Your video, Let's talk about Biden outsmarting Trump's transition trap.., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Every appointment by Trump since the election should be removed and every firing during his lame duck term reconsidered on Jan 20.

Don't let the shallow state (trump loyalists who are all unqualified and unfit) survive. That's why Joe needs transition funding and clearance, so he can both hire qualified people and have them ready January 20, and so he can have good cause to fire every Trump appointee and installation, all his acting department heads that couldn't survive a confirmation hearing. Trump is trying to fill the government with his loyalists who's sole mission is to block Biden's administration just like he spent 4 years accusing the Democrats of doing with no evidence.

While it could only be an improvement, no. My idea of a smooth transition is the way it's been my entire life, the new president gets access to international intelligence to inform his international plans, and access to data to inform his national policies like a comprehensive covid plan, to be implemented Jan 20, and access to classified information about those he intends to make up his administration so he doesn't end up with a bunch of crooks with foreign ties and conflicts of interest.

If he's denied this ordinary government assistance until he takes office, or even before then but close, it severely hampers his ability to be ready day one to start solving problems and saving lives. We can't afford that, it will cost lives and public treasure.

I don't know where you got the idea I thought he would run the government before Jan 20, I do not think that, but I think he should be as ready to go as possible on that day, not still vetting his administration and learning about our secret international agreements, not learning about covid response but with a plan ready to implement.

So wait, is your idea of a transition one in which Biden's team takes total control of covid policy to reduce those deaths before he is even inaugurated?

Transition is merely giving info to the new administration employees, they make ZERO policy decisions the old one doesn't agree to implement.

Because there's zero chance he can win, and every hour of delay in allowing the transition to proceed 50 Americans die.

No, they report the official count. Reasonable people understand when it's impossible to swing the results and, for the good of the country, concede and facilitate a transition. All the silly challenges can continue after that, they don't stop counting because one candidate concedes, and they don't just toss out court cases either.

Since there's no evidence of illegal votes, that's not worth responding to. Votes are vetted in multiple ways before being counted. Thousands of dead people, non citizens, and fraudsters haven't voted....it's a lie, there's zero evidence, only liars words. The vote fraud found was all about not delivering mail in ballots, and all done by Republicans. Over 300000 missing in post offices after the USPS was ordered to sweep all sorting rooms for missing ballots, an order they ignored at DeJoy's direction.

If it wasn't life or death for thousands in the balance, I would agree, but thanks to the worst leader in living memory it is. What's the harm allowing Biden's team access to intelligence so they can vet a cabinet? Biden already has top clearance....but is being blocked out of pure spite. In the .000001% chance Trump manages to flip the results, how would it hurt anything that Biden had a team ready? Trump doesn't need to concede, he can keep instigating his cult to commit terroristic acts and chant "stop the count...count the votes....stop the count...count the votes", and to make up false claims of fraud in hopes of collecting the million dollar reward (bribe to commit perjury) Trumpco has offered.

Let the cases play out, they're being tossed constantly since they have no evidence at all of consequential fraud, only lies and Russian videos,...but since it's clear who won and no fraud case can change that, stop blocking the peaceful transition and hurting the union. Stop wasting hundreds of millions on preparing for a fantasy Trump budget but zero on preparing for Biden, who won. If Trump is declared the winner officially, then stop cooperating with Biden then....no harm no foul.

Carter conceded before the polls closed in the West because he clearly put the nation first over his ego (Reagan's final vote percentage was lower than Biden's btw, Biden is now over 5 million votes ahead) , Trump won't ever concede, he might claim it was stolen and he can't stop it, eroding trust in our system and creating terrorists, he won't ever say he lost or cooperate in a transition. The former hurts confidence in the system, the latter delays the transition and will kill more people for no reason besides sour grapes.

In reality, there's no other choice since there's zero chance the current president will concede or cooperate with a smooth transition.

Once there's no chance remaining votes uncounted or contested could sway the election, a point we are well past, any challenges are academic and couldn't change results, so there's no reason to refuse to acknowledge that fact, especially when it's spurring right wing terrorists to act and dividing the nation, another point we past days ago. The obstinance is harmful to the nation and our institutions, like Trump is trying to burn the government down on his way out the door. No democrat has ever done this in similar circumstances. There's a theory that he's only doing it to bilk his followers out of more money towards his "legal defense fund" that really goes to pay off campaign debt and directly into his pockets with a small portion paying lawyers like Giuliani to lose cases. He's millions in debt there too, and it becomes his personal debt when he's out of office....with near a billion due next year, he needs every penny he can con them out of.

Normally the clear winner would be being brought up to speed on things like covid response and international relationships even if they weren't declared the official winner yet. (Edit: They would also have access to top secret intelligence all previous presidents (except Trump) use to vet their cabinet, being denied that information severely hampers Biden's ability to properly vet them, holding up his nominations. Thanks to Trump's disastrous covid response, Biden needs to be fully ready to change policies day one, it's life or death for 1000+ Americans every day he's delayed.) This time, with a petulant toddler throwing a tantrum for the next 2+ months, that might not help, because there's no telling what damage he might do before then. Biden is just making his own plans instead, preparing to start work day one no matter what dumpster fires Trump sets. That said, this obstinate denial of the results and sewing division, making up and repeating baseless charges to discredit the election (looking at you) have real world disastrous consequences and weakens the state of the union. It's clear the plan was to rely on the Trump appointed judges to rubber stamp the baseless claims and hand him a win. So far it hasn't worked, but it could. That's why we should care about the dozens of frivolous lawsuits, if his judges decide to be the lackeys he expects them to be, they could actually steal the election in court....but it would spark nationwide unrest if not insurgency.

Yes, Republicans are hypocrites, but so are the Dems if they aren't willing to wait for the process to finish before insisting the race is over. We managed to wait till December back in 2000 to find a resolution, that ended up fine. If they were consistent they wouldn't care about lawsuits or complain about the GAO not helping the Biden transition.

Yeah, I can only say for certain what has happened here. Most doctors that run private practices and are rated well slowly started transitioning to either a service that charges a large amount of money per patient per year, in addition to insurance, or they simply posted on their website they no longer accept insurance. They call it direct primary care, like you pay a fee per month.

https://reason.com/video/doctors-direct-primary-care/

My doctor joined a concierge service called MDVIP. I just checked and he lowered his rates to 1,800 per year per patient. Whether you go or not. He was a great doctor, but I refuse to pay 3600 per year for my wife and me to see a doctor. Not when they will bill our insurance as well for any actual visits/treatments.

Instead we had to switch to Austin Regional Clinic, who has an amazing lab and bloodwork team, but the doctor situation is as I mentioned before. There is no feeling that I have a personal doctor. Usually they schedule me with whichever one is available or a PA. Every time I have to re-list what meds I am on and what existing conditions I have because they don't remember. You would think they could look at a chart, but they are so busy every time. It's like sex in high school, in, out, and thanks for coming.

We've tried some others, even a few private practices, but none have been up to par. All of them seem to be super busy and have trimmed their staff to the bone.

If the ACA isn't changed or doesn't go away, I don't see it getting any better.

Your video, Trump Refuses to Commit to Peaceful Transition of Power, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

230-page book called Sex Bias in the U.S. Code, published in 1977 by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Highlights:


Called for the sex-integration of prisons and reformatories so that conditions of imprisonment, security and housing could be equal. She explained, “If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected.” (Page 101)





>Called for reducing the age of consent for sexual acts to people who are “less than 12 years old.” (Page 102)


>Asserted that laws against “bigamists, persons cohabiting with more than one woman, and women cohabiting with a bigamist” are unconstitutional. (Page 195)


>Objected to laws against prostitution because “prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions.” (Page 97)
>Ginsburg wrote that the Mann Act (which punishes those who engage in interstate sex traffic of women and girls) is “offensive.” Such acts should be considered “within the zone of privacy.” (Page 98)


>Demanded that we “firmly reject draft or combat exemption for women,” stating “women must be subject to the draft if men are.” But, she added, “the need for affirmative action and for transition measures is particularly strong in the uniformed services.” (Page 218)


>An indefatigable censor, Ginsburg listed hundreds of “sexist” words that must be eliminated from all statutes. Among words she found offensive were: man, woman, manmade, mankind, husband, wife, mother, father, sister, brother, son, daughter, serviceman, longshoreman, postmaster, watchman, seamanship, and “to man” (a vessel). (Pages 15-16)


>Wanted he, she, him, her, his, and hers to be dropped down the memory hole. They must be replaced by he/she, her/him, and hers/his, and federal statutes must use the bad grammar of “plural constructions to avoid third person singular pronouns.” (Page 52-53)

>Condemned the Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. McRae and claimed that taxpayer-funded abortions should be a constitutional right.
http://humanevents.com/2005

The gallery has been accused of providing a platform for fascist, neo-Nazi and Islamophobic speakers and individuals who promote white supremacy and eugenics.

In the summer, it held a “Neo-reaction conference” which included a talk by Brett Stevens, a white supremacist who has lauded the “bravery” of Anders Breivik - the Norwegian white supremacist who killed 77 people in 2011.

Mr Stevens' writing was said to be an inspiration to Breivik.

After the attack, Mr Stevens, who edits a far-right website called Amerika, wrote: “I am honoured to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream.”

Mr Stevens comments on his blog, Amerika, where he says the “neoreaction conference” was hosted behind a “veil of secrecy", confirming the secret agenda of the gallery because you can't have a beneficial discussion of these issues when the discussion is hidden from one side of the issue. Clearly then this isn't an effort to facilitate “a dialogue between two different and contrasting ideologies” when the event is hidden from all but one ideology, right?

The gallery has leaked the identity of artists who exposed its activities to the far-right neo-Nazi website, Amerika.

The gallery has also hosted, Peter Brimelow, a high profile American anti-immigrant activist. He has been described as the “new David Duke” – the former Imperial Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK).

Mr Brimelow founded website VDare, which the Southern Poverty Law Centre describe as “a nonprofit that warns against the polluting of America by non-whites, Catholics, and Spanish-speaking immigrants.”


Ms Diego, the owner, described the left as “more like a fascist organisation than the real fascists”“I’m not even sure if I disagree with the Muslim ban. I see it also as a temporary measure in order for America to get sorted while they transition to another form of government,” She said: “Our position has always been that the role of art is to provide a vehicle for the free exploration of ideas, even and perhaps especially where these are challenging, controversial or indeed distasteful for some individuals to contemplate." But her actions, holding far right racist events in secret exposes that statement as pure bullshit.

I can't speak to the student/Jordan Peterson thing without knowing all the facts or I might end up as wrong as the title and description of this video, which is pure lies btw.
I feel it's likely the video she played actually promoted hatred and violence directly, not just that it included one person who had a different political affiliation like you indicate, but I don't know.

After how you erroneously described this event/video, I'm not so sure I can trust your explanations. Sorry.

Again, all this info is in the links provided.

Your video, The Country Where All Public Transit Is Free, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

This achievement has earned you your "Pop Star" Level 52 Badge!

lol; well, yes.
Actually, as a civilian, for short trips in bad traffic areas (yes, I know that light rail and mass transit would be better)---I would try this out.

And---for Air Ambulances (yes, mixed evidence on efficacy) and Military MediEvac---farther, faster, safer with more load?

@newtboy
@BSR

Think of it a bit like this (quote from Wilde)

"...surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not p. 3cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible. And the altruistic virtues have really prevented the carrying out of this aim. Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realized by those who suffered from it, and understood by those who contemplated it"
--------------
And allow me to pop this out:
"the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves"
--------------


This is a stark/bleak example. I don't personally agree with it entirely. As I said, I bring cereal for my students and it's there and free and available unless I don't have time to get to the store or unless I myself am out of pocket change to buy extra food.


I don't ENTIRELY disagree though ----> Which is not to say that I agree.

I would say, YES there are structural changes that need to take place, but I also believe that assistance needs to be there to handle some kind of transition period while a problem is realized.

ALL of that being said

Here is a perfect example of a societal ill in our current system that needs to be addressed. It's a disgusting by-product of a structurally unsound student loan system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Db9NaPDtAmU


Source: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1017/1017-h/1017-h.htm

If someone accosts another person, especially a stranger, they stop them or go up to them and speak to them in a way that seems rude or threatening.
[formal, disapproval]
A man had accosted me in the street. [VERB noun]
Synonyms: confront, challenge, address, stop More Synonyms of accost
COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary. Copyright © HarperCollins Publishers
Word Frequency
accost in British
(əˈkɒst )
verb
1. (transitive)
to approach, stop, and speak to (a person), as to ask a question, accuse of a crime, solicit sexually, etc

It is suggesting the police were in error or were being rude at best.
This is how most people of my generation would understand the term.
So all I have to do is shed my clothes now and let things swing in the wind and I can do whatever I please, even coming within feet of the potus?
I don't think It would be a pretty picture/outcome for several reasons.
Biased reporting.
Just because Fox does it doesn't make it right.
You admit you can't even stand watching Fox for more than a couple of minutes.
You therefore have no ground to stand on.
You must endure it until your hair starts falling out as I have with CNN.
That's about 5 minutes.

Another definition might work as well.
The reporter constantly berated,grandstanded and hogged the microphone refusing to show an ounce of decorum.
He pulled an Acosta.