Comments by whodey (page 4)

Correction - * should NOT automatically change anything about Trump's character.

wld4tatas, how do you believe the left would've reacted if Trump told his supporters to "put Biden in a bullseye" and then less than a week later someone shot and wounded Biden? Especially if Republicans in congress had introduced legislation that had tried to strip Biden of his Secret Service protection detail. I agree with you that this assassination attempt should automatically changes anything about Trump's character. It does emphasize one thing though, Trump was able to get back up after being shot with determination and energy while Biden couldn't even show any sign of energy after flying on Air Force One from Camp David to Atlanta for a debate. As for your statement that people should "condemn the shooting and agree there is no place for violence in our politics" have you seen anyone say the opposite? Is there some legitimate person out there saying the don't condemn the shooting or that they believe there is a place for violence in our politics? Perhaps the only good thing that will come out of this is that maybe the government will agree to give all presidential candidates Secret Service protection. RFK Jr has repeatedly requested Secret Service protection for his campaign, but Biden's government has denied him any protection. If the Democrats had their way Biden would be the only candidate with a Secret Service detail.

TheeOSU the only thing I would add to that ad would be after 'who do you want leading America and facing off with our enemies' it should then cut to Kamala Harris with one of her cackling laughs to close it out.

You want to break down your entire sentence, that is fine. "Claiming Trump is a "threat to democracy" is a true statement, in the minds of people who view his attempt to prevent the legitimate certification of a valid election as a threat to democracy, but that claim does not equate to demanding that he be shot." I agree that the statement he is threat to democracy alone does not equate to demanding he be shot nor did I claim it did. You truncated my sentence asking "How can you defend Pres. Biden saying just this week that Trump is a "threat to democracy" and that “it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye”? You simply claimed that saying he was a threat to democracy was a truth in the eyes of some people but not a demand for him to be shot while completely ignoring Biden's call to put Trump in a bullseye which can be seen as a call to have him shot. How can you defend that Biden's call to literally put a bullseye target on Trump right after someone shot him? By the way, just because we agree that calling him a "threat to democracy" alone isn't a call to violence does not excuse the fact that you said calling him a threat to violence is a truth when in fact is an opinion not a truth. The only threat to democracy in this election is coming from democrats that are calling for the will of tens of millions of their own voters to be ignored by trying to push Biden out of the race. He won the Democratic primaries and any coercion to try to replace him as the party's nominee is a true threat to democracy because it ignores the results of a fair and free primary election process.

@rick - I don't believe that, I was quoting Book Guy. Like I said, saying Trump is "a threat to democracy" is true because some people believe it is just as crazy as saying "abortion is murder" is true just because some people believe it. They are both opinions, not truths.

In the end, at least the left is happy about one thing, this finally gave the media something to focus on other than Biden's debate disaster. In the end, nobody will be able to hold this against Biden because in the words of Robert Hurr he is just a "well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory."

"the fact that language seems to be going in both directions and that you could therefore make an equal case for either Right or Left "causing" this particular event" can you please point to any specific language from Trump, or any major Republican leader, recently that is as much of a call to violence as Biden saying “it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye”? What do you think would've happened if Trump had told people “it’s time to put Biden in a bullseye”? The left would've been calling for a grand jury to indict Trump yet again. "Claiming Trump is a "threat to democracy" is a true statement, in the minds of people who view his attempt to prevent the legitimate certification of a valid election as a threat to democracy." That is not how the truth works, something can't be "true" only if someone holds a certain belief. Truth is objective and not subject to one's personal beliefs. Saying he is a threat to democracy is true because someone who believes Trump attempted to incite an insurrection would agree with it is no different than claiming "abortion is murder" is a true statement because people who believe "life begins at the moment of conception" would agree.

Book Guy, I'm not referring to random comments from celebrities or minor democratic politicians over the past several years. How can you defend Pres. Biden saying just this week that Trump is a "threat to democracy" and that “it’s time to put Trump in a bullseye”? Do you really think that is not at least as much of an incitement to violence as what Trump said on Jan 6th? As for Jan 6th being "the worst insurrection since the Civil War of the 1860s" do you consider it worse than having a President (Kennedy) assassinated, another President (Reagan) shot in front of the White House or multiple presidential candidates (Roosevelt, RFK, Trump) shot in attempts (successful in the case of RFK) to prevent their election? That's not even taking into account more localized insurrection like violently taking over portions of cities and declaring them "autonomous zones" that are not subject to local, state or federal laws.

For a politician, they are too old when they can no longer think clearly enough to comprehend all of the details of a situation and make a well informed and rational decision about what is in the best interest of the people they represent. As mental decline happens at various rates and affects people at various ages, that could be at 65, 85 or 105 depending on the person. For a monger, we become too old when we no longer get any joy out of going to the club to spend time with young beautiful women who are getting naked for money. This too can happen at different times for different men. Some men with a bad heart may no longer be able to safely enjoy a strip club in their 50s, others may still be going strong well into their 90s. Some may even find such true love that they stop getting any enjoyment out of seeing random naked women in their 20s or 30s. In the end, as long as we are enjoying ourselves and have the disposable income to be able to afford it age is just a number.

Book Guy, I'm a little confused. You claim that the words the left have used against Trump isn't what spurred violence against him, but you also claim his words spurred violence on Jan 6th. In neither case did either side expressly tell anyone to commit the violence, so how can you be so certain that the politicians on the left didn't cause this while simultaneously being equally certain that Trump's words caused people to storm the Capitol? As for blaming gun rights, the gun was just the tool used by the person that committed the crime. When some racist right-wing asshole decided to drive his car into a crowd of protesters in Charlottesville in 2017 why didn't the left come out and try to ban cars? After all if guns are to blame for a shooting, surely cars are to blame whenever someone kills someone else with a car, right?

"Is there anything the party can do to stop him running, are there any mechanisms that don’t involve bumping him off?" Technically yes, but in reality no. The Democratic Party rules for delegates say that “All delegates to the National Convention pledged to a presidential candidate shall in all good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them." In theory this would provide a loophole for delegates to decide that they can't "in good conscience" vote for Biden because of his mental state. There are a few state that legally require delegates to vote for the candidate that won the party primary, but there are enough states that don't legally require it that it could work. However, since the delegates are selected by the Biden campaign, the chances of more than a small percentage turning against him are slim to none. Another possible, but unlikely, route would be to change the party rules to either allow the delegates to change their votes or to reinstate the "super delegates" that they previously used. Given how much time and effort the Democrats have put into calling Trump a "threat to democracy," I can't imagine that they would choose to change their part rules to ignore tens of millions of votes. The most likely scenario wouldn't technically remove him as the nominee, but it would give him a strong enough shove towards the door to basically force him to withdraw. The DNC Chair and the heads of the various Political Action Committes that are funding his campaign can meet with Pres. Biden and tell him they are cutting off their financial support. They would then use their massive financial support towards supporting senate and house candidates to try to hold onto control of the senate and retake the house in November in an effort to keep Trump from passing any legislation. The DNC could also get basically all of the surrogates that are campaigning for Biden to stop holding any events for him. Even in his current mental state Biden would realize their is no chance to win and likely drop out if that happened.

It seems like Playhouse has taken Follies place as TUSCL's favorite club.

You get 4 weeks (28 days) of vip for posting a review so it actually runs out a couple of days before the 30 day threshold for posting a new review of the same club.

It looks like you jumped the gun a bit with the new review, your prior review of the same club was on June 10th so your new review would've been within 30 days of that review. https://tuscl.net/review/412551

Combination of factors for different people. As you mentioned spending discipline is an issue for a lot of people. I have heard from several people who lost track of how much they had charged, usually while intoxicated, at the club until they check the next day. Some people are also concerned about being ripped off by the club employees over charging them. This seemed to be a bigger issue 10+ years ago but I still hear of it happening occasionally. If a PL is married and their spouse either doesn't know or doesn't approve of their clubbing it leaves a clear and obvious paper trail for their spouse to find. Some PLs are also focused on ensuring anonymity when clubbing because of wanting to protect their reputation. These PLs never use their real name in a club and avoid clubs that scan IDs and won't use a credit/debit card because that links their real name to the club. For me personally, it started after an incident where I either lost my wallet or it was stolen during a night of bouncing around between clubs. When I got back to the hotel I reached for my wallet because that's where I had put my hotel key and my wallet was gone. I immediately called and canceled all of my debit and credit cards and luckily none of them had been used, but it was a pain in the ass being stuck out of town on business for the rest of the week without an ID, credit cards or my debit card. Luckily I had enough cash left over from the club to get by but it was a real inconvenience. Since that trip I have only taken what is absolutely necessary into a club just in case.

Billfold that has two compartments with 100s and 50s in one compartment for vips and 20s in the other compartment for regular dances. Only other thing in there is my driver's license. For tipping I keep singles in one pocket and fives in the other.

Started clubbing in 1998 so I'm in my 4th different decade and I've clubbed in 27 states plus one Canadian province.

I agree with dolfan, since @founder included the listing on the site anyone should be able to review those listings. At the same time, if founder decided to remove every listing that isn't a traditional strip club I'd be fine with that as well since I only read reviews of strip clubs on here and just ignore the massage parlors, swinger's clubs, etc.

I took my father out to a little place in Portsmouth, Ohio called the Scioto Ribber that he and my mom used to go for special occasions before she passed. They have hands down the best smoked ribs I have ever had anywhere in the country. They also make some pretty good steaks.

Seeing a lot of layoffs in the banking industry, mainly a combination of call center workers across all departments (customer service, collections, fraud, etc) and closing small branches by combining multiple locations into one branch. Luckily it isn't affecting the bank I work for. We had been on a hiring freeze for about 16 months but the senior leadership just briefed us on the hiring plan for q3, q4 and into q1 of next year. We are going to be hiring across most departments, just not as much as we had in the couple of years before the hiring freeze.

Puddy_Tat - to be fair, at least three of the rules that were put into place greatly benefited Trump as well. No prewritten notes - Clearly Biden could've used some sort of notes to keep him on track with his answers. Not permitted to speak to staff - If Biden's staff could've spoken to him they may have been able to say something to change his approach, or at the very least made up some sort of emergency where he would've had to leave the debate early. Kennedy was excluded - Having Kennedy on the stage would've made for a ready to go alternative to Biden for those voters and donors who are scrambling to distance themselves from Biden but also don't want to move towards Trump. Especially if he was able to stand toe-to-toe with Trump in the debate while Biden mumbled off to the side. A third candidate would've also meant less time for each candidate to speak which could've limit the damage Biden did to himself.

People joke about the Simpsons predicting the future, but it was a different (and funnier) show that gave a spot on breakdown of this election about 30 years ago. https://www.tiktok.com/@crunchyearlobesx/video/7385653770627157278

I'm not saying that there was any fraud during the last election and I believe from a legal standpoint it was fair and legal and that Joe Biden won. That is the same way I view the 2016 election where Trump won despite the litany of Democrats that still claim otherwise. Both Trump and Biden were legitimate Presidents that were elected in fair and legal elections. The only thing that was unfair in the last election was the media, but they have no legal authority over anything in an election and it is up to the voters to either believe or doubt lies told by the media. But for you to say that unacceptable and unAmerican to question the results of an election and that we should just accept what election officials say is asinine. If you need proof just look at elections in Chicago in the 50s and 60s and then see if you can honestly say those elections were fair and legal. I hope Trump stands by his statement that he would "absolutely" stand by the results of the election as long as they are "fair and legal." I don't think anyone should promise to abide by election results if they are not fair and legal. Luckily, in my opinion every presidential election in my 40+ years have been fair and legal. There were some before that where they were not based on what I have read including the ones during Jim Crow where many voters were prevented from voting and in cases like 1960 where evidence has been brought out in court of rampant fraud in Illinois. (Luckily it appears that the fraud did not change the outcome, it just gave JFK a wider much wider margin of victory in Illinois than he actually would've had.)

"The answer is simple if you’re a patriot you accept the fact that our elections are fair and legal period. Any thing else is simply unacceptable and unAmerican, period." So by your logic Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Jimmy Carter, Kamala Harris, Hakeem Jeffries, John Lewis, Jerry Nadler, Dianne Feinstein, DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Biden's own Press Secretary Karine Jean-Piere and numerous other Democratic politicians and millions of democratic voters are all unacceptable and UnAmerican since they all stated that Trump was an illegitimate president because he stole the election from Hillary? Are you really claiming that every election in US history has been "fair and legal?" Do you really believe Jim Crow era elections in the south were fair and legal which would mean all of the allegations or voter intimidation or preventing African Americans from registering and voting were actually lies and it is unAmerican to believe those elections weren't fair and free? Are you really saying Rev. Martin Luther King Jr was "unacceptable and unAmerican" when he spoke out against the legitimacy of elections in this country prior to the Voting Rights Act?

If you liked his portrayal of "Russell the druggie pharmacist" on Two and a Half Men you should see his portrayal of "Jerry the druggie lawyer" on The Ranch. I loved most of his characters going back to my childhood watching him on Rosanne. RIP