|
Luigi Thirty posted:The FDA has officially lifted its ban on homosexual men donating blood. Does the year count if we have sex with a transwoman who still has man bits?
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:When I donated plasma it was funny how much sex with men came up. Also funny that sex with another man before 1987 was okay. Well, it was kept to safe spaces like public restrooms at gas stations, truck stops and rest areas. And in the back of dirty movie theaters. That made all the difference.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:27
|
|
|
Gay people weren't invented until 1988
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:28
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Gay people weren't invented until 1988 It wasn't 1939?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:Kasich got a new website Kasich was already my favorite Republican candidate, and his use of actual Cyrillic instead of the usual faux-Cyrillic just cements this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Does the year count if we have sex with a transwoman who still has man bits? Yes, cause what the FDA doesn't want to say is the real risk vector is unprotected anal intercourse as that would remove eligibility from a lot of straight people too.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
Dr Cheeto posted:Gay people weren't invented until 1988 They were just considered "icky and scary" rather than "actual pandemic vector" until the 80's.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:37
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Yes, cause what the FDA doesn't want to say is the real risk vector is unprotected anal intercourse as that would remove eligibility from a lot of straight people too. If we banned heterosexuality this wouldn't be a problem. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 19:53
|
|
|
If the risk of testing is that it doesn't pick up positive results for the first few days, why not just make the period of abstinence required two weeks? Also why isn't there a Kelly cartoon about FDA approved gay blood yet?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Mulva posted:Yes, cause what the FDA doesn't want to say is the real risk vector is unprotected anal intercourse as that would remove eligibility from a lot of straight people too. Unprotected anal sex for straight, married people is ok as long as they don't pull out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Alfred P. Pseudonym posted:Hillary said may the force be with you. This is really going to hurt her among left-leaning libertarians. LeeMajors posted:Other dominoes fall today? This week? Guessing that he is encouraging his donors to invest in video editing software and stock footage companies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
thanks, obamaquote:The Obama administration has finalized its first change to the ban on blood donations from gay and bisexual men in 30 years, though LGBT advocates argue the new policies are still discriminatory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Another vector for the gay plague. It was at least tolerable when we only had to avoid TV and fluoridated water, now I have to get my do not resuscitate paperwork in order! On a more serious note, is there a decent breakdown of where presidential campaign money actually goes? Does an appreciable percentage of it get redistributed to actual people like photo op restaurant owners and members of the valued locality of Bumblefuck, Nowhere instead of media conglomerates and sycophants?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Trump can't actually turn out his "voters" in Iowa, which he'll lose to (most likely) Cruz or Rubio. Santorum, Huckabee, and probably Carson drop out at this point (if Carson has cash left he'll stay in just to keep building his mailing list). In New Hampshire the top three will be Rubio, and two of Jeb!, Cruz, Kasich, or Christie. At that point the field condenses to three or four candidates plus Trump and the winnowing continues through each primary state. Trump may stay in the race just to keep trolling Jeb! but after Super Tuesday it'll be clear he won't win. I appreciate the response! I think you're underestimating both how well Trump will turn out his support, and how quickly everyone drops out of the race - I've read too many articles on how everyone has more money than anyone expected due to CU, and how even laggards like Huckabee are planning to stay in through Super Tuesday. But how much of what I'm reading is truth and how much is pundits huffing their own farts - I guess we'll see come February.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Yeah doesn't Trump actually have a really solid ground organization and more staffers in Iowa than anyone? Why would he not be able to gotv?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
greatn posted:Yeah doesn't Trump actually have a really solid ground organization and more staffers in Iowa than anyone? Why would he not be able to gotv? Has yet to be seen. Are the sort of people counted as "staffers" for trump the sort that will effectively get other people to the polls? Most Trump supporters I've met (or seen interviewed) are insufferable fuckwits. Will they be able to convince anyone not already going to the polls to go? The only successful strategy I can even imagine working if trip trump is the candidate is a last minute "vote against Hillary" push. Then again, maybe rubes and yokels would want to ride in a gold painted trump bus with really luxurious bottled water...
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
greatn posted:Yeah doesn't Trump actually have a really solid ground organization and more staffers in Iowa than anyone? Why would he not be able to gotv? Not according to that NY Times report I linked in my post. My bet is that whatever staff the Trump campaign has spends all of their time coordinating rallies, which is a lot of work, but doesn't help with GOTV.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
greatn posted:Yeah doesn't Trump actually have a really solid ground organization and more staffers in Iowa than anyone? Why would he not be able to gotv? He doesn't really have a great ground game. He also really hasn't spent that much money at this point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:When I donated plasma it was funny how much sex with men came up. Also funny that sex with another man before 1987 was okay. It's 1977 because that's an estimate of the time when HIV first started to infect people in the US so they just picked a cutoff year. It was a pretty dumb and arbitrary policy and I'm glad that it's a bit more logical now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Chelsea Clinton just announced she's pregnant again and expecting in the summer, probably during the convention as a stunt to steal all of Bernie's delegate support!!
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
I for whatever reason read that as Chelsea Manning and got really confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Ahh, the first freeper post about it is perfection http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3375275/posts#1quote:Too bad Webb isn’t here to see his grandchild.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Ahh, the first freeper post about it is perfection http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3375275/posts#1 Well that was a fun ride down a hole of crazy. Webb Hubbell for those interested.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Mr Hootington posted:Well that was a fun ride down a hole of crazy. Webb Hubbell for those interested. I thought Jim Webb, and was confused.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Aurubin posted:I thought Jim Webb, and was confused. I recommend brushing up on Clinton conspiracies because we're in for a renaissance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
Forgive the derail: I could use a recommendation for a USPOL-esque book that's come out recently. I'm getting someone Jim Crow's Last Stand, but could use a backup gift. My own reading preferences are terrible, so I'd appreciate a suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Forgive the derail: I could use a recommendation for a USPOL-esque book that's come out recently. I'm getting someone Jim Crow's Last Stand, but could use a backup gift. My own reading preferences are terrible, so I'd appreciate a suggestion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:How depressed do you want them to get, on a scale of 1-10 Anything's fine, guy in question regularly watches/reads stuff much more gut-wrenching than I'd care for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:01
|
|
|
Well there's gut-wrenching and then there's utter despair.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Ted Cruz is now the favorite to win the Republican nomination according to predict.org bets. This is the first time Rubio has fallen off of the lead since October. The betting market had really fallen to a three way tie between Rubio, Cruz and Trump. I'd be hard pressed to come up with better percentage break downs than 33/33/33 myself (that's certainly more realistic than whatever 538 is pushing).
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Forgive the derail: I could use a recommendation for a USPOL-esque book that's come out recently. I'm getting someone Jim Crow's Last Stand, but could use a backup gift. My own reading preferences are terrible, so I'd appreciate a suggestion. The OP contains several recommendations
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:Forgive the derail: I could use a recommendation for a USPOL-esque book that's come out recently. I'm getting someone Jim Crow's Last Stand, but could use a backup gift. My own reading preferences are terrible, so I'd appreciate a suggestion. Rick Perlstein's books on the rise of American conservatism are great for that despondent feeling of seeing all the same things play out the exact same way all over again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Ted Cruz is now the favorite to win the Republican nomination according to predict.org bets. Am I wrong in that from a GOP Establishment perspective, a Cruz nomination is barely any different from a Trump one? I would have thought that even if Trump fizzled out, all efforts would immediately be directed at loving over Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:Ted Cruz is now the favorite to win the Republican nomination according to predict.org bets. I honestly don't think he's going to fall to the wayside like Rubio either because he's sufficiently anti-immigrant and knows all the evangelical codewords. I think it's Cruz v Trump up until the convention where Trump is the clear winner and the RNC screws him anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Am I wrong in that from a GOP Establishment perspective, a Cruz nomination is barely any different from a Trump one? I would have thought that even if Trump fizzled out, all efforts would immediately be directed at loving over Cruz. You are not wrong and it doesn't appear to matter. For one thing the establishment does not actually have any magic power to fix elections (ask Eric Cantor) for another their efforts are still divided and many of them resent Rubio almost as much as they despise Cruz.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
pathetic little tramp posted:I honestly don't think he's going to fall to the wayside like Rubio either because he's sufficiently anti-immigrant and knows all the evangelical codewords. I think it's Cruz v Trump up until the convention where Trump is the clear winner and the RNC screws him anyway. this. he is monster bigot but the gop feels that he is safer and more "electable" pick then trump (spoiler, he isn't)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:Am I wrong in that from a GOP Establishment perspective, a Cruz nomination is barely any different from a Trump one? I would have thought that even if Trump fizzled out, all efforts would immediately be directed at loving over Cruz. Cruz is at least consistently conservative. If elected, he'd repeal Obamacare, he'd sign tax cut bills, he'd shift money from social programs to the military, he'd appoint conservative judges, etc. Nobody really knows what President Trump would do, including Donald Trump, I suspect. On the other hand, Senator Cruz has also helped fundraise for groups that run primary campaigns against sitting Republican Senators and they definitely don't want him doing that from the White House. President Trump wouldn't care about Republican primaries.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
If it came down to Cruz and Trump the establishment will easily pick Cruz because he is actually a Republican with the same positions as them on all the issues they care about. Trump is a goddamn mad man with wildly unorthodox positions who is completely unpredictable. Cruz's position is not without precedent. They are a party full of pricks who can't stand each other. George W's Republican party hated McCain but eventually lined up behind him in the face of loons like Huckabee and Paul. DynamicSloth fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 06:09 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:If it came down to Cruz and Trump the establishment will easily pick Cruz because he is actually a Republican with the same positions as them on all the issues they care about. Trump is a goddamn mad man with wildly unorthodox positions who is completely unpredictable. I suspect quite a few would support Cruz over Trump in a primary (but would prefer literally anyone else if possible) because they believe Cruz will inevitably fail in the general election and they'd love to see him get kicked, with the added benefit of purging some of the argument that they need to nominate "true conservatives".
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2015 23:33
|
|