BootmanLA

I believe that the point is not that she was in "a sorority" but she was in the oldest Black sorority in the country. She was a member in the early 80's, and my understanding (though I could be mistaken) is that the sorority at the time was effectively (if not legally) restricted to Black women. In other words, she was Black enough for AKA, which is pretty strong evidence she was considered Black at the time, even if she was also considered Asian.

Some random thoughts on both Kamala Harris's racial identity and Pete Buttigieg's sexual orientation: Harris has always, to my knowledge, acknowledged that she is part Black and part (south) Asian. In fact, I seem to recall - though I could be wrong - that in some of her early local races (when she was an official in San Francisco) that she touted this as an advantage, having been exposed to multiple cultures growing up, and being judged for her assumed identity as part of those cultures. For Orange Julius to latch onto a few instances where she focused on her Indian heritage and decry her as "not Black" not only reveals his inherent racism (and limited intellect), but overlooks the long history of racial identity in this country, where having one great-great-grandparent who was Black was enough to have you declared "Black" in many states. That had significant repercussions in an era of ostensibly "separate but equal" meant the racial identity handed you by the government, as opposed to the one you defined for yourself, either granted you access to certain things or blocked you. I'm not a supporter of pure race-identity politics, where the assumption is that people should vote for a candidate simply because of his or her race. And yet, I do think race is a relevant factor - not because I think people of a particular race are better suited for certain positions, or because people of some other race or not suited for it. Rather, I think that for offices that have historically been held only by people from a particular group - typically, straight white Christian men - opening those offices to qualified people who don't fit that mold can only improve things - because their perspectives as someone from outside the typical governing class can change the way government works. As a simple example from decades ago: Lindy Boggs, the first woman to represent Louisiana in Congress in decades, served on the Banking Committee, and when the committee was marking up the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (which barred discrimination on the basis of race, religion, or national origin in granting credit), she quietly took her copy, added "sex" and "marital status" to the bill, and made copies for all the other members. Then she told them "Knowing the members composing this committee as well as I do, I'm sure it was just an oversight that we didn't have 'sex' or 'marital status' included. I've taken care of that, and I trust it meets with the committee's approval." She was the most junior member of the committee, but her late husband had been the Democratic Majority Leader at the time of his death (and in line to become Speaker), and no one wanted to cross her. The fact that married women can have credit in their own names is directly due to her intervention, something none of the men on the committee had thought about. The same is true when it's not sex, but race, or sexual identity or orientation, or religion, that's the issue. Gay men and lesbians are going to think of how things will affect other gay men and lesbians, even if straight people might not. So having a variety of perspectives among our elected officials is important, and in my view, it rises to the level of a qualification for office. There's this myth we have in this country (and possibly elsewhere, though I can't speak for that) that there is always a single "best" person for a job, an office, or whatever, and we need to focus solely on finding that "best" person. The reality is that rarely is "best" necessary; there's a threshold of "good enough" that needs to be met, and beyond that, a host of other factors can (and should) be considered. Race, sex, sexual orientation, and so forth are among those - not that we should always vote for "one of our own", but that we should strive to see that there's diversity. Because diversity of experience means diversity of viewpoint, and engaging with diverse viewpoints is always preferable to just continuing with the same old same old.

He won't explain. He's a right-wing troll, or someone pretending to be a right-wing troll. I honestly think most of his posts should be moved to the humiliation fetish section because he seems determined to spout outrageous bullshit in order to provoke replies, but he's so unskilled at it that he usually ends up getting banned for extended periods for breaking the rules. Check out his profile, including his "join" date, the number of posts he's made, and what his "reputation score" is.

Because you were insisting that Grindr enable a feature in its software that has been documented as being used as a tool to out and harm people. You'd think nobody was ever able to hook up before location-based apps existed, to read your bilge. A risk that is substantially enhanced if a bad actor can pinpoint your location as within the Olympic village section where the athletes are housed. NOTHING is stopping Olympic contestants from posting their location and identity in the app, if they so choose (Hi! I'm Joe Blow, famous triathlete from Wakanda! I'm at the Olympic Village, come get a piece of this!). Grindr is simply making sure that other users can access the app without, in this particular situation, having their location pinpointable by others. Being gay is not a choice. Sorry, but it's hard to take anyone seriously when he makes a stupid statement like that. Did I say something that stupid? No, I did not. You can rest assured that when I am advocating something, I say it clearly and distinctly, and you need not try to put words in my mouth (because I will definitely call you out on it). As for your statement about sodomy: It was illegal in fewer than 20% of the states by the time the Supreme Court struck it down, and in most of those, no one had been prosecuted under those laws in decades. No one is taking away the option to be "out", including Grindr. What Grindr is doing is blocking the ability of OTHER PEOPLE to out people who do not wish to be out. Why this basic concept seems to be outside your sphere of comprehension is beyond me.

I remember making a snarky comment to my 7th grade Science teacher and him turning to me to say "You think you've got everybody fooled, but not me. You look like a 12-year old kid but I know - there's a 60 year old man in there." I don't think I've ever been prouder.

Agreed. That said, .... If you're alleging that somehow the Olympics governing structure prevailed on Grindr to implement this policy, then I suppose that's "within the realm of possibility." If you mean that Grindr, somehow, became "homophobic" despite its very purpose being to cater to gay/bi/curious men, then all I can say is "I don't think the company would be that fucking stupid." Or, you know - and this is just spitballing here - being outed as gay might well get them killed back home. Especially if someone waits until after the athletes return home to out the athlete, who may not then have the means or opportunity to flee. Or maybe their families will be held hostage to ensure the athlete's return. What's really reprehensible is that you seem to think that facilitating others exposing closeted gay athletes is so important that you'd risk their lives and well being because YOU think they should be "Free". Here's a hint: Nobody gets to fucking decide who gets outed except the person himself, unless he's actively working against the gay community while closeted. You can think (if you're capable) that everyone should be out, and that's your opinion, but you don't get to impose that on anyone else - at least, not without being a supreme asshole.

If "7" is "many" then yes, as that's the number of states whose earliest "early voting" date falls in September this year. But again, in 1912 the VP nominee was replaced six days before the election. In 1972, Eagleton withdrew earlier (August 1), but still well after the convention, by 19 days; and his replacement, R. Sergeant Shriver, wasn't named until August 8. I'm pretty sure that any court would hold that the VP nominee could be swapped out by someone else as long as the VP nominee withdrew (on paper, at least, even if ordered to do so by his presidential running mate). No federal court is going to mandate that the candidate go through with the election.

You can't maintain a (mentally) healthy relationship (or at least, not more than a very superficial one) with someone who isn't (mentally) healthy himself. I'm assuming that you did not, in fact, promise him this. If I'm right in that assumption, then he's being blatantly manipulative and for that reason alone should be avoided. But here's the thing: even if you HAD promised this, you can say "I no longer wish to do this, and the fact that you keep pressuring me to do it is proof you do not have my best interests at heart. If you insist on this, I have to cut all contact with you." By entertaining his bullshit, you are empowering him to continue trying his manipulation. You have the power to shut him down. And if that costs you his "friendship" it's not a huge loss, because no friend worth his salt would be trying to manipulate you back into doing drugs with him when you've made it clear you wish to remain sober. I know I'm repeating what everyone else is saying, but (to be blunt) it's because we're right. I've never been as certain of being right as I am about this.

True. And courts, of course, can cook up all sorts of bizarre rulings (see Cannon, Aileen, of the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida). But the general principle is that no one can be forced to stand for office, and if Vance withdrew, whether on his own or on Trump's orders, I don't think there's any court that would force him to stay on the ballot. Given that federal law calls for the electors to be chosen on a set date in November (the first Tuesday after the first Monday)*, there has to be an intrinsic way to have electors pledged to support a particular VP between the convention and the election. I am unaware of any way state law on this could be effective. *Why "first Tuesday after first Monday"? Because if the first Tuesday was on November 1, that would make election day fall on All Saints Day, which is celebrated not only by Roman Catholics but also by Anglicans/Episcopalians, Methodists, and Lutherans, among others.

No one's going to be able to answer this with anything more definitive than "maybe". Event-based PrEP may not reach its full protection capabilities unless it's taken between 2 and 12 hours before the first sex or if you don't take the additional doses on the subsequent days. That doesn't mean you definitely would get pozzed, for several reasons: 1. It's possible that none of the tops had HIV (even in large cities, a majority of gay men are not poz). 2. It's possible that any poz tops among them were undetectable (which is the case for the vast majority of poz men). 3. Even when a top is poz AND detectable, there's no guarantee one load from him is going to infect any particular bottom. An HIV antigen/antibody test MAY detect HIV infection as soon as 18 days after infection, but such a test might produce a false negative for several weeks more. A nucleic acid test, which tests for the viral particles themselves, may detect a bit earlier, but this is usually only ordered when you have symptoms of infection but the antigen test read negative. Note that at worst, the PrEP failed to protect you. It's not like PrEP taking too soon before sex made you MORE likely to get infected. If you're really anxious about this, I would strongly advise you to avoid unprotected sex until you get a definitive answer from testing, and if you are negative (and want to remain negative), get on PrEP and follow the instructions (whether daily or event-based). You shouldn't start PrEP until you know for certain that you're negative (because taking PrEP while poz can lead to treatment being ineffective), and since you're worried about infection, you shouldn't risk unprotected sex until you can get on PrEP if you're negative.

Not just competition, but they may be using the software (particularly if it's hosted on a service, rather than being installed on their own computer) in ways that are not permitted by the license.

Yes. In 1972, Tom Eagleton was the Democratic VP nominee under McGovern. When it was revealed that Eagleton had undergone electroshock therapy for depression in the past, McGovern ended up dropping Eagleton and choosing R. Sergeant Shriver. And in 1912, when Taft was running for re-election, his current VP (James Sherman) died six days before the election. He picked Nicholas Butler. In neither case was the replacement VP nominee approved by a political convention - the candidate simply made his choice and they were on the ballot.

So the resident Trump Troll finds one objectionable guy who identified as a Democrat, and immediately declares he's a "completely archetypical Biden supporting Trump hater". And yet when we point out some degenerate racist and misogynistic homophobe who's one of Trump's loud backers, we're told that we can't judge all Trump supporters by the actions of this one guy. If this weren't so incredibly stupid and ignorant I'd laugh, but unfortunately, I can't, because there are people among us - on a site about bareback sex - who are short-sightedly and stupidly behind the candidate who would gladly allow his administrative appointees and his cohorts in Congress to pass laws and regulations that made this site - and all the activity it discusses - illegal. What I have to do is consider the posting source. And THEN I can laugh.

Trump today, at a rally: "You have to get out and vote. You won’t have to do it anymore. Four years, it will be fixed, it will be fine. You won’t have to vote anymore.. In four years, you won’t have to vote again." How much clearer does the man have to be? Elect him, and you won't ever have to worry about voting again, because that will be the end of voting. He'll fire any general (or lower level officer) who stands up to him, and simply stay in power till he dies. And hand it off to whoever is the MAGA heir-apparent. I know it's considered bad form to compare anyone to Hitler, but bear in mind, this is exactly what happened in Germany. They turned to someone who happily took power when it was offered to him, and then he made sure he would never have to give it up. Ditto the installation of the Kim dynasty in North Korea - dictators come to power more or less legitimately, but seize the reins of that power to keep in office. That's what you Trumpanzees are supporting.

Because, as I noted, some tops - quite a few, in my experience, don't want the bottom to USE a big cock; they want the bottom to HAVE a big cock, because it soothes the top's fragile insecurities to think "this guy could be in high demand as a top with that cock and he wants ME to fuck him - that's great!". It's all about (some) bottoms being savvy enough to cater to the insecurities of those tops who want a bottom that COULD be a top but isn't.

Not necessarily. Many processed foods are bad for us, but not because they contain no nutrition; it's because they have so much junk added, including sodium and sugar. That doesn't mean they don't have any nutritive value; it's that the nutrition comes with a bunch of crap attached. As long as a person's diet has sufficient vitamin C, scurvy is pretty much not even a potential issue. And while we think of that primarily as something to get from citrus (because some citrus have high levels of it), quite a few vegetables and fruits have significant levels of vitamin C. Sailors got scurvy because *all* they ate, generally, was preserved meat and hard tack (crackers in the US, biscuit in the UK), sometimes for months on end on a repeated basis, with no access to fresh fruits and vegetables.

I don't think anyone is downvoting you for being right, because you're not. A doctor's job is to treat and advise, not to judge. There are ways to convey information about the risks of STIs without coming across as morally judgmental, and apparently that's what this doctor did. Yes, it's theoretically possible that an HIV+ person barebacking for receptive anal sex *might* become infected with a medication-resistant strain at some point. But those strains are pretty rare. So is untreatable syphilis. And any sensible doctor would tell a patient to get tested more regularly, rather than criticize him for not living the way she prefers.

For starters, his claim that Obama was born in Kenya and his birth certificate was faked. Or any one of many thousands of other lies the lying liar from Queens has uttered, when he's not rambling incoherently about jumping from a sinking electric boat into shark infested waters after dinner with Hannibal Lecter.

A surprising number of tops want their bottoms to be hung and/or muscular and/or gorgeous, because they want the validation of "this stud wants ME to fuck him." Quite a few such tops want nothing to do with a bottom who has a smaller cock.

Why is a bottom having an amazing cock "misleading"? I don't, but I don't see why that's in any way "misleading". It sounds to me more like you're imposing expectations on someone you don't know and are then disappointed when they don't live up to whatever expectations you've placed on them.

In 30 years I will almost certainly be dead. But if the voters apologize for voting for Mango Mussolini, as Biden did when he acknowledged it was a mistake, then I might forgive them. I don't think any of them will, though, because to vote for him today after knowing all we know about him means that the voter is a shithole of a person.

At least in the 20th century, the president has always chosen his vice presidential running mate. The idea that "the convention" did so is bad history. The party always ratified the nomination, but the president was always in the driver's seat and I can't think of a single president in the last 120 or so years who was stuck with a VP he didn't want. It's true that the party sometimes has had influence - especially when the president was a draftee nominee, like Eisenhower; the party pushed him to choose Nixon because they thought a younger and strongly conservative second in command would help the ticket. But that's about as close as it's come.

Many of Trump's circle are a "bad joke". Yet he welcomes them and lets them help set policy because he doesn't personally give a fuck about anything except himself and what he can get for himself via the presidency. Which is why so many horrible people ended up in high places working for him last time, and why (if he gets in again) many more will.

I agree everyone is allowed to "never forget". I would say that Mengele was several orders of magnitude worse than Thurmond, but you're also allowed to think otherwise. But again, this is, for all intents and purposes, a two-party system. If someone I know in a swing state were to vote third-party, and Trump won a second term because he carried that state, I would "never forget" that this person I know had a chance to help stop it, and deliberately chose not to. I would also "never forget" to remind that person EVERY FUCKING TIME he complained about something the administration was doing that he should shuck the absolute fuck up about it because he forfeited his right to complain by wasting his vote. For better or worse, however, Biden has chosen not to run. I'll be interested to see all the people who complained about Biden's age or the fact that he was friends with a centenarian racist to start telling me that they can't vote for Harris because she used to be an attorney general who didn't unlock all the prisons and let all the felons loose. I'm just sick of purists who have no interest in taking the steps we CAN take to make things better because they aren't happy with anything less than 100% of their demands. Your mileage may vary. Tax, title and license extra. Void where prohibited.

Your profile doesn't say where you live. And if you live in a reliably red or blue state it doesn't matter much if you throw away your vote on a third party candidate or don't vote at all for president. But if you live in a swing state, understand that not voting for Biden means one more vote for the racist party not offset by a vote for the other side. Given your interest in racial issues and recognition of the racist agenda on the Republican side, I'd think that would be enough motivation to hold your nose and vote for Biden. But you do you.