BootmanLA

True - I should have been clearer that I was referring to the first trial, which would have actually removed him from office. The second one, if he'd been convicted, would only prevent him from running this year. Had the first impeachment vote gone as it should have, we never would have had the January 6 insurrection to worry about.

There's an expression that's been around since Trump entered politics, coined, I believe, by Rick Wilson, a former Republican campaign operative (and by his own admission, one of the rougher-playing ones) who turned on the GOP when Trump became their nominee. "Everything Trump Touches Dies" is the phrase, and it's true. His father had built up a downright enormous real estate empire consisting of tens of thousands of apartments, all of which were essentially paid for and which were, for the most part, cash cows. Trump convinced his brother and sisters that they needed to sell everything not long after his father died; they got far less than they would have had they not been in a "fire sale", all so Donnie could raise more cash to keep himself out of bankruptcy. Three casinos - all bankrupt and shut down. Dozens of other businesses - often closed before bankruptcy (but still stiffing lots of vendors). Even the people around him - can anyone name a single person who associated himself with Trump and came out ahead in any way? Lindell's just the latest in a long, long line of people Donnie used and discarded. Starting with the man who taught him what he knows about this - Roy Cohn, who was Trump's bulldog attorney before Michael Cohen, until Cohn (a self-loathing closeted gay man) contracted HIV and died, with the IRS having nailed him on tax charges, his law license revoked, and his assets being seized as he lay dying. (Side note: Cohn was as vulgar and trashy as Trump; like Trump, he cheated on his taxes, routinely stiffed vendors, and - shades of Diet Cokes and Big Macs - loved champagne spiked with Sweet-N-Lo. And just as Trump constantly accuses people of things he's himself done, and expresses contempt for them, Cohn was a Jew who hated Jews, a lawyer who hated lawyers, and a gay man who detested "fags".) Everything . Trump . Touches . Dies. Everything.

Please identify one country that thinks the US under Biden, as opposed to Trump is the "laughingstock of the world". The Mueller investigation (a) did find that Trump & his entourage did any number of things, including agreeing to meet with Russian agents who specifically advertised "dirt on Hillary Clinton", thus demonstrating their willingness to collude with our adversaries to win the election. Mueller found this did not rise to the level of a criminal conspiracy, which is what they would have been charged with ("collusion" is not a legal term; "conspiracy" is). He did not, however, say that they didn't collude - merely that their collusion did not rise to the level of criminal conspiracy. Furthermore, he did not absolve them of obstruction of justice. He specifically left that question open, presumably not expecting his boss to sandbag him by holding the report confidential for a month but two days in publicly stating that obstruction charges weren't warranted. Except that once the actual text - with the sections the court ordered "unredacted" revealed - was released, it was pretty clear there was a very strong case for obstruction charges. The idea that it was a "total setup" is bullshit. Trump himself, or his team, initiated every action that led to the investigation, including accepting the Russian meeting invitation, firing Comey for refusing to go easy on his team, and more. Yes, Trump beat two impeachments. But "holding the House and Senate" means nothing if you don't have a 2/3 majority (which they didn't), and especially when not a SINGLE Republican (even those who now publicly run him down) had the courage to vote to impeach - preferring political expediency and electoral survival over doing the right thing. The facts were indeed there - it's just the Republicans (and you, I'm guessing) refuse to actually look at them. And no, Adam Schiff did not "lie the entire time". But I guess if you're used to believing Donald Trump, you would regularly mistake the truth for lies and vice versa.

Nah - the "chat" is like a chat room (if you remember those from AOL or IRC or other sites), where the conversation is "live" and you only see what's been said in the room while you're present. If you leave and return, like in real life, there's no "catching up" on what you missed, and nobody's likely to address you there when you're not present. In other words, it's not like instant messages or text messaging or anything like that.

I'll give an example, for those interested. There is a 5-letter word beginning with "t", derived from a Polynesian language, that in a general sense means "forbidden" - but with the context that it's a cultural proscription. Anyone who remembers the Brady Bunch episodes set in Hawaii should recall the small carved idol that Bobby found and which may or may not have caused all sorts of bad things to happen to others - all the while, he was thinking it was a good luck charm, if I recall correctly. It's often used in certain people's profiles and personal ads to indicate a sexual interest in certain things that are highly illegal (at least in most western cultures). Used in that context - which is almost always how it's used in a sex-oriented discussion space - it's almost certainly going to cause problems, with people using that discussion space to talk about some very unsavory things (and exposing the site to substantial criminal liability). So the word is just banned, period. There ARE other contexts - like the Brady Bunch idol situation - where the word would be appropriate, but as @viking8x6 notes, you can treat it as an opportunity to exercise your vocabulary. The simple term "forbidden" can do about 90-95% of the work there, for instance.

1. If you look in this forum, you'll find a very lengthy thread on problems with the third-party chat system. Short summary: The chat software was an "add on" to the software that underlies this entire site of forums, and has never been integrated very well (the two systems need to share information and they don't do that well). That's unlikely to be fixed as the longer-term plan is to migrate this forum onto different software, which WILL have an integrated, built-in chat system. 2. Messages to the admins are NOT responded to by "chat", but by reply messages.

I should have noted this too: the reason we call these kind of right-wing, US-sponsored dictatorships "banana republics" isn't because the governments are bananas; it's because the banana (and other fruit) companies, Dole and Chiquita, effectively ran the countries for decades with US support.

Except of course for the pesky reality that no third party has won the presidency, ever, and none has won as much as a single electoral vote at the ballot box in over 50 years. To me that's like saying the only viable future for humanity is the magic sky fairy.

Costa Ricans privately brag that their country is the only one in Central America that has never been invaded by the US and/or had a puppet regime installed to run it. Of course, that's partly because Costa Rica bent over backwards to be accommodating and welcoming to US interests even without CIA plots and the like. And while the US's puppet governments have been a big part of the problem, US commercial interests - United Fruit Co. (now Chiquita) and Standard Fruit Co. (now Dole) owned whatever parts of the governments of most central American countries that the US government itself didn't control. In fact, a significant amount of America's military and para-military interventions in central America were to protect the commercial interests of these giant agribusinesses.

There are other dimensions to the problem: for example, the lack of any sort of "guest worker" program where temporary migrant labor could cross to the US, work legitimately (such as for construction season or harvest season or whatever) and then return to their own countries. In fact, we had a "de facto" such system for years, back when we didn't try to lock down the border quite so tight - working age men would leave their families, come to the US, work hard and long for several months, sending home most of their wages, then return home in the off seasons. As long as we winked at the problem, it wasn't really a problem. When we locked down the border and also refused to create a guest worker program - something that has been part of every serious immigration reform package since I was a teen - we created the problems we have today. Migrant workers aren't willing to keep risking border crossings twice a year or more; if they make it, they stay, because they know they may not make it again. And because they're not going back, it incentivizes them to bring their families here, too (because no one, understandably, wants to be separated permanently from his loved ones).

I have no doubt you're right, but Kennedy adopted this accent before MAGA was a thing. He was using it the last several years he served as state treasurer here, well before Trump rode down that fake gold escalator. But he certainly didn't sound like that as executive counsel to the governor, back in the late 80's and early 90's.

The sad thing is that Kennedy is completely putting on an act. I've been around him (not close, but certainly close enough to hear him speak, regularly, for decades) and this Foghorn Leghorn hillbilly act is completely made-up. He went to Vanderbilt University for his undergraduate work, UVA for his law degree, and also got a Bachelor of Civil Law degree from OXFORD - the one in England, not the one in Mississippi - for god's sake. He always had a southern accent, but nothing like this affected drawl he drags out (pun intended) in the Senate. It's not even just a political thing - he was deeply involved in state politics without this affectation from 1987 forward.

I hate to sound like rain on a parade, but expecting "only" 3-5 loads is still exceptionally optimistic. Most tops at events like this will cum once and leave. They may hold off for a couple of hours, edging things along, so as to sample a lot of the holes there, but unless a guy has a really short refractory period and can quickly get hard again for a second round (and some do and can), it's more likely fuck for a while, cum, and go. And bear in mind that (as far as I know) Cumunion events are self-selecting, so the number of bottoms will almost certainly vastly exceed the number of tops. So if, for instance, there are 50 pure bottoms, 30 versatile guys, and 20 tops (which would still be a lot higher percentage of tops than in the world at large), and IF every versatile guy there was also willing to fuck and give a load and NOT want to take a load from any of the tops, then there would still only be an average of one load, or slightly more (accounting for the multi-cummers) per bottom. If there are particularly desirable bottoms (and that type can vary depending on who's doing the desiring, but it it might be muscle subs, or really young twinks, or whatever), they're almost certainly going to get more than the average share. Which could mean some bottoms, even a large number of them, may not get ANY loads at all. The HorseMarketSF events in the US are what I'd call "curated" - that is, the ratio of tops to bottoms (and roles are strict there) is controlled by allowing as many tops to buy tickets as are willing, but limiting the number of bottom tickets (awarded through a lottery system) to ensure a good balance. It's rumored that the rough balance is 2 tops for every 1 bottom ticket. And even there, with this artificially high number of tops, there are bottoms who don't get a single load. There are bottoms who don't get fucked *at all*.

I'm not sure they would hold up *all* appointments - without confirmed leaders of various executive agencies, for instance, government would grind to a halt, and they're finally learning the lesson that as the party to blame for pretty much every government shut down of the last 35 or so years, even Republican voters are quick to blame them accordingly. So I'd expect positions like Secretary of State, etc. to get filled and confirmed, not unanimously, but at least by a reasonable number. But judges? The Republicans could well decide that we don't need to fill those judgeships; if that slows down the legal process, all the better, because they can use the judges they already control to stymie almost any policy they don't like (by filing suit in North Texas, which then routes all appeals to the reactionary 5th Circuit). And the (only) 3 non-right-wingers on the Supreme Court can't force their colleagues to take up any cases that the right wants to leave in place with the appellate decision.

FWIW, I'm obviously not the one who created this inspired take on Britt's babbling. But I am happy to have shared it 🙂

Unfortunately, all the leading candidates to replace McConnell as the leader of the Senate Republicans are as bad or worse than he is. For all his flaws - and they are legion - McConnell would on occasion sanction bipartisan efforts to solve problems. The next leader, whoever he is, will come from a group who has only known obstruction as the way to respond to anything a Democratic administration wants. And while getting Sinema out of the Senate race shores up one vulnerable seat, we still have to contend with the almost certain loss of Manchin's seat in West Virgina and the possible losses of seats in Montana, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Nevada. Losing Manchin means a tied Senate, so we hold it IF we also keep the presidency. Losing any of the others along with him, unless we miraculously flip either Texas or Florida (both possible but still unlikely), means losing the Senate, and possibly the ability to confirm any judicial nominations. (I wouldn't put it past some of the people running to replace McConnell as majority leader to just refuse to hold confirmation hearings on ANY judges or justices.)

Senator Kennedy is an embarrassment to the Senate. But beyond that, did you really expect that any Republican member of Congress was going to say anything good about a speech by a Democratic president? Biden could make a speech announcing that the sun rises in the east and the Republicans would scream that he's being petty and vindictive to all the MAGA people who live in the west. The Republicans are no longer a serious party; they are a cult, enslaved to worshipping their last president, and committed only to opposing whatever it is Democrats - and Americans in general - want. Solid majorities of Americans across the country want abortion to remain legal at least in the first few months of a pregnancy, but the Republicans are committed to banning the procedure entirely. Solid majorities of Americans want sensible gun control, but the Republicans (aided, sadly, by some Democrats) won't even consider anything. Solid majorities favor raising taxes on the wealthy, but... I could go on and on, but the bottom line is, the Republicans no longer support what the country wants, in any meaningful way.

And you sound like someone who spouts nonsensical opinions, and refuses to even engage with the clear, detailed responses you receive. Believe whatever you want, including that the moon is made of green cheese, if you like, but don't be surprised when no one takes you seriously for babbling on with absolute untruths and silly notions.

Oddly, I don't see the current president employing force (either US government force, or his supporters' force) to accomplish his goals; but I certainly can't say the same about the previous guy, who not only called out the military to clear peaceful protests, but deliberately whipped up a violent crowd into attacking the seat of government in an attempt to force them to overturn the free and fair election results from two months earlier, all in a bid to keep himself in power. And it's not the current administration that's threatening to curtail your civil liberties; it's the previous one, which hopes to be the next one, as well. I recall all too well how he lamented that cops couldn't bash the heads of arrestees against police cars, how he said that the cops should just start shooting people instead of arresting them, how his party's pushing to curtail online sexual expression (like this site!) in the name of protecting "da kids". Try again, Bozo. Your clown makeup is showing.

A quick reminder - this is the Health forum, and eroticizing/fetishizing AIDS (and "the AIDS look" and the like) is forbidden here. It's actually against the rules of the site in broad terms, but in this forum, where the purpose is to share information on how to keep ourselves healthy with our sex lives, it's way past inappropriate.

I'll mention something here that has been covered elsewhere: hotels in many areas are becoming less friendly towards this sort of thing. Of course, at the low end of the lodging spectrum, older motel-type buildings that have external walkways and doors opening to the outside present the least problem, but those are (increasingly) getting torn down; if a newer hotel replaces it, it's essentially always interior corridors only and all access is through the lobby or with a key card for other doors. And "guests of guests" who arrive and then don't head immediately for the guest's room may get scrutinized more closely. So while it's smart and understandable to wait to give out the room number until the person is "on site", if there's any delay in reaching the paying guest, the other "guest" may get asked to leave, especially if they can't give the full name of the person they're visiting. And in the more upscale places in tourist-heavy areas, you may find that guests can't even use the elevators without a key card. So these are things to keep in mind when planning where to host.

To this discussion I can only add: if you use saltwater, bear in mind that what medical professionals call "normal saline" (used for irrigation of wounds, etc.) and which mimics the salt content of much of the fluid in the human body, is only 0.9% salt, which is a pretty small amount. That doesn't mean a stronger concentration is deadly or anything like that - but it does mean that if, for instance, you already tend to have high blood pressure, or have a tendency to retain fluids: that might be exacerbated by regularly flushing with a saline solution that's more highly concentrated. Some of the water you flush into your rectum and colon gets absorbed there in - it doesn't all come back out - and if that water is more heavily salted, your body's going to feel that. For many people that may not be an issue because they're not at a point, healthwise, where a small influx of excess sodium will cause a problem. But for others - well, it's worth monitoring, at least.

If California has high gas prices because of high gas taxes, that has zero to do with who is the president. They were that high under Trump, they were that high under both Bushes. So again, blaming a Democratic president for the choices of a state government, elected by a state's representatives, is - well, let's say "interesting," to avoid using words like "foolish" or "stupid" or "ignorant". Oil prices, too, as noted, aren't set by the president and are only very lightly influenced at the margins by presidential decisions. Ask any oil company executive. You're free to love crude oil prices being high, or low, or whatever; but if you give blame or credit to a president, that's (again) "interesting". You cite federal law prohibiting discrimination. Perhaps you're unaware that, in fact, federal law on workplace discrimination does NOT specifically include "sexual orientation" as a protected class - meaning that an employer could say "I found out you were a faggot - you're fired" and federal law could do *nothing* about that, for decades. Only a few years ago did the Supreme Court finally decide that "discrimination on the basis of sex" did, in fact, include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation - a decision that Republicans in general and the right wing in particular has been screaming about ever since. The right fought against that interpretation (and won those fights) from the time the Civil Rights Act was passed, in 1964, until the Supreme Court finally included LGBT people under its coverage in 2020. So for fifty-six years the Republicans fought specifically to exclude you from that "discrimination" protection you laud today. They're still opposed to it. And yet you seem to think they're on your side. "Interesting."

With apologies to Inigo Montoya, these words - "well established fact" - I do not think they mean what you think they mean.