unicorn

As much as I despise Trump, and think that he also probably has dementia, it seems pretty obvious at this point that Biden almost certainly does as well. One of the challenging aspects to caring for people with Alzheimer's, in particular, is that they usually don't have any insight into their own cognitive decline. So, unfortunately, since I doubt anyone would dare confront him (not that any confrontation would likely be successful), I doubt Biden will bow out. Yes, alas, it looks as though it'll be two men whose minds are slipping away battling each other. The question is who would be more dangerous. Obviously, best-case scenario, someone is able to convince Biden to let someone else run in his place. I do see that as unlikely, however. Only sure-fire way to know for sure would be to administer each a cognitive assessment test such as the Montreal Cognitive Assessment test. Trump described it as "very hard" (it's not, if you don't have cognitive impairment) 4 years ago, and I can't imagine he'd pass it now. Nor, I don't imagine, would Biden.

Well, as for us, we're living the gay fairy tale...

I like A. Blinken

https://www.facebook.com/realdoctormike https://www.instagram.com/doctor.mike/ https://www.famousbirthdays.com/people/mikhail-varshavski.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Mike

No, family practice. The first day of the conference was today. The keynote speaker was also tall, with thick dark hair. He has been described as "America's most handsome doctor." I wouldn't disagree. His name's Dr. Mike Varshavski. I don't know how your son compares in good looks... 😉

https://nypost.com/2024/02/06/lifestyle/delta-airlines-removes-reprimands-woman-for-not-wearing-a-bra/ "A frustrated female flyer is pushing back after Delta Airlines staff threatened to kick her off the plane for not wearing a bra. Lisa Archbold was traveling from Salt Lake City to San Francisco on Jan. 22 when the tit snit took off, very suddenly putting her plans in peril. The self-employed DJ, who had just attended the world-famous Sundance film festival, alleged that after “every single person” had taken their seat, she was “loudly” summoned to the front of the plane. Once there, The Independent reported, the New Zealand expat was herded out into the passenger gangway and given a stern reprimand for her “baggy” t-shirt and long pants, which Delta employees called “revealing” and “offensive attire.”.." Good for Delta. My only question would be why they waited until everyone was seated to pull her off the plane. But maybe that's when she took her jacket off. I'm not interested in seeing a Kiwi flaunt her breasts. 😉

By the way, we just had dinner at a restaurant here in Fort Lauderdale, where I'll be attending a medical conference tomorrow. We each ordered drinks and he was not carded.

Yes, she said to him "You look so young. We have to be careful about trafficking."

Note: just joking! 😁

According to Wikipedia, "While the film does not mention any QAnon conspiracy theories, critics and anti-trafficking experts have pointed out that the film embellishes the reality of child exploitation and stokes QAnon conspiracy theories, referring to a "belief that a core group of devil-worshiping elite run the world". Both Ballard and star Caviezel have been public about their belief in conspiracy theories of the QAnon movement...", to address your curiosity. As for the ER situation, there are certain injuries which should prompt questioning, especially if the mechanism of the injury described by the patient is unusual (for example, a black eye explained by running into a door). If he brought you in because you had a kidney stone stuck in your ureter, then that question would seem inappropriate. I don't know the laws for all jurisdictions, obviously, but I doubt it's against the law for a nurse not to ask about domestic violence every time a child or other family member brings a parent into the ER for any reason. Of course, the question must be asked under certain situations. I can't comment about your particular situation, since you didn't share the reason for your ER visit. My fiance did bring me into the ER several months ago for, in fact, a stone in my ureter, and I was not asked about domestic violence.

No, he does not look underage. He does use Botox, so he doesn't have wrinkles, but he definitely doesn't look under 18. He's 6' 4" (1.93 m) tall. In the 3 years we've been together, we've traveled extensively, probably in close to 100 hotels, and never previously been questioneed.

No, this was at our airport hotel in Los Angeles

I'm very used to people mistaking my fiance for my son. But we checked into a hotel yesterday, and she asked how old he was (he's 30) because she was concerned I might be trafficking in minors! Have any of you been subjected to such humiliation? 😤

Somewhat of a downer of a movie. It moved slowly for my tastes (and that of my fiance).

My step-mother and I (if I'm recalling correctly) went to a performance some 8 years ago, and were surprised to learn that the show is mostly Falun Gong propaganda. Yes, and you pay to see that. If you think that Trump's wackiness couldn't affect Australia, think again. From Wikipedia: "...Falun Gong is entirely based around the teachings of its autocratic founder and leader: China-born Li Hongzhi. According to NBC News, to his followers, Li is "a God-like figure who can levitate, walk through walls and see into the future. His ultra-conservative and controversial teachings include a rejection of modern science, art and medicine, and a denunciation of homosexuality, feminism and general worldliness." Hongzhi instructs his followers to downplay his controversial teachings, when speaking to outsiders...". Don't be fooled into thinking you're watching a Chinese cultural performance. These shows are merely set up to support Falun Gong, financially and with propaganda.

Unfortunately, part of parenting these days consists of educating one's children regarding social media, as well as limiting and monitoring access. Parental controls are a must.

I suggest posting in the appropriate forum (European Men & Destinations).

As usual, complete BS. As I'm sure you're well aware, the only major candidate to oppose the war (and to support LGBT rights) was kicked off the ballot due to "spelling errors" and "poor handwriting" in her election paperwork. At least she's still alive. There's always that. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/russian-presidential-hopeful-loses-appeal-against-election-officials-refusal-to-register-her-for-the-race "A Russian politician calling for peace in Ukraine on Wednesday lost her appeal against election officials’ refusal to accept her nomination for the country’s presidential race that President Vladimir Putin is all but certain to win. Former regional legislator Yekaterina Duntsova has promoted her vision of a “humane” Russia “that’s peaceful, friendly and ready to cooperate with everyone on the principle of respect.” The tight control that Putin has established during 24 years in power makes his reelection in March’s presidential vote all but assured. Prominent critics who could challenge him are either in prison or living abroad, and most independent media have been banned. Over the weekend, Russia’s Central Election Commission refused to accept Duntsova’s initial nomination by a group of supporters, citing errors in the paperwork, including spelling...". Boris Nadezhdin has since stepped in as the only candidate to oppose the war (and support LGBT rights), but I can predict he will either be disqualified, killed, or jailed. https://www.politico.eu/article/anti-war-russian-cant-beat-vladimir-putin-feel-they-won-boris-nadezhdin/ "...With days to go until the deadline, Nadezhdin said he had gathered more than double the required number of signatures, a selection of which will be submitted to Russia’s capricious election authorities on Wednesday. In the past, signatures have been discounted for supposedly being illegible or forged, or because the information provided did not match that in often outdated government databases. Ahead of the curve, Nadezhdin’s campaign has recruited people with particularly neat handwriting to fill out his paperwork and will only be handing in “ideal” submissions. But there is little doubt that the final decision will be made in the Kremlin. Whatever it does next will offer a glimpse of its own confidence levels. There are benefits to allowing an anti-war candidate to participate: It could add a veneer of legitimacy to Putin’s reelection and, by ensuring the turnout for Nadezhdin is low, further demoralize Kremlin critics. But Alexander Kynev, a Moscow-based independent political analyst, said he thought it unlikely that the long-shot candidate would be allowed to stand. “It’s too big of a risk,” he said. “It would ruin the script of the presidential campaign” of making Putin’s rule seem uncontested...". Obviously, an election is a joke if you don't allow anyone to run against you who holds different views. There are only a few days left. Any bets on whether Nadezhdin will be disqualified, jailed, or murdered?

Note: Just a Joke! 😄

https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/03/07/russia-criminalizes-independent-war-reporting-anti-war-protests "...On March 23, 2022, Russia’s parliament adopted amendments effectively expanding the ban on criticizing the armed forces to banning criticism of all Russian government actions abroad... Russia has enacted two laws, adopted and brought into force on March 4, that criminalize independent war reporting and protesting the war, with penalties of up to 15 years in prison..." We're all wondering what will happen to Putin's opponent in the election. Will it be poisoning? Prison with hard labor? Simply taken off the ballot? Defenestration? Shot to death in front of the Kremlin? Plane blowing up?

A free society should allow the viewing of all opinions, if they're genuine opinions, no matter how distasteful. However, false statements of fact, such as vaccines containing microchips, or ivermectin or bleach to treat Covid, and so on, should not be allowed. It's OK to express one's opinion, but not to spread lies.

Your first sentence is a nonsensical oxymoron. Either they can't work because they're lazy OR because they're unemployable. It doesn't look as if you bothered to read the explanation I wrote. As I've told you twice before, Unemployment benefits generally last 1 year, not 6 months (maybe this string should be titled "Dementia Old Daddy"?). And, as was just explained to you, if a judge determines someone is unemployable, he will receive a fairly generous income. If the unemployed person simply choses not to work (laziness), he generally will not be paid. If there are children, he may receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (temporarily, as the name implies), but the recipients must look for work. I would certainly not want to encourage continued payments for lazy people who simply choose not to work. One year is certainly ample time to find a job.

Oh, I forgot to add that Medicaid is administered by states, but mainly funded through federal tax dollars. Medicare is all federal.

The free medical care system in the US, called Medicaid (or, in California, Medi-Cal) is available to those who are genuinely poor, and legally in this country (other than tourists, of course). Eligibility depends on how poor you are, not on whether or not you have a job. I retired early, so have no job, but I do not qualify due to my wealth and pension income. One does have to apply for Medicaid, but there are plenty of resources for those indigent people who are too dysfunctional to apply. For example, there are social workers who scour homeless encampments to make sure all of those people are enrolled (and many outpatient clinics serving the poor also have such social workers). Worst case scenario--someone goes into a hospital who never bothered to apply for his free Medicaid--the hospital's social worker will assist the patient in completing the forms (done online), and if eligible the hospital stay will be retroactively covered. Medicaid pays close to nothing to most physicians and hospitals, but pays rather generously to public hospitals and outpatient clinics who serve the poor. However, if the patient cannot be safely transported to a public hospital, the private hospital must provide any needed care and absorb the cost (cannot bill the patient). For example, women in labor or someone with appendicitis cannot be transferred. Any hospital violating this law gets severely fined (this might happen, for example, if the ER sends a woman home, telling her she's in false labor, but it turns out she's really in labor). The only illegal aliens who are entitled to Medicaid are pregnant women (since, presumably, when she gives birth her child will be an American citizen, and it's not wise policy to allow pregnancy complications just to "punish" the pregnant woman). Medicaid is available to asylees or refugees (or those whose cases have been presented and have not yet been adjudicated), but these people also get work permits, so they usually get insurance through work. Also, there are quite a few "free clinics," supported by both government grants and charitable donations, which provide outpatient care to illegal aliens (or tourists who didn't buy health insurance), hopefully to treat diabetes, hypertension, and so on, with the goal of reducing the need to hospitalize such people (private hospitals often donate to these free clinics, and pharmaceutical companies might donate meds). I did work at one of these clinics one evening a week, without compensation. The U.S. has full employment, so anyone who's able to work can find a job. In the case in which people are truly unable to work, they can go to a disability lawyer and present their cases to a judge who can declare them disabled. When such a judge declares someone disabled, the disabled's paid a generous monthly stipend from the Social Security Administration (the disability lawyer gets paid from a portion of these proceeds), and he's also entitled to Medicare, which, unlike Medicaid, pays a reasonable amount to any physician and hospital. Unlike Medicaid, the vast majority of physicians and hospitals accept Medicare. While, in theory, judges should only declare someone disabled if they're truly unable to do any work, in practice disability lawyers often work with lenient or easily duped judges, and many of those receiving social security disability aren't really that disabled, and might even work under the table in addition to receiving the social security disability benefits. (If discovered, those caught will have to pay back the money, and might go to prison) Those who get fired from work and are temporarily out of work get paid through Unemployment Insurance benefits, not social security. This will generally pay out up to about a year. This covers jobs which are legal--or at least with reported income. An escort who does not report his income (as required by law) will not be covered (though, if he's able to hide his income, he will qualify for Medicaid). Most successful escorts report at least some of their income, and buy their own insurance (perhaps subsidized), and are therefore eligible for benefits such as Medicare should they become disabled or reach retirement age. In the US, full retirement age is 67. One can collect social security retirement income starting at age 60, if one wishes, but this will doom one to a very low monthly income for life, as one cannot go back on the decision to collect early. Also, if one waits until at least FRA to collect, one's spouse can collect upon one's death. For example, if I start getting SS before I turn 67, my husband won't collect, but if I wait he will (and he's a lot younger than I am). My best friend had a domestic partner who was a truck driver and big boozer who decided to start collecting SS at the age of 60. At such an early age, the benefit was tiny (about $1200 a month), but enough to pay for the groceries. That domestic partner ended up dying before his 67th birthday (of alcohol-related issues), so collecting early was a good decision for him. Medicare also covers anyone 65 or over, working or not. Of note, the Social Security Act was passed under FD Roosevelt under the New Deal. Republicans opposed it.