BootmanLA

Anyone who thinks the Republican Party of the 1860's has anything to do with the Republican Party of the 2000's probably shouldn't be allowed to wander the streets unsupervised. Either that, or that person is completely historically illiterate about 20th century U.S. political history.

The tone might well have been bad. But he wouldn't have had to say anything at all, if there weren't apparently a significant number of Black men who (for whatever reason) think that it makes sense to vote for anyone other than Harris in this election. Or that it makes sense to withhold their votes, possibly letting Trump win again.

Only if you consider being asked to contribute to the overall good of the community "emasculating" and "sacrificing their humanity". As I've noted elsewhere, for decades the LGBT community got barely lip service from the Democratic Party. But we (at least, the ones not delusional enough to join the Log Cabin Republicans) understood that our options would ALWAYS be better with Democratic leadership, because there was no way in hell that the Republicans were going to govern in our best interests. And, whether it was luck or something else, we prevailed in the end - getting rid of DOMA, getting rid of DADT, getting same-sex marriage approved nationwide. I never saw us compromising to support flawed Democrats - including Bill Clinton - as "emasculating" nor did I see it as "sacrificing my humanity". Your mileage may vary, I suppose.

Especially since the wars we've gotten into since Korea have basically all been at the hands of Republicans. Eisenhower got us into Vietnam, Nixon into a bunch of other places in SE Asia, Reagan into multiple smaller skirmishes, and Shrub into Iraq and Afghanistan. To his credit Bush assembled a coalition to go into Kuwait and made sure we stopped with the liberation of that country, so at least we shared the pain and didn't do any insane things like trying to "nation-build".

8. I believe that electing Kamala Harris is existential-level important, and frankly, anything that drives home that point is key.

Still better than a shit sandwich filled with broken glass bits.

Actually: I asked, specifically, why Black men don't want to vote for Harris, so that I can understand, rather than "talk over" anyone. I've gotten zero in response other than a handful of clearly erroneous garbage bits (like black unemployment being lower under Trump, which isn't true, or "Biden's inflation", which apparently he managed to inflict on the entire world).

Spotshotter was abandoned because it didn't work. It gave results, but those results were wrong as often as right. What it did, of course, was enrich a handful of white men peddling a snake oil solution to a problem, snake oil paid for by taxes that hit the poor especially hard. You blame inflation on "inept Joe Biden". Why, then, did the entire rest of the world ALSO experience high inflation, and why has the US recovered from it much faster than any other place on earth? Do you seriously not read any news other than what some right-winger nutcases are telling you is "truth"? Black unemployment was better under Trump briefly. It's now better under Biden. So your "information" is mistaken at best and a deliberate falsification at worst. As for the rest of your screed: oh, honey, bless your heart. LOL

Is that a long, convoluted way of saying "I make it up"?

To be clear: I support M4A and increasing the minimum wage substantially. But neither is something a president can accomplish on her own. Mind you, the ACA is more popular than it's ever been, as people have come to understand what it is and what it does, and yet the GOP is still hell-bent on repealing it, even while they make empty promises to keep its popular features (because they know it's political suicide not to). At this juncture, I think it would be seriously problematic for any president to propose and push hard for M4A even though I think it would be a great idea to have in place. (Remember that backlash against the ACA, based on GOP lies about what it did, was the primary reason the Democrats lost the House in 2010, crippling Obama's ability to push through anything like an updated Voting Rights Act or anything else of substance.) The real problem is that these other parties - especially the Green Party - refuse to do any of the work involved in building up a party, meaning organizing locally, getting people elected to local positions where the party name and positions can be made known in the parts of government closest to the people. They simply want to make a splash on the national level, and the current Greens even brag - publicly - that their real goal is to prevent a "lesser" (in their view) party, like the Democrats, win the election. If that means the country has to suffer through another four years of Trumpism, so be it; if it means that we never get another election because of some trumped-up national emergency, so be that, too. And in our system, which combines a lot of anti-democratic things like the Electoral College, winner-take-all electoral votes, and so forth, yeah, not voting for one of the major parties IS throwing your vote away. Or as I say, it's jacking off in the voting booth, making yourself feel good but accomplishing nothing.

Well, a phone call isn't a photo op, And note that it wasn't Harris who publicized that DeSantis refused her phone call; it was the DeSantis team, meaning they were looking to score political points by bragging that they were snubbing the second-highest ranking federal official and the possible next president. I don't know what Harris intended to say - perhaps she'd been authorized by Biden to offer additional resources, or maybe she was just calling to say her prayers were with his state. It was still a fucking rude thing to do. But then just as Trump threatened this weekend to cut off fire aid to southern California if it didn't turn out to vote for him, just as PornBoy Johnson refuses to call the House in for a brief session to approve FEMA funding, just as President Shrub lauded the disastrous mishandling of the Katrina emergency response as "Heckuva job, Brownie!", there is no depth to which Republicans won't sink in politicizing natural disasters.

Right up until he stabs you in it. Trump has NEVER had anyone's back, including his own family's (he tried to steal control of his father's estate while the old man was still alive but suffering from dementia, and he cut off his own great-nephew's health insurance (the child has a genetic disorder requiring lifelong care) - in fact, Donald Trump told his nephew, the child's father, that it would be better for everyone if he just let the child die because it would be less costly on the family insurance policy. Trump learned his "stab them in the back" routine from one of his attorneys, Roy Cohn (of the McCarthy red-baiting disgrace). Cohn, a closeted gay man, ended up dying of AIDS - and Trump refused to help him in the slightest at the end because Cohn could no longer do anything for him. So much for 'always got your back'.

Sure, "earn our votes", if you think the sole purpose of voting is to feel good about it. If you're going to practice electoral masturbation, at least admit that you don't give a fuck about the results as long as you feel your vote was "earned". I believe the point of voting is not to feel "wanted", not to feel my vote was "earned", but to produce the best outcome overall. It's why I voted to re-elect Clinton after he compromised on DOMA and Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I knew a President Dole wasn't going to be better on the issue, I knew that judges Clinton appointed would be more likely to overturn those laws as the abominations they were, and that even tiny, incremental progress is better than massive backsliding. That said - yes, in a state where the race isn't close either way (say, California or Louisiana), third party voting is less of an issue. It not only doesn't affect the results, it CAN'T affect the results. On the other hand, there are a number of states (for instance, Ohio, Montana, Maryland) where there's a tight Senate race even though the state will probably go for a particular presidential candidate. People in THOSE states also need to pay close attention and, if they want any hope of a potential President Harris being able to fix anything, they need to vote to give her a Democratic Senate so that (for instance) the GOP doesn't simply block every judicial appointment she makes.

That's exactly what everyone said about Roe. "It's settled law." "Kavanaugh promised Susan Collins he believed it was good law." "Gorsuch would never do that." And on and on, and then wham, that's exactly what they did. Alito and Thomas have already said that (a) they believe Obergefell and Lawrence were wrongly decided, and (b) when the Court has made a mistake like that, it's better to overturn it than let it remain. Kavanaugh has followed their lead. Roberts and Barrett have both indicated a strong willingness to overturn precedents they consider wrongly decided. So, respectfully, I'll say "unlikely to be an issue" is complete bullshit. The votes are there; they're just waiting for the right case to come up.

He had A gay. One openly gay man among thousands of appointees. And that one was (and is) just as much a fascist as Trump is. Regardless, it's Trump's Supreme Court that will eventually overturn Lawrence v. Texas, just like it was his appointees who overturned Roe v. Wade. They'll also overturn (or severely limit) Obergefell, not that I suspect you give a damn about that one.

And yet a Democratic president is the only even faint hope we have for any pressure to be put on Israel to moderate its attacks. Trump has already clearly signaled he's for letting Israel wipe the Palestinians off the map - his own son-in-law has mused about making an Israeli beachfront resort from the Gaza Strip, and Trump gave a green light during his term to a vast expansion of settlements into the West Bank territories. One of these two - Harris or Trump - is going to be the next president. Do you want the worse one, or the less-than-worse one?

In a system where only one of the two major party candidates can win - it's delusional to think otherwise - not supporting one effectively means supporting the other. Trump's supporters, as well as the people who don't really like him but don't want a Democrat, are going to turn out in droves. If someone doesn't vote AGAINST Trump and vote FOR the only person who can defeat him, then it's effectively supporting him.

Of course Black men are allowed to make up their own minds. But the fact is, Harris *is* less favored by Black men than by Black women, and it's worth looking into *why*. And I, for one, frankly can't understand why *any* minority, given Trump's long-seated, well-established, up front and personal antipathy for all but the "token" few of any minority, would support the man. Certainly none of his policies are going to help any but the wealthiest of the wealthy among Black people. Jis unwavering support for the police "knocking heads" and conducting mass arrests - and for upholding convictions even in the face of both exonerating DNA evidence AND inculpatory DNA plus a confession from the actual criminal, ought to give pause to *anyone* concerned with the well-documented history of discriminatory policing in this country. On the other hand, I'm always willing to learn. So if there's a reason you believe Black men, in particular, should support Trump - one that explains why his support is higher among Black men than Black women - I'm all ears. And I don't mean "Because they like what he says". I mean what, specifically, does he do or does he say that they find appealing?

I can't speak to Canadian law, but I would think that the specifics of the tattoo and the circumstances of the sex would matter. A "Proudly HIV+" tattoo on the chest or abdomen, clearly visible in good light where the sexual encounter was also in good light, might well count as disclosure. On the flip side, a small "+" sign, which is certainly ambiguous, or even a biohazard tattoo of some sort, might not be considered clear enough. And of course, if the sexual encounter occurred in a dark room, or even a dimly lit one, where the other person could arguably miss the tattoo, I don't think it would count for much at all.

I'm on the outside looking in, so keep that in mind. But I think Black male culture, BROADLY speaking - not in all cases, certainly - is more misogynistic than white male culture. There are evangelicals on the black side just as there are on the white side, for instance, and black preachers tend to be as conservative, publicly speaking, on sex as white ones. Separately, I've noticed that there's also a sort of resentment of Black women for the fact that they've had to step up, across the board, to head a lot of Black families given that so many Black men aren't part of the family unit - whether because they're incarcerated, lack the resources to support the family, find that public assistance programs discourage nuclear families, or what have you. (I'll note that a lot of these problems are ones caused by White people, who wrote the laws that locked up so many Black men, who write the public assistance rules that favor single mothers over intact families, that make it difficult for Black men to find good jobs in many areas, and so forth.) That's not to say white men are much more likely to support Harris - far from it. But I think Obama's point is that where some might think Black men and women, both, would want to come together to support electing a Black woman as president, it's not as simple for a lot of the men. Again, outside looking in, so I may be completely off-base in this.

A quick reminder - posts about fetishizing or chasing STI's other than HIV are prohibited here, and HIV chasing belongs strictly in the Backroom. I take that to mean, roughly, that discussions about how to PREVENT STI's are fine, and acknowledging that they happen as an occasional to-be-expected consequence of bareback sex is fine, but once you get to the point of backhandedly congratulating yourself or others for contracting one (e.g. "what a slut I am!") it's right up against the line or over.

My guess is that the quoting person's browser is set to auto-translate into French, and when he "quote" replies, it picks up the translation rather than the original post. I recently had to do some business with a site in Germany that was all-German, and Chrome offered to auto-translate to English as I browsed from page to page. I'm guessing it's something like that here.

That is INCORRECT. It's not 400mg; in fact, the CDC recommends no more than 200mg in a single day, period. The recommended dose, and the guidance issued this summer which is likely to become the standard, is 200 mg of doxycycline ideally within 24 hours of sex, but no more than 72 hours after (by that point, any infection is likely established and will need a full course of treatment). If you have sex again within 24 hours of the DoxyPEP dose, take another dose 24 hours after the last dose - not 24 hours after sex, but 24 hours from the time you took the first dose. Here are the CDC and NIH guidelines: [think before following links] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/rr/rr7302a1.htm [think before following links] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597440/table/table-1/

That's not unusual. For the first few months after initial infection, VL goes way up, because the body doesn't yet know how to fight it (as best it can). Over time, VL decreases, not to undetectable levels (on its own), but to a point where infection, while certainly possible, isn't all that sure a thing. If left untreated, HIV will eventually overwhelm the immune system, which usually brings on multiple health problems, up to and including organ failure and death. In any event, however, the question from the member was about stopping and restarting meds. Given that (apparently, based on your profile) you aren't and never have been on meds, I'm not sure why this is relevant in any way.

As PozBearWI pointed out, you said "boarders" (a synonym for tenants). Possibly you meant "borders" but spelling counts and it's hard to know for sure what someone means, if he's using different words than the ones he may or may not mean. Where are all the jobs? Unemployment is running about where it was under Trump's first three years, which omits the disaster of his fourth year, where the unemployment rate skyrocketed to 14.8% at one point, thanks to his mismanagement of the COVID crisis. That, the resulting collapse in prices for fuel and other commodities, coupled with a crippling of the supply chain as a result, threw out all sorts of economic consequences that were left for the Biden administration to fix. Interest rates are high because all that screwing up Trump did set into effect massive inflation as the economy began recovering. Unfortunately, raising interest rates is one of the few things the government CAN do to slow down inflation, by making it more expensive to borrow. And note that another reason we ended up with an economic mess is that Trump kept demanding that rates go lower and lower - which of course was great for his personal bottom line as someone who borrows other people's money to lose in risky construction deals (like his hotel in DC), but low interest rates also meant that lots of people's bank accounts paid almost nothing in interest. (Again, that didn't bother Trump since he operates almost exclusively on credit and seldom has two nickels in the bank to rub together). As for Harris and the border: that was not her "job". The VP has no job, really, except to preside over the Senate. Biden named her his "point person" to keep tabs on what was happening at the border but she had no legal authority to do anything about it - that's a constitutional limitation on the office, and it's idiotic, frankly, to blame her for not exercising power she didn't have. Your "10 million" number is fanciful. That may or may not have been the total number of people who attempted to cross the border, but are you completely unaware that most border crossers (about 78%) are apprehended and returned? Are you aware that of those who are caught, the majority are on their second or subsequent attempt? (That means even if they all had succeeded, which they didn't, the total would have been far less than 10 million. That apprehension rate is more than double what we had back during the early GWB administration - because between his term and Trump's, the US SMARTLY deployed ways to monitor the border (including more agents, infrared cameras, drone surveillance, heat sensors, and other means to detect people attempting to cross). We'd already raised the apprehension rate dramatically - but Trump, believing in symbols over substance, promised a "big, beautiful wall" that "Mexico will pay for". They paid zip, zero, nada, and Trump's wall is already falling over in places because like most of his work, it was cheap and shoddy and for show, like his fake gold toilets and his fake everything else. But go ahead, kiss up to the serial fraudster who's already (a) settled the Trump U fraud case for $25 million, (b) settled the Trump Foundation fraud case by agreeing never to serve on a nonprofit board, ever again, (c) had his companies found guilty of criminal fraud, (d) been found personally liable for business fraud committed through his companies, (e) been found liable for sexual assault and for defamation of his assault victim - twice, and (f) has dozens of state and federal criminal indictments pending trial as we speak. Buy some of his "gold" sneakers or whatever other trash he's peddling to grift you gullible fools out of your EARNED money to pay his legal bills, despite the fact that he's supposed be "really rich". It's just funny to sit back and watch y'all make fools of yourselves, except that there's a serious risk that this charlatan may once again be president.