Pozzible

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.

Thanks for this. It takes me hours to clean deep. Really puts a damper on my activities.

Not cherry picking. I honestly didn’t know that ATF and FBI had been deployed. I’ve put myself on a news diet. It’s helped maintain my sanity. So far. Harris is an excellent communicator. She’s articulate, charismatic, and always has good content to convey. Did you ever watch her grill nominees during confirmation hearings? Superb! No Definitively, no. Texas legislature, and I assume this holds true in most red states couldn’t care less about the inner cities. Their constituents are rural and suburban. Texas lege has been trying to fix the school funding formula since it was ruled unconstitutional 30 years ago. Each session, they patch the system and it doesn’t work. Texas lege meets for 5 months in alternate years Not enough time to manage substantive laws. Generally, the Texas Congress does little to help public schools The big bill this year was vouchers for private schools So money will be taken from public schools leading to classroom overcrowding and decreased quality of instruction. To expect our legislature to develop guidelines for special education students is ludicrous. That’s not the type of thing they excel at and wouldn’t want to do. I think there are blue states that might do this well, but it’s much more effective to have national guidelines. For a good idea of what our legislature finds important, watch this entertaining video of a hearing on the FURRIES Act that was debated by our legislature this year… People see the images from Gaza. It’s overwhelming,, cruel and unnecessary. So good will builds toward the Gazans. Since I’ve been retired, I’m not in contact with many Jewish people. But one of my close friends is Jewish. Her father was a holocaust survivor. She despises Netanyahu and his actions. She, too, thinks Palestinians deserve a state. Netanyahu will do anything and everything to keep the war going and keep himself out of jail. (He and Trump have this in common.) I don’t find it surprising that Israel’s actions have caused people (especially young people) to have deeply negative feeling toward Israel. Hopefully, Netanyahu will have a miserable time at The Hague sometime soon. I don’t agree with lots of Palestinians beliefs. But they don’t deserve genocide. Just as I didn’t like Charlie Kirk’s opinions at all, but he shouldn’t have been executed. We probably didn’t lose that much. the Fairness Doctrine was killed by Republicans in the ‘80s. Keep in mind, the Fairness Doctrine never applied to cable networks. I don’t really remember the difference this made in news coverage. I was in college and the only news I was interested in was Vietnam. Fortunately, I had a college deferment and then drew a lottery number in the 300s. At least I didn’t need to fake bone spurs. But if things had transpired differently, I might have fled to Canada. A very small percentage of immigrants commit crimes in US. But it’s a good issue to fire up right wing base, enhance fear and promote division. Sure, there is. There was bipartisan agreement to make to reform border laws in Congress last year. Trump killed it because he wanted the campaign issue. Yes, too wide a net. Arrest tactics are horrifying. Masked ICE patrols are not a good way for a civilized civilization to operate. The failure to give these arrestees due process is not only unfair, it’s unconstitutional. You would think so. Instead Trump is selling H-1B visas for $100,000. And while Trump closed off most inmmigration pathways, he managed to give the “oppressed” white Afrikaaner’s easy entry. The debate was one of the most painful things I’ve ever watched. He was tired. Recovering from flu. But Ron Klain screwed the pooch by letting Biden step on that stage. I admire Klain. He’s a brilliant strategist. I even wonder if Klain decided it was important for the public to see that Joe wasn’t up to conducting a rigorous campaign. There’s no way we could unsee what we saw on that stage. By the end of the night, I was certain he would drop out. And it was clear to me immediately that, that the nominee would and should be Harris. Pretty much. The concept of the UN is admirable. The way the Security Council was set up is an anachronism. When Russia, US or China can veto actions of the assembly, nothing important will get done. I’m not yet that cynical I believe that most Democrats truly care about making a better future. Whether Republicans do, I seriously doubt. I’m not certain what your point about the Internet means. But we’re certainly living in a different world. And with AI, it will only get more problematic. And fast. I know a bit about Jasmine Crockett. I’m not sure whether Rhodes college is expensive. Texas Southern University and the University of Houston are not expensive schools. (Comparatively. All colleges are exorbitant now.) I live in the 30th district. It isn’t in south Dallas. And Jasmine Crockett lives in the 30th. (At least until the ridiculous new gerrymander is imposed.) As a matter of fact, Crockett and I live in the same condo complex. I’ve met her once. She wouldn’t remember me. But she’d remember my dog who ran into Jasmine’s garage. So she knows Haley. I see two of her three cars parked in the parking lot. A BMW and a Bentley. I certainly care who it is. And I think Kamala was the only choice. She was elected on a presidential ticket. She was ready. There was not enough time to initiate a primary process. Th candidates wouldn’t have campaign teams in place. And the funding issue was huge. Since Harris’ name was on the Biden/Harris campaign organization, the funds could be easily transferred to her. My understanding is that other candidates wouldn’t have that access. And let’s be frank, you don’t throw an elected Bice President overboard when Black women are the backbone of the Democratic Party. No, I do not have to admit that. And Harris easily hurdled any bar in her way. Yes, a thorough autopsy needs to be done. I assume the fault will be found in the campaign staff. No one wants to double down on open borders. We want clear, enforceable guidelines that allow for orderly process for immigrants. Mostly, I’m proud to support those other issues. I had to look into the cell phones issue “ICE does issue smartphones with a pre-loaded app to some undocumented immigrants to ensure compliance with release stipulations. But the phones can only be used to access the app – they can't access the internet, load other apps or make calls. And use of them dates back to the Trump administration.“ (USA Today, April 27, 2022.) The trans issues re. solution in search of. problem. It can certainly be used to create fear in the public, but trans women are not lurking to watch other women. There are very few trans women competing in sports. The big brouhaha was raised by a woman who placed 5th in a swim race. The trans woman placed fourth. THIS is one of America’s important problems? I admit that the Trump commercial on trans women in sports was a very smart (though despicable) ad. My heart sank when I saw it. But as with most Trump policies, this was one more way to create fear and divide the country. Ditto. Enjoy it. Except when my work disappears. Cheers!