BootmanLA

A few thoughts on this: 1. I think it's a mistake, in general, to say "Trump wants to...." anything, unless it's "run everything, save his squalid business empire, and get re-elected so as to avoid prison". When it comes to ordinary governmental policies, Trump has no beliefs of his own, whatsoever; his only line of inquiry is "What's in it for me?". For instance, Trump is widely reported to be anti-immigrant. But he routinely employs immigrants, including ones on limited temporary visas, to work on his properties, because he can get them cheaper than he can hire US workers. That goes way back, even to his construction of Trump Tower in the 1980's, where he stiffed a bunch of immigrant construction workers on their wages. For Trump, immigration is simply one more issue he knows he can use to inflame his base of support and get them riled up to vote. The same is true of any "social" issue - abortion, porn, gay rights, trans rights, whatever - he only cares if he can use it for his own purposes (again, to gain power and to avoid prison). Trump was very pro-choice until he started nosing around about seeking the Republican nomination for president in the early 2010's - after he got pissed off at President Obama for mocking him at the White House Correspondents Association Dinner over his "birther" claims. Now, it's increasingly true that there's no division between Trump, his campaign, and the national GOP - it's all one big cluster of ego-propping-up, and with Trump happy to endorse GOP policies as along as they don't threaten his electoral prospects. (That's why Trump keeps wavering on abortion, taking credit for killing Roe at evangelical events but stressing he doesn't want a federal ban to suburban housewives who can and probably will tank his return to the presidency. He doesn't give a fuck about abortion itself except when he's got to pay for one for one of his mistresses, but he can't just take that stance without pissing off part of his base.) But Trump wanting to ban porn? Please. He doesn't want any such thing; he knows that even if the GOP managed to get porn removed from under First Amendment protection (a huge task), so that states could ban it, it's still going to be widely available everywhere.

So, let's add "psychic" to Kevorkabob's skill set, since he "knows" what other people "really mean" instead of engaging with the words they actually write. (And yet, when WE engage with HIS actual words, he loses his shit. Imagine.)

Reading comprehension does not appear, at first glance, to be your strong suit; I'm not sure about where you live, but adult remedial reading skills courses are available in most English-speaking places. Might be something to consider. 1. No, I am not "always cheering" you for being banned - if you get banned, it's due to your own behavior, and I assume it's a penalty handed out by the moderators responsibly. 2. I'm not terrified of much; certainly not of debate with anyone. 3. No, I do not think other people "should" be strangled. Perhaps you do not understand the English language idiom "makes me want to..." - it means that a particular person, action, saying, or whatever makes one WANT to do something (that one nevertheless won't do, and would not want actually done). As in "That child's screaming makes me want to slap his parents to get their attention." As in "People who drive like that make me want to shove their car into a compactor." As in "Some people are so frustratingly dumb that it makes me want to strangle them just to marginally improve the gene pool." It is not intended as a suggestion for a serious course of action.

That "if" is a mighty big "if". As in "IF". The reality, of course, is that such a bill is unlikely to even be brought up in the Senate, much less passed, and even less to be signed into law.

No, I did not. I never intended to use such an epithet for you. If I had, you can rest assured I would have.

I have mentioned this before, and I'm glad to have backup for it. It's not that we individually can't have supportive poz friends; it's that there's no magical brotherhood that suddenly solves all our problems when we become poz. And there's a whole bunch of new problems to deal with that come along with that status (at least for most of us). I'm not so sure that's true. The medical community will tell you that you must take your medication every day to keep the virus suppressed, and for a lot of guys, that's probably true. But it's not universal; some guys' innate immune system hasn't been decimated by HIV, and missing a few doses may not have a huge impact on their health. Then again, being off meds for a few days (or even a week) is unlikely to produce the kind of viral levels that are highly likely to infect someone. The bigger problem with stopping meds for a time and restarting (now that we have such highly effective treatments) is that HIV, if allowed to reproduce, does so sloppily and creates mutations - most of which don't help the virus, but occasionally a mutation will develop that your previous medication won't be able to control as effectively. Then, even if you go back on meds, the mutated version may still keep propagating. Sometimes a med change will be effective, but there are only so many variants of HIV medication so far, and most contain some subset of the same handful of active ingredients.

I'd like to point out that "safe sex", by itself, is a misnomer; even strictly in the context of HIV, the only "safe sex" is masturbation, and if you go beyond HIV, even masturbation isn't 100% guaranteed safe (you can shoot cum in your eye and harm your vision, if only temporarily; you can masturbate so roughly you damage some of the tissues in your cock; and so forth). "Safer sex" - the designation preferred by health advocates - for years meant using a condom, every time, no matter what, even if one also sero-sorted and even if two people were monogamous after being each other's first everything. Anything less than that kind of "we've only ever been with each other, for our entire lives", even with condoms, meant some other STI's could still be transmitted, making them technically not 100% safe. Safer, yes. Anything without condoms was automatically demoted to "not safer sex". Now we have PrEP, which (when used correctly) is at least as effective as condoms (when used correctly). So even as some advocates have failed to update their recommendations, the reality is that sex without condoms is NOT NECESSARILY "not safer sex".

Not only do kids bring weapons to school in the U.S., but there have been any number of incidents of LGBT students being physically assaulted, sometimes with weapons, in the last few decades. It's not usually by Muslim students - it's by ostensibly straight "Christian" students, overwhelmingly. And it's certainly not unknown for students to be transferred to other schools for their protection, rather than dealing with the offending little shits causing the problem.

Just because a technique (for anything) was developed some time ago doesn't mean it's not still in use. Astroturfing is one of the easiest and most cost-effective means of faking grass-roots outrage over something.

I should add: I think it's far more effective to encourage the person to come out, and be supportive of every step, no matter how small, they take to do so. One could also just refuse to have sex with guys who are "DL".

People should do what works for them. That said, my ass is one of the most precious things I've got, and while I'm happy to share it with lots of people, that doesn't include ones who would vote for candidates who'd happily imprison said ass. Or who'd vote for any number of other right-wing politicians who would cheerfully vote to harm my community or others whom I care about. They don't deserve me.

and And it's why the Politics forum is a separate, sub-forum that it's very easy to avoid if you don't like reading/talking about politics.

The problem is the broad brush with which you paint "bureaucrats" - which includes both, say, the clerk at the DMV who processes your driver's license renewal and the respected and honored scientist who forewent a career working in private industry to conduct government-sponsored research and to help get that research into use. It's so frequently used as a pejorative by people who themselves lack enough scientific training to understand why water is wet at room temperature.

When you've dealt with astroturf "organizations" before, you start to recognize their tricks.

Or when they're seeking higher office after holding a lower one. Someone who's got a record as a state representative as an anti-gay activist, for instance, is highly unlikely to suddenly become an LGBT ally running for Congress, or Governor, or whatever.

Because.... none of us ever wanted sex without condoms until we saw it in porn? Really?

Maybe it's better; maybe it's not. But the point is, you don't get to make that decision for the other person.

"Makes" you call it? What would he do if you didn't?

I never said any such thing. So I ask again, how would you know this?

And you would know this how, exactly?

On this particular instance, I'd have to disagree. I've known any number of people who used to use the word "clean" this way, and they stopped when I educated them on why that's offensive. Most frankly acknowledged that they hadn't thought about it that way before - the obvious corollary that poz=dirty - and at least as far as I can tell, that enlightenment has generally "stuck". To me, that's a plus and it IS making things better.

Granted. It also shows how things have changed; back then, the rich and powerful wanted to keep the vote for themselves. Now they're happy to share it with the Great Unwashed Morons as long as they're white and (mostly) Southern.

Yes, and no. Broadly speaking, there is a mandate by the federal government that insurers (both individual and group plans) must cover PrEP as a preventative service under the ACA. But.... First, there's a challenge ongoing in federal court to the preventative services rules. The trial court ruled that the structure of the Preventative Services Task Force (which is somewhat insulated from political pressure) is unconstitutional, because generally speaking, all executive branch agencies must be accountable to the executive (ie the president). The DHHS Secretary is appointed by the president (which is fine), but since the Secretary does not have control over the PSTF - he doesn't have the power to approve or deny its recommendations - then that board has no valid power. The case is on appeal at the notoriously conservative US Fifth Circuit, which has had a stay in place over the trial court's decision for more than a year now; the three judges hearing the case include two Trump appointees, which does not bode well for the government. On the other hand, these two judges (and the trial court judge) are frequently on the receiving end of slap-downs from the Supreme Court for overreaching (and when THIS Supreme Court overturns a conservative court's decision, you know the decision was unsound). Second: Medicare Part D plans are not covered by the Affordable Care Act, so anyone on Medicare (which is most everyone over 65) may well find PrEP isn't covered at all, or with a high copay. That said, there are copay assistance programs available from the drug manufacturer, and there are often state programs designed to cover either PrEP or HIV treatment for those who lack insurance, so that may be an avenue to get covered.

Generally speaking, that's (partly) true, but eligibility to vote was a state-by-state thing and things changed rapidly in the early years. In the colonies (pre-1776), one had to be a freeholder (property owner) over the age of 21 to vote. That covered up to 75% of the adult males in some states, because with vast amounts of land available in the colonies, it wasn't too hard to become a freeholder (again, assuming you were male and 21 or older and - it goes without saying - white). When the 13 original colonies declared independence, each drafted a constitution (sometimes by another name) for itself, and about half these new states granted the franchise to all taxpaying males of the age of majority, rather than just to those who owned property. Vermont went farther and granted the vote to all adult males without regard for taxpaying or property-owning status. By the Civil War, this had become the norm (but not quite universal) among American states. It wasn't until the 15th Amendment that a federal law (in this case, a change tot he Constitution) created the first "voting right" that applied nationwide (though, as we know, enforcement of that change took nearly a century to begin and is still not complete today). Subsequent amendments (creating voting rights for women - 1920; for persons over 18 - 1971) expanded that "right to vote." That said, there is still no freestanding "right to vote" under the US constitution - these amendments basically say that *IF* a law (constitution or statute) allows for a vote, *THEN* government can't discriminate on the basis of race, color, previous condition of servitude, sex, or age for persons 18 or older. States have to allow people to vote for their state legislators, since every state is guaranteed a "republican" (small-R) form of government. But beyond that, states could pretty much make almost any position they wanted appointed, rather than elected, as long as that's not inconsistent with a republican form of government.

The term "clean" as applied to HIV-negative people is offensive. The clear implication is that anyone who is not HIV-negative is "dirty". By all means, I encourage you to take all the precautions you can. But please stop with the language suggesting HIV-positive people are less than "clean".