Top, bottom, versatile" checked. i'm amazed how many of these there are. 2) Guys who have one of the little boxes ("Top, bottom, versatile") checked, and nothing else. 3). Guys who have one of the boxes checked and a pic 4) Guys who have no boxes checked and a face pic 5) Guys who have no boxes checked, a face pic and a paragraph telling us in broken English that they are "serious," looking for 'the love of their life" or "Ltr." (i'm convinced most of these guys are scammers who all seem to follow the same script). 6) See number 5, but with amazing, sexy pics, the proverbial bated hook. 7) Guys who have no boxes checked, and a short written profile with no pics, saying absolutely nothing of value like: "i never know what to write, ask me anything," (they don't seem to connect that most of us ask questions in response to some form of substance). Or "looking for fun" (with no hint given as to what they consider "fun"). 8). See 7, but a box is checked, may or may not have a pic. 9) Guys with, boxes checked, face and body pics and long descriptive profiles explaining who and how they are and what they want. 10) See 9, but everything except the face pic. 11). See 9 and 10, but the pics are not theirs or the pics are 10 years old.

i'm proud of Biden's decision to leave the race. i do not think it was a cut and dried decision. The fact that He stayed the course as long as He did speaks to His character and strength. His choice to drop out equally speaks to His character and strength. i believe He set His ego aside for the good of the country, yet another sharp contrast to His opponent. i'm also encouraged by the part members of the democratic party played in making the change happen. To me, Biden clearly has the intelligence and background to be president. Just as clearly is His (admitted) frailty. We're talking about one of the hardest, most demanding jobs on earth, a four year marathon. i don't doubt Biden's ability to do the job today, i was less confident about His ability to strongly carry the burdens of this country for another four years. i was fully prepared to vote for the Biden administration. Aging presidents with health issues is nothing new to the highest office in the country. Off the cuff, FDR and Ronald Regan come to mind. Both were in decline the last couple of years of their presidency. Our country survived both, and would likely have survived any issues Biden might have faced. It's time for Trump to do the same, to step down for the same reasons and more. But, of course, that's not going to happen. From where i sit, Trump is, and always has been, all about his ego and wanting power. i don't believe the good of the country has never been his concern. i also do not see the same strength of character or resolve in the republican party. There were members wanting and pressuring Trump to step down, but they clearly did not have the strength or resolve to make it happen. The power structure that supports Trump scares me even more than Trump. Trump wants power and to have his ego stroked, the power structure supporting him wants Project 2025, not Trump.