US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1099

On June 10 2014 09:16 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

100 years from now they'll be saying the same about us

On June 10 2014 09:01 JonnyBNoHo wrote:

Historically, no. Public support for homosexual marriage is a recent thing.

On June 10 2014 09:12 Roswell wrote:
Gay guys still cant give blood so there is that

On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote:

That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing.

Source

Rep. Vance McAllister (R-LA) openly acknowledged on Thursday that members of Congress expect to receive campaign contributions for voting a certain way on bills.

During an event with the Northeast Chapter of Louisiana CPAs, the congressman shared an anecdote that illustrated how "money controls Washington," according to the Ouachita Citizen. He said that many approach their work in D.C. as a "steady cycle of voting for fundraising and money instead of voting for what is right."

McAllister discussed a bill related to the Bureau of Land Management, which he voted against. McAllister told the crowd that an unnamed colleague told him on the House floor that if he voted "no" on the bill, he would receive a contribution from Heritage, a conservative think tank.

“I played dumb and asked him, ‘How would you vote?’” McAllister said. “He told me, ‘Vote no and you will get a $1,200 check from the Heritage Foundation. If you vote yes, you will get a $1,000 check from some environmental impact group.’”

Heritage Foundation, an educational nonprofit, is barred from contributing directly to candidates. Its sister political action organization, Heritage Action, however, is allowed to do so.

McAllister did not receive a contribution, but his colleague did, the congressman said.

McAllister said he wasn't surprised he didn't get a check, as Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and Heritage are "upset" with him. The congressman was caught kissing one of his staffers, and has since decided not to run for re-election in 2014.

“They are always trying to throw bullets at me," McAllister said of Jindal and the Heritage Foundation. "Once I told my friend about Gov. Jindal being mad at me, he said, ‘Well, that’s why you didn’t get a check.’”

On June 10 2014 11:24 Funnytoss wrote:


Yeah, but then even if you test clean you're not allowed to, so...

On June 10 2014 12:52 aksfjh wrote:

Same if you go out of country. If it's a 1 in 5 chance you have HIV/AIDS, it's not a good idea to be taking and using your blood to save somebody's life. Note: this is only if you have had gay sex. If you're a gay virgin, you can still give blood.

If it turned out left-handed people had a 1 in 5 chance of being HIV positive, you can bet your ass you'd see the same kind of selective processing.

On June 10 2014 09:32 aksfjh wrote:

That has to do with the prevalence of HIV/AIDS in the gay male community. As of 2011, nearly 20% of gay men have HIV/AIDS. They account for over 50% of all HIV/AIDS cases in the US, and that share is growing based on recent trends. It's a numbers thing, not a discrimination thing.

Source

On June 10 2014 15:37 Duvon wrote:

Questionable.
First they estimate only 2% of the population being actively gay or bi (>5% Source), then they state that approximately 450k of those people have an infection.
US pop 2010 was around 310 million. 2% of that ->6,2 million. 450k of 6200 -> 7,3%.
They do state in your source that of the people testing within a national testing program, almost 20% had an infection.

That said, I don't find it wholly unreasonable that active practitioners of gay sex should be barred from giving blood. I do think that multiple tests over a year for example, with no sexual relations in between, should be able to clear an individual of that "tainted" status.

As federal officials scramble to care for the thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children who have surged across the border in recent months, records obtained by BuzzFeed show that some minors have claimed that immigration officials physically abused them.

One girl from El Salvador said she was run over by a U.S. government vehicle while being taken into custody in June 2011. The girl was turned over to a shelter overseen by a different federal agency and then was taken to the hospital, which diagnosed a “crush injury” in her right leg. She told a clinician that she was “trying to run away from immigration when she fell down and her right leg was run over by one of the tires on the vehicle,” according to an incident report.

She also said she believed that immigration officials “were not attending to her needs and did not believe that the injury had been caused by being run over.”

A boy from Guatemala claimed that a border patrol agent kicked him in the stomach while he was inside a detention cell in July 2011.

Other minors reported being punched, denied medical treatment, or abused verbally.

On June 10 2014 09:16 KwarK wrote:

Given lesbians can I'm assuming it's a public health thing rather than a homophobia thing. Similar to how sub-Saharan Africans can't give blood and African Americans can.

On June 11 2014 04:04 Roe wrote:

It's still legitimizing prejudice. It's like how your 'individual' insurance profile is based on stereotyped inferential statistics, rather than actual facts about you personally. You could argue it's an efficiency or triage issue, but that would not eliminate the fact that they assume things about you based on others' behaviour. It's disheartening to see conservatives let the majority stain the character of the individual, not something I thought they believed in.

You may not donate blood if:
You spent three or more months cumulatively in the United Kingdom (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, Gibraltar or the Falkland Islands) from 1980 through 1996.
You spent five years or more cumulatively in Europe (including the United Kingdom from 1980 through 1996) from 1980 to the present.
You received a blood transfusion in the United Kingdom or France since 1980.
You were a member of the US military from 1980 through 1996, a civilian military employee, or a dependent of a member of the U.S. military and spent six months or more at a US military base in any of the following countries:
From 1980 to 1990: Belgium, the Netherlands, or Germany
From 1980 to 1996: Spain, Portugal, Turkey, Italy, or Greece

On June 11 2014 04:04 Roe wrote:

It's still legitimizing prejudice. It's like how your 'individual' insurance profile is based on stereotyped inferential statistics, rather than actual facts about you personally. You could argue it's an efficiency or triage issue, but that would not eliminate the fact that they assume things about you based on others' behaviour. It's disheartening to see conservatives let the majority stain the character of the individual, not something I thought they believed in.

On June 11 2014 05:47 Souma wrote:
All the blood that is donated gets tested anyway, does it not? If you're gonna test the blood then what's the point of discriminating?

I sure as hell hope they're testing the blood for infections, anyway.

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) revived his call for gun safety legislation Tuesday when asked if he'd like to see his bill mandating background checks for firearm purchases at gun shows and Internet sales come up in the Senate again.

"I'm always -- I mean, it just makes so much sense," Manchin told TPM during a brief interview in the Capitol. "How do you argue against finding out if a person is a criminal or a person's mentally been adjudicated. All this needs to be done. Sure. I'd like to see reasonable people come to reasonable decisions on a reasonable piece of legislation."

Manchin's remarks come in the wake of two shootings in the span of three days -- one Sunday in Las Vegas that lead to five deaths (including two police officers), and a school high shooting Tuesday in Oregon. The Vegas shooting caused Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) to reiterate his call for expanded background checks on Monday.

On June 11 2014 05:47 Souma wrote:
All the blood that is donated gets tested anyway, does it not? If you're gonna test the blood then what's the point of discriminating?

I sure as hell hope they're testing the blood for infections, anyway.

On June 11 2014 05:25 Danglars wrote:
If only we had an administration that didn't constantly talk up the DREAM act and a government that is committed to protecting the southern border against illegal entry. These "thousands of unaccompanied immigrant children" is not a freak occurrence, like the news story suggests with its missing back-story. It's the result of irresponsible policies advocated by business interests and bleeding-heart liberals. The current political climate gives hopes for illegal immigrants to sneak across, and become full-fledged citizens in a matter of years, if not by act of Congress (DREAM act, Schumer's bill, past amnesty attempts, future promised legislation) then by Obama's pen (DHS orders amongst others, striking words about using his pen and phone when Congress will not act). By maintaining a porous border, they are creating and exacerbating a crisis that leads to much pain and suffering for would-be illegal immigrants. It's encouraged and supported by the Obama administration.

Put border security in place first, then tackle simplifying and expanding legal immigration into the United States and temporary worker visas. It isn't 1986 anymore, we now know all about passing amnesty with empty promises on security.