Pozzible

And in almost all countries providing healthcare, education for doctors and nurses are highly subsidized or free for all the countries’ citizens pursing medical degrees. It’s true that they have employment requirements to “pay back” their free/reduced tuition. And after that commitment is fulfilled, there’s a relatively high number of these professionals who pursue employment elsewhere. However, are they coming to US? I asked ChatGPT5 (paid model) about physician migration: Why don’t greater percentage of German-trained physicians immigrate to US? I’m guessing there are several reasons: high cost of malpractice insurance, dealing with bureaucracy of their patients’ health insurance requirements including coding and pre-approvals, costs of running a practice, and general quality of life issues. Look at my lazy Norway meme from yesterday and consider that US does not provide heavily-subsidized child care, crime rates are much higher in US, and US does not ensure paid vacations. Sure, US doctors can take lots of vacations. But that, too, is a cost of running a practice that they don’t deal with in other countries. I’ve had three PCPs that have chosen to either retire very early(2) or even migrate to Europe (1 to…Germany. Are doctors’ salaries abroad unjustifiably low? Maybe so But there are so many other factors to consider. I suppose it’s another example of market-driven decisions So, I’m going to say these countries “have figured out)” how to provide universal healthcare. And maybe we can all agree that all sorts of professions in US are underpaid/undervalued. I contend that no one who works a full-time job should be unable to pay rent, have health and child care, meet transportation needs, and support a family.

It was ill-considered - and frankly, lazy - for me to post that meme. That said, I personally believe the gist of it was on the right track. Considering the size and strength of the US economy, it’s mind-boggling that we don’t guarantee basic healthcare to everyone. Every, single country in the world that we would want to compare ourselves to, or consider ourselves superior to, has figured out a way to do it. We can quibble about marginal tax rates, indolent members of society, whatever you like. The fact that we don’t ensure all Americans ALL basic needs is totally embarrassing to me. It’s not that you guys don’t bring up good points. You do. But today, in particular, I just can’t. We’re watching everything fall apart - or more accurately, be demolished - right before our eyes. The king has soared over our heads to take a dump on the American public. He’s extorting universities, media companies, law firms, and entire countries to get his way. He’s rounding up hard-working people and incarcerating them without due process. And now, we’ve seen him both symbolically and literally take a backhoe to the White House. But we can eat cake. 😢

Incest so fascinates me. And now, it is so appealing. I would have loved to have had sex with one certain uncle. However, I still can’t imagine wanting to have sex with my dad or brother. Looking at old photos, I think they were incredibly hot. I just didn’t see it at the time. I did, however, have a mad crush on one of my coaches and fantasized about having sex with him. So @PozBearWI, your post caused me to think about that coach again. And when I did, for the first time, I thought that it might have damaged me, after all. Two years after high school I came out. Almost immediately I fell head over heels. And just as quickly, he broke my heart. For the next year I just pined for him and couldn’t imagine having sex with anyone else. Now I suspect that if I’d had sex with my coach crush, the same thing would have happened. As much as I fantasize now about it, I suspect at that age any relationship I had would have scarred me terribly. I had (maybe still have) such a distorted view about sex/relationships/love that maybe I was destined to have my heart broken - multiple times. I wonder if I would have felt differently if I’d grown up with the internet and readily-available porn. I honestly suspect I would have. My parents were so committed to each other and I expected to fall just as deeply” in love” as I assumed they were. Not once did I ever see them argue. And I just thought that that was what love would always be like. Decades later, when I was in a “promising” relationship, a simple argument left me in tears and alone. Maybe, that kind of upbringing, for me, just gave me a terribly distorted view. I’ve never been able to get that balance right. Rereading this, it feels incredibly sappy, self-indulgent, even ridiculous. But I do like sex an awful lot! And I found a recent newspaper photo of my old coach. I’d still love for him to fuck me.

As long as we’re discussing healthcare, I strenuously disagree. Every country in the developed world has figured out how to provide universal healthcare. We certainly have terrific healthcare in the USA - for those of us who can afford it. The ACA, along with subsidized premiums, has extended very basic healthcare to a much greater percentage of our population than before. However, we pay much more per capita than any other country for healthcare. I’m don’t have the time right now to get into the weeds, but I’m sure you’ll have response. Then I’ll gladly provide rebuttal.

Of course, you’re right on this as far as the hard Right goes. as Grover Norquist said probably 30 years ago, “We want to shrink government down so that it’s small enough that we can drown it in the bathtub.”(I think many Republicans view things differently.) It’s profoundly sad to me. I believe that government can do great things. And that unfettered capitalism will lead to a much worse life for the vast majority of the population. We’re a different country than the one I was once so proud of. 🥲

Thanks so much @hntnhole! Reasoned political debate is something I also highly value on this site. As you have surely noted, sometimes I get carried away. And your responses on wide-ranging topics are always interesting and well-reasoned!

No, no, no. The filibuster is a tactic to delay a vote. (This gets way into the weeds, I’ll grant you.) Even the specific Wikipedia source cite that you previously used includes this important nugget tucked away. “Even bills supported by 60 or more senators (as well as nominations) may therefore be delayed by a filibuster.” If the Republicans want to change the rules about the filibuster they can. They just have to make a rule change which only requires a simple majority. That’s exactly what McConnell did after the Gorsuch nomination was filibustered. The Republicans voted to pass a change to the rules about filibusters to add that filibusters couldn’t be used to delay a vote to confirm a new Supreme Court nominee. To do this they just needed to 51 votes to pass that rule revision. At any time, the Senate could completely eliminate all filibusters by passing a rule change with 51 votes. I’m not sure I can fault your logic here. Except that you assume that this issue outweighs all others in the next election. Maybe it will, maybe it won’t. However, in the mean time, most of the 24 million people who will face exorbitant increase in premiums will largely lose their health insurance which would cost countless lives. And as @laguyinhou noted, this would almost certainly result in premium increases to millions of voters who get health insurance through their employers. Also, if these massive numbers lose their health insurance, many hospitals (mostly rural) will close down due to loss of revenue from most of their visitors. An impact that can’t be undone in the future. I know you previously made that argument in response to me. Though I haven’t gone back to read them, I expect that’s exactly what many Dems said. However, I think the Democrats calculus this time is that the harms of allowing the ACA subsidies to lapse would be so catastrophic that it outweighs the horrific option of these federal workers having to wait to get their paychecks. I don’t think any Democrats like that choice, and I agree with them. The problem is, that we live in unique times. At some point, a “regular” president would negotiate a solution. Trump may not. Trump may not care that there are enormous numbers of people (those who lose insurance and federal workers awaiting delayed salaries) will face horrific outcomes no matter the choices they make. Yes, and this is not uncommon. Frequently Congress will opt to only pass a rule based on a short period into the future. This is especially true when it will have major economic impacts. This was how the incredible tax cuts for billionaires worked. When Trump got his tax package through in first administration, it only changed the tax rules for a limited number of years, so that the CBO calculations showed a smaller (though still enormous) impact on the federal deficit. Republicans are in control again when those cuts were due to expire, so they passed legislation extending those cuts. This is the reason the ACA subsidies were time-limited too. But Dems aren’t in charge, so the only way they can hope to extend subsidies is by negotiating to end shutdown. It’s a helluva mess. I know it’s more complicated than I can explain, but I think those answers sort of get the ideas across. Another reason Dems may feel this shutdown is especially important is that trying to fix things after the next presidential election may not occur as we expect. Many worry that 2028 may not be a free and fair election. Trump is readying us to not be surprised if (or when) he declares an insurrection. If he does declare an insurrection he can say that it’s impossible to conduct an election until after the insurrection is resolved. Am I being too dramatic? Maybe. But Trump is definitely making changes that create a path for such actions. Sometimes I think I’m lucky to be so old.

Sorry to post another comment. I tried to edit the previous one but I took too much time. First, I didn’t mean you were missing two different points, I meant mixing two points. Then… I don’t necessarily disagree with the concepts you’re expressing. However, you support each with one example. So we have to use specific examples to show how each party applies (or violates them). Also, for me, it’s 4:00 in the morning, and I just don’t have the bandwidth to dig deep.

You’re missing two different points of mine. Purifying the party absolutely happens at least as much with Republicans. You mentioned Sinema and Manchin. I pointed to Cheney and Kinzinger. But also Romney. However, most of the purifying happens in primary elections.

But in expressing your ideas, you rely on one example that might prove your point. So yes, I give counter examples. But to fully engage with a concept, we need discussion on each one. Which I’m happy to do.

Yes, and no. Yes, I’m justifying it. But they’re actually not doing it to be obstinate at all. Getting affordable healthcare to everyone is a core principle of the Democratic Party. That’s what they’re doing here. And as one of my sources noted, the majority of the 24 million people who would be most impacted are Republicans in red states. It’s a negotiating tactic that usually would lead to compromise. However, with Trump, lol bets are off. He’ll let it all burn down. People are getting notice that their healthcare premiums will double, triple, and sometimes more. These people, too, would be collateral damage.

People are ALWAYS talking about things like filibuster reform. That’s different from actively trying to make the changes. Or how Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger were exiled from Republican Party? Which is absolutely what Trump is doing. Deporting college students who have study visas due to their voiced opinions, eliminating funding to universities that won’t comply with his personal mandates on what courses they can offer to students, instructing the Attorney General to indict people who have spoken/acted against him, getting Colbert’s show cancelled and getting Kimmel taken of his show, extorting law firms to agree not to take clients who oppose Trump. Etc, etc, etc. You may have heard this from some individuals on the Left, but not from anyone in office and generally not from anyone other that a few twitter (x) comments. In virtually every case Democrats have said that political violence is never acceptable. That doesn’t mean people on the left haven’t noted Kirk’s charged rhetoric. Sorry if you think this is “tit-for-tat”. I, too, am willing to engage in political debate. But it’s hard to do that with a long lists of concepts. Much better to do one idea at a time.

Republicans eliminated 60-vote threshold (the “nuclear option”) to confirm Supreme Court nominees. after Dems filibustered Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation. In 2013, Dems had changed the rule for presidential nominees other than Supreme Court after Republicans filibustered multiple nominations. So whether it’s a 50 vote threshold or a 60 vote threshold, the concept of filibustering is the same (when one person holds the floor speaking as long as s/he can to delay a vote). Eventually the person will have to sit down which will end that filibuster. It annoys the majority party, but almost always the speaker will sit down in 10 hours or less. [think before following links] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/10/01/fact-check-gop-ended-senate-filibuster-supreme-court-nominees/3573369001/ So Dems are not filibustering to keep government shut down Senate has voted 10 times and Dems have voted against it each time. The House is a different situation. Speaker Mike Johnson has told Republicans to stay home and hasn’t held any votes. (Presumably, so he won’t have to swear in a newly elected Democratic Representative because she would be the 218th vote for a petition requiring the Epstein files to be released and Trump says no.) You’re absolutely right that there is a lot of collateral damage while government is shut down. Legally, the government employees who don’t get paid will be paid their backpay when the government reopens (however Trump says he may not comply with that law.) Nevertheless, there a lot of people who live paycheck to paycheck and will be suffering great harm while they wait for government to reopen. Almost every shutdown has been due to Republican recalcitrance. [think before following links] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/government-shutdown-history-congress/ This shutdown is the first significant one that has been caused by Democrats. “As the minority party, Democrats don't have much power. However, Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes to pass any spending bill out of the Senate, where 60 votes are needed to advance most legislation in the 100-seat chamber. This time, Democrats are using that leverage to push for renewing expanded health-care subsidies for people who buy insurance through the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Their proposal would make permanent enhanced tax breaks that are otherwise due to expire at the end of the year and make them available to more middle-income households. If those tax breaks are allowed to expire, health insurance costs will increase dramatically for many of the 24 million Americans who get their coverage through the ACA, according to the non-partisan Kaiser Family Foundation. The impact would be most acute in Republican-controlled states that have refused to expand the Medicaid health plan for the poor” [think before following links] https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-government-shutdown-1.7647414 So, yes. There are a lot of federal workers who will be hurt by the shutdown But Dems are fighting for the 24 million people whose health insurance would be greatly increased preventing many from having access to healthcare. Even Marjorie Taylor Greene is siding with the Dems in this instance because she’s hearing from her constituents how horribly impacted they will be by the increase in cost of their insurance. Republicans (mainly Trump) refuse to negotiate. So, no, the Dems aren’t filibustering which would be a one day problem Shutdown will continue until one side hollers “uncle.”

#1 - This has been well discussed by others. I will add that we shouldn’t overlook what Trump is doing with Venezuela. He’s bombed 6 or 7 boats that he says were transporting fentanyl to US. But we’ve seen no supporting evidence. And it wasn’t even clear that the boats were headed to US. So at least he could have watched and waited. And now he’s sent CIA into Venezuela, which seems ominous. He’s pledging to give Argentina a $40 billion bailout from US money. Of course he’s qualified that to say he’ll give it to them only if his preferred candidate wins presidential election. (You would think by now that US should just keep its nose out of the Southern Americas.) Changing Department of Defense to Department of War doesn’t really sound like he wants to oppose war. #2 - Stopping illegal immigration to US seems like a good idea to me. Mostly that should be in changing things at the border. Especially useful would be to vastly expand the number of immigration judges. There was bipartisan agreement in congress on new immigration policies last year, but Trump told Republicans leaders to kill that idea. He wanted the immigration issue to run on. Has Trump kept his promise on the question as @nanana asked it? I suppose so. However, many people are appalled by the way Trump has handled the issue. After he was in office he said that we’re only going after the worst of the worst. Hardened criminals. But that’s not what has been happening. You don’t find the hardened criminals by arresting Hispanics at Home Depot looking for jobs. You don’t find hardened criminals by arrresting people who are coming out of their scheduled appearances at immigration courts. You don’t find hardened criminals by getting lists of Hispanic names from IRS. (Undocumented people who are paying taxes aren’t hardened criminals.) And the way ICE has been used is unforgivable. In the US that I know, we don’t allow people dressed in black, wearing masks, who won’t identify themselves to act as law enforcement. #3 - I suppose this may be a promise kept. But I don’t like the way they’re doing it. #4 - Definitely a broken promise. Giving a $4 trillion tax cut to the other oligarchs is not a way to cut spending. Taking a chainsaw wielded by young twenty-somethings to decimate important components of government that keep our country running ends up costing more than it saves. Cutting foreign aid (which was a tiny reduction in spending) is not a good look. We destroyed tons of warehouses where needed food and medicines. Abominable. #5 - Free speech? Seriously? Rounding up foreign students who have peacefully protested and then deporting them is not free speech. Forcing universities to eliminate courses studying gender or Black history is not free speech. Threatening people who pointed out problems with Charlie Kirk’s advocacy is not free speech. Extorting law firms to only take clients who are Trump approved is not free speech. Bribing tech oligarchs to monitor liberal speech on their platforms is not free speech. Suing organizations who support Democratic issues or raising money for Democrats running for office is not free speech. And there’s so much more. #6 - MAHA. 🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂 🥲🥲🥲 Scaring parents to not vaccinate their kids, leaving WHO, mass firing CDC employees, firing scientists who work on disease prevention, cutting funds to university projects which have made breakthroughs in medical science, cutting free lunch programs to needy kids, cutting programs in Medicaid and Medicare, reducing subsidies on the ACA, are all antithetical to making us healthy. Stopping inflation on Day 1 was a promise not kept. Ending wars in Ukraine and Gaza on Day 1 was a promise not kept. That he would end “weaponization of Justice department”? Laughable. I’m not sure it was a “promise” but he campaigned saying he would release the Epstein files. Hasn’t happened.

Democrats haven’t been filibustering at all. Ten votes have been held in the Senate and Republicans lost. Not due to filibuster, but because Senate rules require 60 votes in order to pass legislation. And Democrats are opposed to the cuts to the ACÁ. The Republicans have the ability to change the 60 vote threshold at any time. Either they feel like that would be held against them by voters or that they don’t want to set that precedent since Democrats will be in the majority sometime. McConnell already used this “nuclear option” to change to simple majority for judicial confirmations.

I don’t understand why you say that the Democrats have become extremists. Can you clarify?

I was a late bloomer. I had never heard of water sports until a friend took me to the Mineshaft in NYC. Actually, my eyes were opened to a lot of things that night. At one point, I looked over to see my friend, René, in a bathtub being pissed on by multiple guys. At the time, it just struck me as weird, and not hot at all. Then, sometime in the 90’s, I was reading First Hand (or a similar magazine full of erotic short stories). I read a story about a state champion, high school athlete. He and his coach/dad got into water sports. It was SOOO erotic. I didn’t know how to connect with someone into WS yet, so I would piss in a Tupperware bowl, dip a washcloth in the bowl, and then read Nifty water sports stories while sucking the piss out of the washcloth and doing poppers. I finally met a couple who introduced me to my first real piss play. I got pretty focused for a while seeking play partners at the baths and a local sex club. Good times!

I would love to know more about your setup. What size tube? What are the other parts - what attachment do you use for nostrils? what attachment to top of bottle? what is the base station? I’d love to do this, but I’d need a recipe! Or make me a copy and I’ll buy it!

To each his own.

Does anyone have a good reason for why we use both nostrils to inhale poppers? We do it as if each nostril only reached one lung. So is the two nostril tradition just something we’ve gotten used to. The only reason I can think of is that maybe alternating nostrils isn’t as bad for lining in the nostrils. For me, there are a lot of times, depending on body, position that it would be more convenient to only use one nostril.

Chilling? How? Haven’t been on there.

I assumed everyone had. I read porn on my iPad in bed. Have spilled them in my nose many times. I do use Super Sniffer now. Has definitely helped. Not sure I’ve ever had an issue when having sex with others though.

Gabbard was excommunicated from the Democratic Party while she was still in Congress, long before she became DNI. She loved palling around with Putin.

That Gabbard is DNI is stupefying. I feel sure that the other 4 eyes are being very careful about intelligence they share with US now. And they likely don’t fully trust intelligence that US shares with them.