BootmanLA

Lastly: a former KGB sleeper agent publicly praised one of Project 2025's architects in Russia on the country's flagship state-owned television network, gloating that under the policies they're supporting, the US would have no reason to support Ukraine at all. The nation that is described as our chief adversary by the State Department is openly promoting this project. This isn't another so-called Russian hoax (which wasn't a hoax at all); this is an outright admission that Project 2025 has Russia's approval. In a sane country not infected with Trump Adoration Syndrome, this should be enough to end his campaign. The fact that it's not should be sobering.

I should add: The fact that Trump feels compelled at all to disavow knowledge of Project 2025 tells me his campaign realizes that this is scaring the shit out of swing voters. This is a stinking albatross that needs to be hung around Trump's neck every day until the election.

The side effects of PrEP aren't fictional, but they're not something everyone experiences, and they're something your doctor should be monitoring, in any event. It's not like you take PrEP for a month and suddenly your kidneys fail; rather, in SOME people, their kidney functions are gradually impaired, and if that's the case, you can ask to be switched from an oral medication to Apretude (the long-lasting injectable PrEP that does not have the impact on your kidneys that oral PrEP *may*). And each Apretude injection lasts for two months, so you go in six times a year for a shot, and that's it. But you may find that PrEP doesn't impact your renal function at all.

That's an issue for the courts, not surprisingly. Here's my "best guess" on what would happen. There are basically two paths an attack on same-sex marriage could take. The first is (kind of) already underway, where people challenge whether same-sex marriages are entitled to the same kind of legal status that opposite-sex marriages have always received. The idea that the Court might be open to this kind of attack is one I explored elsewhere, where a Supreme Court opinion from this term basically said that a U.S. citizen married to a foreign national did not have her rights violated when the State Department refused to grant her husband a visa to enter the US, on the grounds that this wasn't a "right" she had in the first place. In other words, just because you're a citizen who is married doesn't mean your marriage does anything for your spouse's rights. Take that principle outside of immigration, and suddenly there are a lot of new questions, like benefits. In theory, those questions were answered already, but this Court has shown it's willing to toss decades-old precedent when it doesn't like the results, and I could easily see at least 5 of the 6 conservatives on the Court doing the same for same-sex marriage, and eating away at how states, counties, cities, and private entities must recognize same-sex marriages. The second way is a head-on challenge, where someone sues to overturn Obergefell directly. Obergefell is the decision that said states could NOT prohibit same-sex marriages. If that's overturned, the way that Roe was overturned, every state that still has a law on the books banning same-sex marriage would find those laws back in effect immediately. And then it's a state-by-state fight to see what remains. Some states enacted marriage equality without a court ordering them to. In those states, same-sex marriages would presumably continue undisturbed. Call this Group A. Some states enacted marriage equality under court order, but those states nonetheless enacted it, so it would require a repeal of state law in order to stop any future same-sex marriages. This is Group B. Some states have never enacted marriage equality at all; they've simply had to grant the licenses because SCOTUS said states can't refuse. But on the books, there's still a law saying you can't do that. This is Group C. So, back to overturning: Group A states won't see any changes. Group B and Group C states would have more to sort out, but the general rule is, marriage is a contract, recognized by the state, and in every state I know of, the state can't impair that contract. So they'd almost certainly have to allow those marriages to continue, even if the state repealed marriage equality (Group B) or just started barring them again (Group C). But that doesn't mean that they couldn't start fucking around the edges, like saying employers don't have to give benefits to a married spouse if that spouse couldn't marry the employee today. So yeah, this is a serious issue.

Here's a few clues as to how serious a problem Project 2025 is. First, today, Trump categorically denied any involvement with Project 2025. Specifically he said: 1. "I know nothing about Project 2025." That may be true, but only if his encroaching senility has caused him to forget it, along with the names of his wife and some of his children and various other aspects of his life. Either that, or he no longer has any connection with any news whatsoever, as even Newsmax (reportedly among his favorite sources once FoxNews sort of "turned on him") has been reporting on Project 2025 since last year. 2. "I have no idea who is behind it." Project 2025 is part of the Heritage Foundation, and it's headed by three individuals, ALL THREE of whom worked for Trump in the Office of Personnel Management, including that office's former director. Trump appointed all three. Again, if he has no idea who's behind it, it's because he can no longer remember key appointments he made in his term in office. And Biden's the one who's shaky? 3. "I disagree with some of the things they're saying." Really? He just said he knows nothing about them. and yet he knows enough to disagree with "some" of the things they're saying? Which things? 4. "Some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal." Again, which ones, and how does he know this, if he literally knows nothing about the Project? 5. "Anything they do, I wish them luck" Which may be the only true part of this entire statement. 6. "But I have nothing to do with them." Yeah, right. Second: what Project 2025 is pushing is much the same as what he was pushing during his term in office, but on steroids. The fact that this is headed by three people who used to lead the office of Personnel Management is key: they know that if you can fire/hire all new staff at top levels across federal agencies, there's going to be little or no pushback from people as he tries to implement crazy policies - especially considering the expanded power and immunity the Supreme Court gave him this term. Third: P2025 is about so much more than this. They're fairly open in their aims: they want literally the entirety of the federal government to be able to turn on a dime and change to follow the whims of ONE man - in this case, Trump - who happens to be in the Oval Office. They want complete control of the military, so that every officer in command of anyone else is vetted as loyal to the president, not to the U.S. They want the intelligence community to be the same - and given Trump's documented leaking of intelligence information to adversaries, there's not a reason in the world for ANY of our allies to trust us, if this comes to pass. They want to gut agencies from the EPA to Agriculture to Education, from Housing & Urban Development to Transportation to the Interior. Again, this isn't wild conjecture: it's all spelled out in the Project 2025 book. There have been Project 2025 leadership comments that they basically want to repeal much of what the federal government has done for the entire twentieth century. We would return to being a global backwater (but one where immigration is almost impossible), with little to no investment in infrastructure. And if you think big corporations have too much power today, imagine what it's like when all the agencies that regulate them are gutted of virtually all of their regulatory power. And I don't think I'm being excessively hyperbolic when I say that Trump, if re-elected, may never leave office until he dies. During his last gasp efforts to stave off Congress certifying the EC's validation of Biden as the next president, he openly explored ways to use the military to toss out electoral votes he thought should have been his. Imagine if he declares he's running again, and all the red states dutifully put him on the ballot, and this Supreme Court rules that well, this is a problem for the other branches to work out. In the wake of the protests in assorted blue states, Trump declares martial law, and again the Court refuses to step in to stop him, and elections in key blue states are disrupted so that the EC votes for Trump again. And imagine if, somewhere in there, his VP dutifully resigns so he can name Junior as his VP, which the now solidly Republican Congress endorses. A year later, Senior is said to be suffering from assorted illnesses and resigns in favor of Junior, and we're well on our way to the United States of Trump. Think it can't happen here? The only reason our institutions have stood up over time, to date, is that as good or bad as individual presidents were, they respected the system, and likewise for the Supreme Court. Trump doesn't respect the system, which is why he wants to overturn it entirely, and the Court is poised to let him.

Shitposter who doesn't realize he'll be one of the first lined up against the wall when the right seizes power says what now? Seriously, dude - do you think you're somehow insulated from the hell that's going to be unleashed on people of color, gays, women, etc. just because you voted for Trump?

Indeed, and Project2025 goes a LOT farther than just these cultural issues. It's basically an outline for hard-core MAGA/fascists to take control of the entire federal government, in perpetuity. Another key thing: they want to end civil service as we know it for every position in federal government where decisions get made, so that anyone - literally anyone - can be replaced by political hacks if he steps out of line of what leadership wants. And they're not shy about it, and it's not just a couple of fringe, nutcase groups pushing this. It's part and parcel of the Heritage Foundation, which is probably the most significant right wing (formerly conservative, but nothing's conservative about it any more). Add in all the Supreme Court decisions they just handed down that neuter the ability of the executive branch agencies to ward off political attacks - and you have the perfect storm if Trump is re-elected. There will literally be NOTHING standing in his way. And the most ominous thing: Project 2025 is calling this a "Second American Revolution" and says it will be "bloodless as long as the left allows it to be." Notice he didn't just say "peaceful" - he said "bloodless". And only if the left rolls over and allows them to seize power. Otherwise, they're basically promising bloodshed. I'm so tired of "both sides" rhetoric from idiots who don't hear what the far right is telling us, in their own words, what's going to happen if they can get Trump back into office.

Earlier I listed a group of Supreme Court cases that had been decided by last Friday that will have potentially earthquake-level effects on federal law going forward. All of those still stand, but Monday's decisions are like an entire extra layer of crap spread on top of an already putrid crap cake. Let's start with Corner Post, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System - sounds boring, right? Under long-standing jurisprudence, the rule was that if someone wanted to challenge a federal agency's rule or regulation had to do so within six years of when that rule or regulation took effect. Sounds pretty reasonable, right? In fact, in the "abortion pill" case earlier this spring, the Court noted that because FDA approval of the abortion pill was more than six years ago, the plaintiffs couldn't challenge the original approval. In other words, because the challengers only challenged whether the approval was valid, the Court said, effectively, you're too late. Corner Post, on the other hand, specifically challenged how the 6-year rule was calculated - saying it shouldn't be from the date the regulation went into effect, but when it actually harmed the person who's suing. And the Court agreed. So what does that mean for regulations? It means even though a regulation might be settled for decades, all a plaintiff has to do is form a new entity - an LLC, corporation, whatever - claim that ITS injury started when it was formed, and thus the six-year period to sue starts fresh for that entity. And since the GOP has seeded right-wing judges in specific districts where you're guaranteed to get that judge if you sue there, all they have to do is file the LLC paperwork in that district, and bingo! - they can sue in front of the judge that's hand-picked to overturn federal regulations. Couple that with the fact that courts no longer have to give deference to agency decisions that I wrote about earlier, and it's open season on any and all federal regulations, no matter how long-standing they are, if the right wing doesn't like them. Sue in Amarillo, where the federal judge sitting there will rule for business no matter what; appeals go up to the right-wing Fifth Circuit, which almost always upholds him; and then even if you're one of the handful of cases that the Supreme Court is willing to hear in the next year, you stand a good shot of losing to the 6-3 conservative majority. Even worse is Trump v. U.S., the presidential immunity case. In this case, the court held that presidents are not immune from criminal prosecution for non-official acts. However, they are presumed immune for official acts - those taken within what's called the "outer perimeter" of presidential duties; that means they assume he's immune if the action in question is something presidents "do". And here's the big one - presidents are "absolutely immune" for anything they do as part of their core constitutional role. So: presidents, under the constitution, appoint federal judges and a lot of administration officials. Under this holding, the president could take a $20 million bribe from one of his billionaire donors to appoint John Doe to the Supreme Court, and because that appointment is a "core constitutional duty", he can't be charged with bribery. He's responsible for appointing agency heads, and they serve at the pleasure of the president, so he could order the Attorney General to bring charges against a political opponent on threat of being fired if he refuses; can't charge him with anything because it's a core responsibility to hire/fire his administrative team. Mind you, this doesn't mean it's good news for a Democratic president - because the courts get to decide what's an "official" act and what's not, and what's a "core" act and what's not. And with the Supreme Court and over half the "numbered" circuit courts in the hands of Republicans - sometimes overwhelmingly so - you can guess how they'll rule on what a Democratic president's role is vs. what a Republican president's role is. It's when you join up the threads in these decisions that you see just how far this right-wing Court has gone to gut the federal government - or, at least, to leave it open to gutting by lower courts that are firmly in the hands of Trumpanzees and their fans. Don't say you weren't warned.

FWIW: the entire site is not about bug chasing, which is relegated to a very specific part of the site (aka "The Backroom"). Bug chasing content is banned from the majority of the site, in fact. Ditto for stealthing.

The redirection occurs based on where the IP address for your computer is believed to be located. It's not a perfect system, especially for ISPs that operate over broad areas and have a more centralized DHCP system handing out the addresses. So, for instance, let's say your ISP is "BigCable" and all of its Washington, Oregon, and Idaho customers get their IP addresses from a DHCP complex in Boise, then you're going to appear, for all intents and purposes, as an Idaho user insofar as your IP address is concerned. I live in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, but my ISP has its DHCP servers located in a much smaller city 60 miles west of here, so I always appear to be in Lafayette, LA when I'm using my home internet (wired or wi-fi). It's also possible that your ISP has multiple DHCP sites, and your location occasionally pulls its address from one of the banned states because a closer one in WA is not responding quickly enough. These things can also happen when you're using a cell carrier for your internet (as on a phone or tablet) - your cell phone's DHCP server could be located in a blocked state, too. That's why a VPN with a server in an "acceptable" state works - you connect to it first, and then all traffic to/from your computer, phone or tablet is routed there first - and to all spots you connect with, you appear to be there, not wherever you actually are. I connect through a VPN server located in Denver, Colorado, for instance (which is why, when I go to a site like weather.com, it automatically pulls up Denver-area weather; when I'm not using the VPN, it shows me Lafayette, LA weather, even though I'm 60 miles from there).

It happens. Some tops freak out, others don't care, still others are pleased. About all you can do is prepare a little more as well as upping your fiber, etc. so that cleaning out is easier.

And how he's apparently cut a deal with Putin (by his own admission) that Russia will hold an American journalist in prison as a hostage unless/until Trump is re-elected.

I'm not so sure all of these would fall if Trump's elected (Russia might get stretched too thin trying to take them all on, and the UK does have nukes), but any of them COULD, and how many depends on how ambitious Russia tries to get.

That kind of test wouldn't necessarily work, because you'd know he was wearing a condom, and that knowledge might alter your mood (you said yourself you didn't want to do that, and he wouldn't either, and that might change the way he fucks, too). The way to test would be a 3-part test, each conducted multiple times. First would be getting bred as usual, taking loads. Second would be him pretending to cum inside you, but not cumming at all. Third would be him using a condom. All three of which you'd be blindfolded for, and forbidden to reach back and touch his cock so you have no idea which kind of fuck you were getting. If he has big loads and/or you tend to feel them leak out later, you'd need to be plugged afterward (though it needed be a huge plug, just one large enough to stop leaks). You'd also have to have random numbers of each kind of fuck, with him recording your moods after each, but not telling you what kind of fuck each was. Then, and ONLY THEN, would you have any real notion of whether the semen inside you was an actual contributing factor. Probably more trouble than it's worth, but you might enjoy it nonetheless.

I'm a little confused. The only "rule" I see here that even vaguely hints as to "morals" is the idea of not kissing, because that's the thing that would upset his (cheated on) partner the most, and even that, he says he'll do if the guy is his type. That doesn't sound much like morals in the slightest to me. The rest seems to be "here's how I cover my tracks".

Sounds to me like your "rules" are really more like "things I do so my partner doesn't find out I'm sleazing around behind his back"? Are you looking for additional ways to make sure your betrayal isn't discovered?

Unfortunately for whatever reason, the author hasn't been on this site in over 9 months. At this point, not only is it unlikely he'll return to finish the story, he may not return at all.

But Austin was/is a producer of porn himself, and undoubtedly knew the laws involved, especially as proprietor of his OF/JFF knockoff "4MyFans". It's reasonable to assume he would be more careful than the average user, and one thing I'd do, in his shoes, is keep all such files on a single physical device that's easy to conceal and/or destroy as needed. This one isn't all that unusual necessarily. The feds undoubtedly seized a lot more electronic devices in the April search, and it would take time to go through all of them forensically to determine what they have. In addition, let's say he had a computer (laptop, desktop, whatever) that had some of his business documents/accounting on - the FBI would have to let a separate "taint team" go through everything to ensure that nothing privileged (such as communications with his attorneys over business, etc.) got to the prosecution team - who only has a warrant for certain things, remember. It's only after they finish that analysis that they can actually issue the arrest warrant (because they want it to be air tight). As for allowing him to continue: My assumption is that anyone who just got busted for child porn and had all his devices seized is highly unlikely to go out and buy a new computer to start up trading again, especially since he knows they're watching him. Again, maybe not. Having the FBI seize all your shit can be a powerful motivation to not keep fucking up. "TT User 1" is how the complaint (the FBI document seeking the arrest warrant) refers to "Target Telegram User 1" - the guy who was already an FBI target in a child porn investigation. TT User 1's phone was seized at the time he was being investigated (just as Wolf's devices were, in his investigation), and the FBI found a Telegram chat log on the phone with another person, whom they determined to be Wolf. That conversation log contained lots of videos and images the two had exchanged (the CP kind). TT User 1 apparently agreed to cooperate, to some degree, with the FBI in investigating Wolf. So there's evidence beyond the SD card - on the phone of the guy they had arrested first. And yes, it's quite possible someone would NOT want to be out in public with child porn on a disk or drive or SD card or whatever. While obviously it's not necessarily safe from a search warrant and a determined FBI team, it's a lot easier to keep that kind of thing secret in your own home than to risk carrying it out in public. The FBI then (with TTU1's permission) used TTU1's Telegram account to communicate with Wolf, eliciting comments that helped confirm Wolf was the user. At the raid, they seized Wolf's phone, and confirmed that the contact on TTU1's Telegram account was, in fact, Wolf's phone. So there's a LOT of evidence beyond that one SD card. The reason they focus on it is that it proves POSSESSION of the CP (which he's charged with), in addition to the evidence that he SENT CP material (via Telegram) which they can show by the connection between the two Telegram accountsl. He has not been identified yet, but I suspect he will be. That's standard for cooperating witnesses. He may get a lesser sentence for his cooperation, but it won't be short. His age will presumably come out about the same time. As for your "real crime" idea - well, the Telegram account shows BOTH parties sending AND receiving such material between themselves, or so the criminal complaint form says. The line in the news about a 10-year old being tied up and raped by adults in one video? That's a video WOLF sent to TTU1, not the other way around. If he did what he's accused of, then it doesn't matter whether TTU1 was a jilted lover or not (though I'm leaning towards not). Here's the criminal complaint, which was easy to find online: [think before following links] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/media/1358681/dl

I'm not offended by anything about you. I'm laughing at the thought you don't understand that being an hour out of NYC (especially with all the transit options traversing the area), you don't understand what privilege you have towards getting laid, as opposed to, say, the guy who lives 40 minutes outside a town of 1,700 people. But hey - pretend you're not privileged all you want. Marie Antoinette used to play milkmaid when she wanted to escape the main palace at Versailles, and she did it with the cutest little Sevrés milk pail, a gold plated stool, and an 18,000 square foot cottage. Make-believe is such fun!

Bail is supposed, in theory, to simply be a guarantee that if you're released, you will show up for trial. That's why the constitution bars excessive bail; they're not supposed to set bail any higher than is necessary to ensure presence for trial (because you forfeit the bail if you don't show). People charged with manslaughter or negligent homicide typically didn't set out to kill anyone (if they had, the charge would be murder in the first or second degree, typically; the exact differences don't matter for this purpose). At least much of the time, they're horrified themselves by what happened, even if they intend to mount a vigorous defense. They're typically not flight risks - and in many of those cases, a cooperative (and white, middle-class) defendant can plead down to something that ends up being a few years behind bars and supervised release. People who send/receive child porn, by contrast, pretty much have "intent" nailed down tight. The sentences are stiff, the evidence is usually solid, even overwhelming, and there's a huge incentive for people to flee rather than stand trial. So bail, if it's even granted, tends to be very high; passports have to be surrendered, there's often an ankle monitor involved, etc. Just as often, or more so, bail is simply denied if the person has overseas assets and/or contacts, as this guy almost certainly does. On the flip side, people who themselves have molested children tend not to fare well in prison. Even those who "only" sent/received images or video of those things often don't, either - the prisoner environment doesn't necessarily distinguish details like that. So he's possibly being held in a unit isolated from the general population of people awaiting trial.

I tend to define "X culture" as those habits, interests, behaviors, etc. which tend to be associated with people who are X. That list may change over time, and it's not exclusive to X. For example, I would say that gathering around food is one element of Italian culture, but it's also an element in many other cultures. And not all Italians may gather over food. Still, it's a general "thing", and it's recognizable. The problem with "gay culture" as a concept is that it's itself culture-dependent. Despite air travel and disposable income and all that, the way gay men live in a handful of big cities in the U.S. is vastly different from the way their smaller number of compatriots live in less populated areas. The way gay men live in western Europe (writ large) is markedly different in many respects from how they live in eastern Europe, in Asia. Parts of Africa have almost no recognizable "gay culture" because same-sex sexual activity is still illegal (or illegal again), while other parts, especially in parts of north Africa and in South Africa (the country, not the region), have much more tolerant environments and there's a local culture. And of course, various parts of Asia run the gamut in terms of whether there's any gay "culture" at all. In other words, there's no single "gay culture" - there are lots of things that are popular or commonplace behaviors among selected groups of gay people, but certainly not a national one and absolutely not an international one. Which may be why it's hard for you to to pin it down.

Possible? Sure. But from an evolutionary standpoint, it doesn't make much sense, especially since fucking another man (or getting fucked by one) doesn't do anything to perpetuate the species. And if that were true, presumably (again, evolutionarily speaking) it would be even more true for women, yet there doesn't seem to be any tsunami of women's experiences that as long as a man ejaculates in her, she gets a warm cozy feeling. Instead, women almost uniformly report less pleasure and satisfaction from penis-in-vagina sex compared with clitoral stimulation, etc., so all that semen, other than leading to procreation, doesn't seem to be having that effect. As I've said elsewhere, it's entirely possible for a man to fake an orgasm, fucking men or women. Sometimes you can tell afterwards that he DIDN'T fake it - if semen leaks back out - but some loads are small, fully absorbed, and you have no idea if they're present or absent, just an indication based on the top's behavior (which can be faked and/or enhanced). I'm exceptionally skeptical.

I think it's all in your head. I don't think there is anything - literally, there's nothing - in semen that could cause a change in your brain chemistry to make you feel happy. Rather, I think the simple answer is that you like getting fucked, so when you get fucked, especially when it's by someone you like, you're happy. I think you'd feel that way even if a guy faked his orgasm and didn't cum at all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "manage this". Do you mean that it's taking up too much of your time? Do you mean it gets painful if you get it too often? Are you worried one of those issues will become a problem even if it's not a problem yet? Or are you worried that he'll lose interest and not want it daily or more, once the "honeymoon" period is over? Be more specific about the concern you have, and maybe people can then give more meaningful advice on how to "manage' it.

There is a slight overall correlation in that tall guys are slightly more likely to have a longer cock than an average height guy. But slightly, as in only a few percentage points. The reality is that extremes in cock size (>8.5-9, <4) are pretty randomly distributed among heights. Like @NWUSHorny, I've seen short guys with huge ones and tall guys with small ones; in fact, virtually every "really large" guy I've ever seen was shorter than I am (and I'm 5'10" on a good day).