Leaderboard

three guys nicked Both ? they can use some inventiveness. First Both is the most cute of the whole bunch

Yummy!

Hi everyone, I will write up a full review of my trip once it is has concluded. I wanted to see if anyone will be in Salvador over the next week. I have meet some AMAZING people from this forum over the past week and I would love to connect & explore the cities offerings.

you are smart and I'm stupid

I believed both is position rather than nick lol both = vers = flex. Man = Top. Unfortunately their nick/name are written in Thai only

How to Rebalance the Supreme Court Combine an immediate expansion with a proposal for a constitutional amendment This is a great article. I think this is the debate Democrats should start having among themselves now. Meaning, Biden's public comments should be focused on what the Republicans are doing. Period. Like how hypocritical and divisive it is. And what impact it will have: on health care, pre-existing conditions, deporting DREAMers, unmarrying Gays, banning abortion, and a long list of other progressive victories that could be reversed or at least gradually chewed to the bone. Just as Republicans can and will decide among themselves what to do with Garland or Gorsuch or Justice Rapist or RBG, this is the Democrat's call. That said, whatever we do should be based on the idea that Independents are the dilettantes who will reward or punish either party. I think we can do a better job than the Republicans of doing something that makes sense to them. It is quite possible that Rich Mitch's bet in 2016 paid off. President Toxic in 2016 got 2 million more votes than Romney in 2012. Hillary got 100,000 less votes than Obama did in 2012. No one can ever know why that was. But it's easy to believe right wing thirst for court packing had something to do with it. It's also easy to believe that was exactly what Mitch McConnell had in mind. Even if that is true, all the evidence suggests that Republicans hurt themselves badly with Independents in 2018. In the House, it is undeniable. You can debate the Senate, since it was win some lose some. My way of looking at it, going forward, is that the SCOTUS issue has probably now flipped. It used to energize Republicans more. It will now likely energize Democrats more. Just since RBG's death, there are already indications of that in polling and fundraising. I could make up a list of more than 25 states where this will help Democrats win Senate seats in the future, I think. If you accept the premise that it will help Republicans win in red states like Kentucky and South Carolina, there are fewer than 25 of those. In fact, how this plays out in Senate races in South Carolina, North Carolina, Texas, Montana, Kansas, Kentucky, and Georgia in 2020 will provide excellent data on how the liberal and conservative tectonic plates are being shifted. In terms of the content of the article above, I've read several articles that propose a constitutional amendment. I like the idea of combining immediate action Democrats can take unilaterally with longer term action that is oriented around bipartisanship and preserving the integrity of the Court. In my mind, the long-term solution is the easier of the two. I like the idea that we agree that we like a 9 judge court. I like the idea that we limit it to terms. If we had 16 year terms, and each President appointed two during a four year term, that could solve a few problems. I think RBG did wait too long. That said, the way the system works now leaves lots of things to fate. When will I get cancer? Even if she resigned in January 2015, McConnell may have invented some other "rule" to block her replacement. With 16 year appointments, "fate" will of course happen, anyway. But I do think it would rationalize and improve the existing system. And it would be more reform than revolution. In a period like the FDR New Deal, it would allow liberals to dominate, resulting in something like the Warren Court. If conservatives dominate, it would result in something like what we have right now. All that said, I'm fine with proposing an amendment like this that goes absolutely nowhere. Of the last 10 Presidential terms from 1980, including President Toxic, six were Republicans and four were Democrats. If we do nothing, my guess is that Democrats will be more likely than Republicans to win the Presidential lottery for the next 40 years. Speaking as a Democrat, why rush to change the permanent rules when it's finally our turn? What I like about the idea of a permanent agreement like this is it leaves the permanent number at 9 and attempts to rationalize and reform how individual justices come and go. Instead of encouraging them to hang on too long, it gives them 16 years to do their best work. It also guarantees that just like a Senate that is replaced every six years, we'd have incremental changes in the court's makeup. As far as the short term goes, this interview with Joe Manchin, which doesn't actually say a lot, would be my starting point: Like Kasie Hunt, I would read Manchin's "institutionalist" comments as a "no" to the idea of court packing. With Biden, we don't even have to guess. He's always been an institutionalist, too. That said, if he wins and Democrats have a Senate majority there will be huge pressure from the base to do "something". Whatever anyone thinks of Manchin, if Democrats are able to get a majority there's a good chance his vote will be essential. Another reason to wait is that if Democrats somehow ran the table and won 52 or 53 or 54 seats, that could be taken as a "mandate", and Manchin's vote might not be needed. I like the idea of adding one seat, period. And I like the idea of doing it quick, with 50 votes. COVID, vaccines, health care, jobs and the economy should be the urgent priorities. That said, if you assume Democrats in 2021 have 50 votes for "something", it's worth thinking about whether "something" should be one liberal seat, or three liberal seats. In part because a debate between 3 or 1 makes 1 look a lot more reasonable. The difference between 3 and 1 would be transparent to most people. 3 (or more) new liberal judges sounds like court packing. If there is an argument for it, it's that President Toxic was not a legitimate President because he actually lost in 2016. So we're just balancing out his three conservative picks. It would actually leave a 6-6 spit SCOTUS. I'd rather leave any arguments related to the Slavery Electoral College and President Toxic losing the popular vote in 2016 out of this. Given the choice between packing the court and getting rid of the Slavery Electoral College, I'd choose the latter in a heart beat. That's not going to happen quickly or easily, either. For now, I'd rather focus on getting one more liberal on the court. I think the idea of one would also be transparent. This partisan war started in 2016, when McConnell "stole" one seat that should have been filled with Garland. If you assume McConnell had allowed Obama to replace a conservative icon in 2016, and Garland was seated, it would follow that Republicans have every right to replace a liberal icon in 2020. Republicans would of course see it differently. But on the face of it, I think lots of Independents would see it as "fair and balanced" (But not Fox News.) Significantly, it would still leave the 10 member court with a 6-4 partisan split that favored Republicans. In my mind, that would be intentional. Rather than seeking to use raw power to instantly create a liberal majority, which is what FDR tried and failed to do, the argument would be we want to right ONE wrong from 2016. And then agree to permanent fair rules. Again, if Republicans had seated Garland and everything else worked out the same, fate worked out that they'd have a 5-4 majority after replacing RBG anyway. 5-4 and 6-4 are not the same. But it does mean, for example, that one conservative (e.g. Roberts) could block an effort to repeal Obamacare by by creating a 5-5 split vote, which leaves precedent standing. The idea would be to eventually get back to a more rationalized nine justice SCOTUS through bipartisan agreement. Again, this is reform. Not revolution. If we assume Manchin and others will say they don't want to destroy the institution, this fits in. The Republicans were the ones who gave Lincoln a 10th seat, temporarily. They took 2 seats away from Johnson, temporarily. I'd argue that this is the same thing: a temporary measure in extremely partisan times married to an explicit goal of finding our way back to a 9 justice SCOTUS with both formal and informal norms around bipartisanship and balance. Republicans would never agree with this. But I'd argue that Republicans took the institution hostage in 2016. And we're balancing it back in 2021. Democrats have the right to disincent what we can legitimately argue is hostage taking. (In 2016, there are polls saying a majority of Americans wanted Garland confirmed.) The thing both sides should want to incent is bipartisan problem solving. There's also a precedent in terms of outcome, which is FDR. While the formal court packing scheme failed, it did achieve the goal of getting ONE justice to essentially switch sides, from anti-New Deal to pro-New Deal. It ended the extreme obstructionism. Putting one more liberal on a Court run by conservatives, anyway, would send exactly the same message to a conservative majority court. There's one other explicitly political factor that the most cravenly political of Democrats (let's say Rahm Emmanuel) will like. Rich Mitch has been effective in using the courts as bait to get people to turn out and vote Republican. I have no problem with Democrats doing the same thing. If progressives want a Green New Deal and Biden passes "mini-deal" incremental laws that the conservative Court blocks, that sends a clear message. Vote Democratic, and we can create a Democratic-dominated court. We'll do it by following the bipartisan rules, rather than packing it. It worked for McConnell. It can work for Democrats, like it did with the Warren Court. There's one other piece of this small "d" democracy puzzle that fits in. As soon as Democrats have a simple majority we have to immediately go full steam ahead on making it easy and safe for everyone to vote. I'd actually open the debate by making voting mandatory, and then work from there. "Court packing" sounds inherently anti-democratic. Making it easy and safe for every adult American to vote sounds like the essence of democracy. That's where the Slavery Electoral College fits in to me. For half of US history, it was literally built on the blood and tears of slaves. Republicans will say that ended in the 18th century. True. But for another half of US history, it's been a way to undermine the principle of "one person one vote". On this one, I'm now completely adamant. It's the Slavery Electoral College. If you are for it, you're endorsing an institution created to enslave Blacks that to this day undermines their right to vote. And it violates the principle of "one person one vote" in a country that needs to finally except that all men and women and non-gendered people are created equal. For a long time a majority of Americans have agreed that the Slavery Electoral College is an anachronism. If President Toxic loses, it will be proof that not even this anachronism built on the blood of slaves could save his sorry, racist ass. The time to dump the Slavery Electoral College as a vestige of a more racist America has come. None of this will, or should, be debated by Biden and President Toxic. I hope Biden just keeps putting the focus on the horror of what a 6-3 conservative packed court will do to health care, the ACA, and pre-existing conditions. All during a pandemic that President Toxic allowed to kill 200,000+ Americans while he golfed and "played it down". This is the debate I think Democrats can happily look forward to in 2021.

As the initial shock settles and the polls come out, my guess is this will help the Democrats on balance. Specifically, it will intensify Democratic turnout. It will likely help Biden win at the margin. It will likely help Democrats win the Senate at the margin. Although the Senate races vary depending on whether it's a red state or blue state or in between. What do others think? Does this help President Toxic and Republicans, or Biden and Democrats? I'm going to go through a bunch of things I found noteworthy in the articles I've been reading. First, Biden has said he won't comment on Court packing, which he has opposed before. He said he doesn't want to let President Toxic change the subject. I think that's wise. My view is that we now get to test the 5th Ave. principle. President Toxic thinks he can shoot someone on 5th Ave. and get away with it. He was actually talking about his base being fine with it. And he's right. But how about everyone else? What if he shoots a bullet and Obamacare is dead? What if he shoots a bullet and same sex marriage is dead? What if he shoots a bullet and abortion is dead? What if he shoots a bullet and DREAMers are deported? Do people care? Who cares? Do we know he will pull the trigger even? Those are the questions I think we should focus on now. If and when he shoots the bullet, then we should focus on what we do. If he shoots the bullet before Election Day, obviously that does give voters an easy way to say whether they agree with what the Republicans did or not. Here's some bad news for you, proud tough gun-slinging President Toxic. In a Politico poll, 50 % of voters say the seat should be filled by the election winner, and only 37 % say you should do it now. Even your favorite pollster, Rasmussen, says 51 % of voters say you should leave the seat open and let the winner of the election fill it. Now, I know you are a mean-spirited and cruel asshole, so you are going to do whatever you want. But since there is this argument that somehow Republicans have a "mandate" based on how people voted in 2016 or in 2018, you might want to actually consider what the majority of Americans think for once. Just kidding. You'd never do that. Just go ahead and pull the trigger and see what happens on Election Day. The 50 % or so that think the election winner should choose the nominee is right around Biden's average support of 50 %. The 37 % or so that think President Toxic should nominate now is less than his 43 % average vote share. So that suggests there is no real downside for Biden in this, who has about half of the electorate either way. But there may be downside for President Toxic. There seem to supporters with whom he is on the wrong side of this issue. That's even more true with the Independents. In the Politico poll, 49 % of Independents say the election winner should choose, and only 31 % say President Toxic should choose now. That suggests that moving ahead now is not likely to help President Toxic with Independents, and may hurt him with a voter group he badly needs. It's generally assumed that the 2016 SCOTUS fight over Garland and Gorsuch may have helped Republicans. The 21 % of voters in 2016 who said SCOTUS was a priority leaned 56/41 to Trump over Clinton. It could easily have made the difference in Pennsylvania or Michigan or Wisconsin, but no one will ever know for sure. So far, it looks like it could have the opposite impact in 2020. At least one poll says that the SCOTUS vacancy is more important to Democrats than Republicans now. Here's a line that jumped out at me that may explain why this may have a very different impact in 2020 than 2016: So far, that appears to be the case from what I've been reading. I also think there may be an important difference between who this motivates on either side. On President Toxic's side, it of course motivates his base. But most Republicans say they are the ones who are most likely to turn out, anyway. The polls above suggests that some of President Toxic's supporters DO NOT support him filling the vacancy now. So it's at least possible this could hurt him with some of his softer support. It also could hurt him with Independents who are still on the fence. Meanwhile, this will likely light a fire under some of Biden's weakest support. Progressives, Blacks, and Hispanics all have specific reasons to care about this, and to want Biden to be the one making the pick. If Berniecrats or young Black or Hispanic men who are skittish about Biden or just ambivalent about voting need a reason to vote, this is a good one. I was very curious to see how Claire McCaskill would react to this on MSNBC. If the Justice Rapist/Dr. Ford confirmation did not cost her her Missouri Senate seat in 2018, it certainly at least hurt her effort. She said that she knew as soon as she hear Justice Kennedy was retiring she was in trouble. Now she thinks it's the other way around. Instead of putting Democrats in red to purple states in a tough position like in 2018, this puts Republicans in blue to purple states in a tough position. I think she hit the nail on the head. Another phrase that Charlie Cook used - "color intensifier" - also hit the nail on the head in 2018. He predicted while the hearings were happening that the conflict would make red states redder, and blue states bluer. I think the same is probably true today. In 2018, I was sending money to all the key Senate Democrats in swing states. So I was paying close attention to the state polls. My take is that Heidi Heitkamp in North Dakota was already in deep trouble before the vacancy opened, and would have lost anyway. McCaskill in Missouri and Donnelly in Indiana are questions. They both were leading in the Summer, when the focus was on health care. As soon as the Justice Rapist thing hit, they started to tank in the polls - especially among White men. So the confirmation fight may have cost them their seats. Meanwhile, there's a good case to be made that this helped Kyrsten Sinema in Arizona and Jackie Rosen in Nevada. In Arizona, 50 % of Independents opposed Kavanaugh's nomination and only 37 % supported it. Independents are about one-third of voters in the state. Since Sinema was opposed to the nomination, it was probably more likely to help her with Independents than hurt her in a close race. Here's some poll data about swing states in 2020: I think McSally and Collins are the McCaskill and Donnelly of 2020. Collins was next to dead anyway, and this won't help no matter what she does. McSally is going against the majority of her state. This will work out badly for her in 2020, just like in 2018. There's no polling from Colorado, but I'd guess it's one more big nail in Gardner's coffin, too. Tillis is less clear, and there's no polls in yet at all on Iowa. If it works out that this does energize Biden voters more than President Toxic voters, it could help defeat Republicans in both North Carolina and Iowa. Georgia will be interesting. Ossoff and Perdue are in a dead heat. My guess is that this may help Ossoff win in Georgia for the same "color intensifier" reason: it could energize turnout among all the voters that are at the core of why the state is turning purple. There are two states where I'd guess this could hurt Democrats. Montana is close, and it's a red state. In theory, this should rally the state's Republicans around Daines. That said, Jon Tester, who voted against Justice Rapist, held his seat in 2018. My guess is this helps Lindsey Graham. South Carolina is a red state, and President Toxic has approval in the low 50's in some recent polls there. I have no idea what is driving Graham's weakness there. But if there's a state where Republicans will come home over this fight, I'd guess South Carolina is it. The thing that matters to me is that if President Toxic does actually pull the trigger, I want Democrats to be in a position to respond next year. We can only do that with President Biden and a Senate majority. So I think we have to call the bluff. They have the power to pull the trigger. My guess is they're almost certain to pull it, probably in the lame duck session but maybe before the election. If they do pull the trigger, it's certainly fair to say that they'll have to deal with the consequences. For right now, though, the focus should be on one thing. Despite the American people, are you actually going to pull the trigger? And if you do, what are the consequences? What parts of American life - like access to abortion or voting rights - are going to die?

Not that i can go there at the moment, but where is this place for my fantasy purposes?

From Khaosod English BANGKOK (Xinhua) — Thailand planned to provide the so-called wellness quarantine for foreign visitors under the anti-pandemic measures at hotels alongside massage and spa parlors, confirmed a senior government official on Tuesday. Health Service Support Department Director General Tares Krassanairawiwong said foreign tourists will be provided the 14-day wellness quarantine at the hotels where they will stay and concurrently visit massage and spa parlors in their neighborhood. Nevertheless, all foreigners visiting the massage and spa parlors will be strictly separated from Thai customers under social distancing and anti-pandemic measures, the director general said. That will be part of the government’s Medical and Wellness Program for foreign tourists, who will be obliged to carry a health insurance package upon arrival to Thailand, Tares said. Many foreign tourists are expected to use the massage and spa services, such as those in southern coastal provinces of Thailand, and may be given a Special Tourist Visa for a long stay allowing a maximum of nine-month stay in this country, he said. However, the government-run Center for the COVID-19 Situation Administration and the cabinet of ministers are yet to approve the Wellness Quarantine plan for foreigners.

On that I agree. Not that the Democrats will give them everything they want. Or even half of what they want. But the big money will try to help elect and then co-opt Democrats more than usual this year, and perhaps in future years depending on how this plays out. The Chamber of Commerce and I agree. Several moderate Democratic challengers I sent money to in 2018 and that I am sending money to now because they could lose, like Rep.'s Harley Rouda and TJ Cox, are also endorsed by the Chamber of Commerce. Somebody once came up with a great line about this: If the Democrats win, The Squad immediately has more power, I think. 4 House votes falls a little bit short of what's needed to get a House majority for a wealth tax. So maybe your "owners" do have the power to block ideas like wealth taxes - for sure now, maybe permanently. I'm not sure what it would take to get to a wealth tax in the US. I just don't buy the idea that the "owners" are so smart that they can use the media or ads or whatever to manipulate all this from behind the scenes. It was interesting this year that Billionaire Bloomberg tried to buy the nomination, and failed badly. Meanwhile Biden was broke, and he's the nominee. Sanders and Warren had both money and armies. They could not get a majority, or anywhere close. Maybe when today's 20 year olds are 40, this will change. I hope. Or maybe they'll change. Something very vaguely related to this struck me today. I was looking at the Florida polls. I was thinking Biden's Florida lead is shrinking, but Bloomberg 's money will help Biden win. Then I thought: What if the $100 million Bloomberg spends to help Biden win Florida helps him lose? People are so turned off by The Establishment or whatever you want to call it that Bloomberg ads could just label Biden as a bought and paid for shill. I think the conventional wisdom is still that having all that money helps. And so right now all the Biden ads are helping him maintain a solid and steady lead. The polls seem to suggest that. I agree with Michael Moore that the chances for progressive wins on things like health care and poverty programs and income inequality are greater than they were during all the Democratic debates last year, simply because reality has changed. More people are poor, and without health insurance. It's not inconsistent with The New Deal. More than anything, what really leads to economic change is an economic crisis.

Hi Merida guys. How are things going in regard to COVID? I’m in Miami where things appear to be improving (positivity and hospitalizations are way down since July). Indoor dining is at 50 per cent but every restaurant is trying outdoor possibilities. Everyone uses masks and most of us have more alcohol slathered on our hands than going down our throats. I wouldn’t hesitate to encourage visitors. Last July I spent an incredible week in Merida. Great architecture and markets. Fantastic Airbnb next to Santa Lucia. Threesomes and more every day. I couldn’t believe how popular I was with the local boys (20 somethings). I had to get viagra for the first time due to the number of guys that would message me on Grindr or just walking outside. I’m tall, decent shape, Caucasian, light eyes, hairy, 50. Never paid for anything. Very good for the self esteem! Is this still a reasonable possibility in these new times? Any updates/advice would be welcome. Hoping to go in November l steve

I got one today! I was surprised but it was being offered and only 2,000 baht so I took advantage of it. I'm a bit older and overweight and felt this was a good investment. I am not sure if I should have gotten it from the tailor I normally purchase my shirts from, but I figured they were from India and maybe they had an in with some pharmacy group so I took a chance. I know they would never lie to me just to make up for all the lost tourists.

Here's a fact check that I found interesting. It tells me everything I need to know about partisanship and why President Toxic has to be crushed. From McConnell's Senate page: I knew about that statement back in 2016. I guess surprisingly for me, I didn't both to fact check it. Today I finally did. Technically, it is not a lie. But I think it is fair to call it a gross misrepresentation. The way it misrepresents the truth goes to the core of what this conflict is about - partisanship - and why it's going to make a really divided and sick nation more divided and sicker. When I went to fact check, I found this: Supreme Court vacancies in presidential election years If you are like me, you probably already feel like that's a contradiction of what McConnell said. The key question is: what happens if there's a vacancy in an election year? The answer in every case since 1900 has been: you fill it. Period. We know Obama nominated Garland in 2016 and the nomination was not acted on in 2016. So that sure sounds like it broke the continuous trend since 1900, right? Every other time, in a Presidential election year, a SCOTUS vacancy was filled. Every single time. Why not 2016? It's worth reading the whole article above that details each vacancy. It's short. The key thing it nails down is the issue of partisanship. Here's a summary. There are 5 vacancies listed between 1912 and 1940. All ended in Senate confirmations in an election year. But here's the thing. In all five cases, three involving Democratic Presidents and two involving Republicans, the Senate was held by the same party as the President. That was just fate. So that means McConnell is right, correct? No. Not correct. The 6th vacancy that was filled in a presidential election year was Anthony Kennedy, who was confirmed on February 3, 1988. He was nominated by President Ronald Reagan. He was confirmed 97 to 0. The Senate was controlled by Democrats, who had 54 seats. So a Republican President did nominate a SCOTUS justice who was confirmed by a Democratic Congress in 1988, an election year. Technically, you can say that McConnell did not lie, because he said "arising in an election year". McConnell is a venal political animal who is not interested in fairness. But if this actually was about fair debate, he would argue the vacancy arose in 1987. That was, of course, when Reagan nominated Robert Bork, and the confirmation failed. Then he nominated Ginsburg, who Reagan withdrew. I'll return to Bork, but before I do I think it's worth noting the two other exceptions. Eisenhower made a recess appointment of Brennan, a liberal Democrat, a month before the election in 1956. Wikipedia described it as a unifying move to help him in the 1956 election, which he won in a landslide. Then in 1957 he renominated Brennan, who the Senate confirmed. Ike governed like what I would call a "Kasich Republican". Meaning he tried to unify and bring everyone along, even if he was right-of-center. Romney just used this phrase "center-right". It describes Eisenhower well. It is not a good phrase to describe far right organizations picking right-wing justices based on far right litmus tests. The one other vacancy involved the nomination of Abe Fortas by LBJ. He was already on the Court, but LBJ nominated him to be Chief Justice. So in this case there was no vacant seat to fill, and the Senate was controlled by Democrats. Regardless, the nomination failed after a bipartisan filibuster. The two reasons cited in this article are that there was a reaction by some Senators against the liberalism of the Warren Court, and ethical concerns about Fortas. "Too many liberal justices" sounds ironic based on today's ideological conflict. It is noteworthy that on a partisan basis, this could have been a slam dunk in a very Democratic Congress. Regardless, there was a bipartisan concern about the Court not going off too far in one direction. The details offer a clear lesson about partisanship to me. In the majority of these cases since 1900, it was a slam dunk. It was all handled by the same party, which controlled the White House and the Senate. RBG's appointment was a great example of that dynamic. It wasn't a Presidential election year. But Clinton was President and Democrats had 57 seats in the Senate. Slam dunk. In the two cases since 1900 when The White House and Senate were in opposite parties, it was essentially a test of bipartisanship. In both instances, some type of bipartisan solution was worked out. What Reagan did with Ginsburg in 1987, is what I believe was one of two good options with Justice Rapist in 2018. They could have withdrawn the nomination and ended up with a different - and better - conservative, like Reagan did in 1988. Or they could have had a real FBI investigation. It wasn't like President Toxic wasn't going to be President one or two months later. Ginsburg's nomination was pulled because he smoked pot. If Reagan could do that, President Toxic could have pulled Justice Rapist based on the seriousness of the multiple sexual assault allegations made. As it turned out, the conflict helped give Nancy Pelosi a commanding House majority. Democrats probably lost two Senate seats in solid red states and gained two Senate seats in Arizona and Nevada. That's a huge win, and a wash. I'll say this as a Democrat. Thanks, Dr. Ford. Jon Tester's analysis is even more favorable to Democrats than mine is. He wouldn't argue 2018 was a win for Republicans in the House or Sernate: The Bork example is what I'll end with. And on this one I'll speak as a Gay man. Some Republicans say that fight really poisoned the well of bipartisanship. They are entitled to their opinion. But I vehemently disagree. I've listened to Sen. Ted Kennedy's whole speech "Borking" Bork several times. His central point, which I passionately agree with, is that Bork's tendency would have been to drag us back and force us to relitigate all the hot button fights of the past - on race, on gender, on everything. I'm grateful to Ted Kennedy for what he did. It did not leave a vacancy. The process ended up in Justice Anthony Kennedy. If you want an argument for "bipartisanship" or "Kasich Republicanism" - meaning right-of-center politics with an intent to unify - that's it. If you want to know why I mostly respect SCOTUS, and why I deeply admire both Senator Kennedy and Justice Kennedy, that's it. Ted Kennedy did not know how this would play out, of course. But we do. What if Bork, or someone like him, was the swing vote on same sex marriage? Would the outcome have been different? On the face of it, yes. Bork would have wanted to drag us back. Justice Kennedy moved us forward. If you need a good example of what Kennedy was talking about in 1988, what happened in America in 2015 is it. As Jeb Bush said, thousands of years of culture and religion were changed at warp speed on same sex marriage, and he didn't get it. Justice Kennedy did that for us, and I will always be grateful. Would Bork have been for that? I very much doubt it. The precedent that was in place before 2016 was that the death of Scalia called for a bipartisan moment. You could debate whether Merrick Garland was a unifier and centrist from the left in the same way Justice Kennedy was a unifier and centrist from the right. But if the Republicans didn't like Garland, they could have forced Obama to pick someone else. They shattered precedent by not even having a hearing. What is happening now is the opposite of 1956, and 1969, and 1988. In a moment that calls for bipartisanship, and that in one messy way or another was met with bipartisanship in those past three examples, we're likely getting President Toxic's and McConnell's venal partisanship. It will be another nail in President Toxic's coffin. So I'm fine with the outcome it will have for him. I personally agree with Biden. Up until now he's been the institutionalist saying court packing is a bad idea. Now he's saying let's focus on what the Republicans do, and then go from there. I think he's being wise. I also personally agree with RBG. She said court packing is going to degrade the institution. And her most fervent wish was to be replaced by the President elected in November. She's right on both counts. For anyone who honors RBG, listening to her on both counts would be the honorable thing to do. And you can't pick and choose. I'm quite sure she knew that what's probably about to happen would just further poison bipartisanship, and be another nail in the coffin of a unifying Supreme Court. If the Republicans fill the vacancy, my view is they continued to trash a continuous chain from 1900 to 2016. Most of it was a chain of clean partisan action, due to fate. But when it got messy, the solution was to get bipartisan. If there's a 2021 discussion about court reform, I'd rather it address some of the problems in this history. Maybe it's better not to leave some of this to fate. Mostly, I'm with Biden. This is another huge problem we don't need, after COVID-19 and a crippled economy. We don't need to relitigate abortion, DREAMers, same sex marriage, and voting rights. We don't need to empower the type of judicial conservatism that would shut down escorting websites and target men that hire escorts. If the Republicans do what they are seemingly preparing to do, it will Bork America, send us backward rather than forward, and create more division. Democrats should figure out how to respond to that wisely, and with the interests of all of America and it's future at heart, after Biden wins. The one silver lining in this cloud is that President Toxic and McConnell have set such a low bar for decency and unity that it will be easy to do better than them.

Making prostitution legal have huge impact to both the sex worker and their client. They can be protected under the employment act law, received benefits such as medical insurance, and i guess would require to pay tax and contribute to pension plan if there is any. They could also seek legal help if any of these rights are being abused or denied. Its not just for the sake of saying the act of prostitution itself happening in thailand or not...

I think we're all in store for a real good debate about democratic legitimacy. Because the conservatives who want to pack the court with far right conservatives are going to claim that 1) we are not hypocrites, and 2) we have a "mandate" to do this. This is what the American people want. Here's a few examples. This is what Republican Tom Cotton is saying: Here's my interpretation of that. "Steven, I have your balls in a vise and I am going to crush them. And I have a mandate to do it." I can argue all I want that what these Republicans are saying directly contradicts what they said about Merrick Garland. They don't give a shit. They just want to crush my balls. I can argue that right now even Trump's favorite pollster, Rasmussen, says 51 % of Americans want the seat to be filled by the President elected in November, versus 45 % who say Trump should fill it. A Politico poll finds an even larger 13 point margin: 50 to 37, Americans say the President elected in November should fill it. How's that for a "mandate", Tom? What Cotton wants to do is crush my balls. Period. Why? Because might makes right. This is about how a minority of Americans, overwhelmingly Straight White Men, can keep power. Losing the 2016 popular vote by 2 million votes did not give President Toxic a mandate to do this. You can argue anything you want about the Slavery Electoral College. It was designed to enslave Blacks, and did that well for half of US history. But that has nothing to do with a "mandate" to fill RBG's seat. If you want to talk about a 2016 "mandate", Americans elected Hillary Clinton President by a margin of 2 million votes. Let's talk about 2018. Republicans got their asses kicked. They lost the House vote by a margin of about 9 points. In the Senate, I was sending money every month to the key candidates. I would tend to agree that McCaskill and Donnelly lost their seats on this issue. In the Summer they led, and health care was the priority. White men in Missouri and Indiana abandoned them in droves all Fall, as President Toxic argued that horrible women like Dr. Ford could destroy the life (and testicles!) of any man in America. Those White men are entitled to their opinions. And I'd buy the argument that the voters in Missouri and Indiana gave a Republican Senator a mandate to vote for far right judges. Meanwhile, Sinema in Arizona and Rosen in Nevada probably won on this issue. Independents in Arizona opposed Justice Rapist's nomination 50-37. John Tester, who opposed Justice Rapist, won re-election. So if you want to argue about clear "mandates", the voters in Arizona already told McSally, specifically, that in 2018 she was on the wrong side of the majority. Polls in Arizona right now say the majority believe the President elected in November should decide. Did she not listen? Is she not listening? Do they need to tell her again? There's no far right judge "mandate" to be found. If you go by these four state elections, it's more like a muddle. But Tom Cotton doesn't care. He just wants to crush my balls. You want to talk about the "referendum" we had in 2018? In the 2018 Senate elections 52.2 million Americans voted for a Democratic Senate candidate. 34.7 million Americans voted for a Republican Senate candidate. So if Cotton wants to talk about "the American people", as opposed to the voters of Arizona or Missouri, the American people gave a mandate to Democrats to block Republicans from packing the court with far right judges. That's my read. Of course, the 2018 midterms were NOT a referendum on a 2020 SCOTUS vacancy. But if you want to talk about "the American people", it was a 58/39 split. Not even the Slavery Electoral College could subvert that big a majority. This is about a minority built around Straight White men. Pretty much everyone else agrees with the Democrats. It's a majority. But of course, they know that. That's probably why they will crush my balls to pulp right now, before any election. They don't want the people to decide. Just don't be surprised if the polls are right, and the American people don't agree with what you did, Sen. Cotton. It may work out okay in Arkansas, like it did in Missouri. But that's not "the American people". Here's an interesting coincidence. You can use that slavery "3/5ths a person" thing that allowed for the enslavement, torture, and murder of Blacks for 1/2 of US history and update it to make your "mandate" argument. In the 2018 midterms, 52,260,651 Americans voted for Senate Democrats, and 34,723,013 Americans voted for Senate Republican candidates. Do the math. 3/5ths of 52,260,651 is 31,356,390. So here's my suggestion. If Republicans like Cotton want to argue 2018 was a "referendum" or "mandate" for far right judges, they should be honest and say Democrats are 3/5ths of a human being. Then they will have a legitimate majority "mandate". It's in the spirit of how Straight White male Americans have always handled these things - from uppity Blacks to uppity women to uppity Gays to uppity immigrants. And it's actually a pretty good deal for Democrats. Unlike with slaves, at least our 3/5ths of a vote is counted. Unlike with DREAMers, we won't be at risk of being deported. Utah is also not "the American people". Here's Romney's fiction as reported by Politico: Again, Sen. Romney is entitled to his opinion. But if a minority wants to pack SCOTUS with far right judges who are against what the majority of Americans are for, "the American people" will get to decide. Go ahead. Crush my balls, Mitt. Let's see what happens. The religious right wing elected President Toxic and will do so again, if the Slavery Electoral College will let them, because they want far right judges who are hostile to abortion, Gays, immigrants, Muslims, Black voting rights, efforts to regulate corporate greed, and many other things. Let's see where this could lead: Same sex marriage - 5/4 split Majority: Kennedy, RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer Minority: Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas This will not be the key issue for most Americans. But it's my key issue. I volunteered and fought for years for same sex marriage. I opposed the Rentboy shutdown, wrote articles about it, and donated money to Jeffrey's legal defense. My assumption, which I think is reasonable, is that a 6-3 far right court will be hostile to anything that begins with the letters L, G, B, T, or Q. They may leave "+" alone. Other than that, we're fine. Oh, and Guys who like to wear dresses? Websites that have something to do with escorts and people who like to get tied up and maybe pay somebody to do that? I'm sure they'll be fine, just like Rentboy. Don't worry guys. You'll be just fine. Or maybe not. Jokes on you. Suckers Losers. Louisiana abortion ruling - 5/4 split Majority: Roberts, RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Minority: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito My assumption, which I think is reasonable, is we will have a 5-4 court majority that is deeply hostile to a woman's basic right to choose. On completely and openly trashing Roe v. Wade, I mean. On just chipping away at it so that it is mostly dead, it will probably be a 6-3 majority in many cases. Obamacare - 5/4 split Majority: Roberts, RBG, Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor Minority: Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Kennedy My assumption, which I think is reasonable, is we will have a 5-4 majority to overthrow Obamacare. Kiss your pre-existing conditions goodbye. Oh, but don't worry. They'll have something better than Obamacare, just like they did right after the 2016 election. Or maybe not. Suckers. Losers. DREAMers - 5/4 split Majority: Roberts, RBG, Sotomayer, Breyer, Kagan Minority: Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, Thomas, Alito My assumption, which is reasonable, is that the 800,000 DREAMers can kiss their culos goodbye in a 5-4 vote. Bienvenidos a Mexico! Voting Rights/21st Century Jim Crow - 5/4 split Majority: Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia Minority: RBG, Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer This one is a no brainer. There wasn't even a pretense of moderation by Roberts or Kennedy. Blacks, kiss your voting rights protections goodbye. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau - 5/4 split Majority: Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh Minority: RBG, Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer. This one is a little bit of a stretch. Warren cut it as a reaffirmation of the basic validity of her consumer protection effort. I included it because the Republicans who are packing the Court with far right conservatives will of course make the principled argument that court packing is just the most awful thing ever. The FDR issue was more than anything about the legitimacy of The New Deal. It was another case where if you look at the 1932 and 1934 elections, "you couldn't have a clearer mandate", as Tom Cotton might say. So my assumption, which I think is reasonable, is there is a 6-3 majority hostile to consumer protection and efforts to reign in corporate greed and corporate power. The wealth tax on Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates that 70 % of Americans support, including a majority of Republicans and Bill Gates? Yeah, I'm sure they'll find that Constitutional. Suckers. Losers. I almost feel sorry for these conservatives. If we went to some horror film like Silence Of The Lambs, the sadist can't help himself. The reason my balls are going to be crushed is that sadists are sadists. I'd be the first to say that President Toxic and Mitch McConnell and The Divine Miss Graham are not sadists, or anything like that. They are men of principle. They stand by their word. In this case, I'm not talking about what McConnell and Graham said publicly in 2016. Only suckers and losers would have believed that. I'm talking about all the far right religious voters who they promised to appoint far right judges to. So even though they are no Hannibal Lector or anything like that, the principle is the same. They gotta do what they gotta do. The only difference in this case is the lambs are the majority, according to the polls and the 2016 and 2018 elections. Don't count on them being silent. Grab your popcorn, and buckle your seatbelts. And, as always, guard your testicles, guys. It's going to be a bumpy ride. The movie this tragedy makes me think of is Orphul's The Sorrow And The Pity. It was about how a minority, in that case Nazis, tries to work around the fact that majorities don't like them all that well. It's about might makes right. It's about how people are silent and go along. It's about how minorities that the Straight White guys don't like get screwed. In Orphul's The Sorrow And The Pity, it was French Jews and Gays and anyone who stood up for them that got screwed. In the 21st century remake, it's going to be about the groups I listed above. Gays. Immigrants. Muslims. Blacks. DREAMers. Women seeking safe abortions. People who hire escorts. Escort websites. It will only work if the majority stays silent, and allows the minority to pretend they are the majority. And that they have some kind of mandate to be cruel. For most of us, everything will be just fine. I mean, what could possibly go wrong?

If the GOP can steal a Presidential election, they can easily steal a Senate seat..... Crooks will be crooks.

Just finished reading Namazu's reports from Brazil that he posts on Boy Toy. Absolutely sizzling accounts of sauna happenings. Guaranteed to take your mind off what we miss most. https://www.boytoy.com/forums/topic/32503-the-reopening-of-brazil-to-foreigners-some-observations/

We are fixing this today. We are a one system site and the upgrade from Invision disabled that. The programmers have worked to solve the auto login as if passwords are changed in the forum, it does not change the main site password and will cause issues. Good things is we have a solution and are rolling it out today. If you have issues, email me at: badboysclub@gmail.com We are moving in the coming months to more forum only so your patience is appreciated until this happens.

He is also know for writing the lyrics for the Broadway musical "One Touch of Venus.". Famous for "Speak Low" and "That's Him.". Music by Kurt Weill. Director: Elia Kazan