You're viewing part of a thread.
Fauci was not the one on the news cracking jokes about it and making fun of the gay men it was affecting. The entire administration didn't take it seriously.
Can you cite where Reagan cracked jokes about it? I don't remember that. It was officially called GRID in the beginning. It was believed to be a gay disease and that belief came from the CDC and other health organizations.
It was believed to be a gay disease and that belief came from the CDC and other health organizations.
Wow, shocker. In a period of history where queerness was regularly met with violence for being queer, straight people in positions of power were making crude assumptions about the queer community. I'm pretty sure the discrimination came first, and that's where assumptions, even from scientists who are fallible human beings like anyone else, came from. I mean hell, this was barely 30 years after Alan Turing, a fucking war hero was chemically castrated for being gay. Doctors signed off on that, too.
It doesn't mean it wasn't an issue that traveled through the entire administration. You can dump it all on Fauci's feet if you want, but it was painfully obviously much bigger than that, with the dominant straight community pretending it wasn't an issue, or an issue to be joked about since they didn't think it would affect them.
It's more complicated than that. Yes gays were persecuted in the 80's that is a fact. It was still illegal in many places until very recently (Not being gay, but gay sex).
The issue was early on it was only in the gay population. That is why they thought it was a gay disease.
As the blood supply became contaminated, it spread into the heterosexual population and that caused an even larger panic.
Yet, we still do not have a vaccine for it. we do have some good treatment options but AIDS for whatever reason has never received the funding or priority that it should have. That isn't just a Reagan thing, that is an larger issue.
That's a take I'll agree with. Still don't agree Reagan was a good President, though.
Reagan is complicated. There are things I love about him and things I hate about him.
Like all people, they are either all good or bad. As a country we need more nuance to grow as a country.
We have become too partisan as a nation and that is why we are where we are today. We pretend everyone is binary, either good or evil.
You still have people complaining about Clinton when history has shown he did a bang up job. I didn't vote for him at the time but I wish I had. Ignore the BJ crap. That should have never been an issue but times were different.
He was the last president I can remember other than Reagan who really did things to transform that nation. some good/some bad but overall he did well. Yet people still want to talk about the damn BJ.
If he could run again I would vote for him.
Yeah, we have different feelings on that. A much older man taking advantage of a younger woman when he is in a professional position of power over her is skeevy as fuck, no matter how you slice it. The Republicans were full of shit and just trying to discredit him, but the fact of the matter is he is a scummy old pervert philanderer. Honestly, a lot of my personal issues with Hillary Clinton center around her not divorcing his ass and having a great political career without him. She should have, I would have a lot more respect for her today if she had. She covered for his creepy ass in public.
That isn't to say that other President's didn't do similar things and just didn't have them publicized, but those were wrong, too.
Also, I will say that Bill Clinton at least admits when he fucked up.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bill-clinton-we-blew-it-on-global-food/
Today's global food crisis shows "we all blew it, including me when I was president," by treating food crops as commodities instead of as a vital right of the world's poor, Bill Clinton told a U.N. gathering on Thursday.
There was a power play in place but it appears it was consensual. Skeevy is not the same as spending millions trying to impeach the man over a legal act. So we both agree it was skeevy and I hope we both agree the impeachment over it was BS. She didn't divorce him because she didn't care. This wasn't his first rodeo. He was accused of sexual assault as the governor of Arkansas. When you get two people like that together, they live very different lives than we do. I actually thought she would beat Trump based on the Clinton legacy. I am not fan of Hilary but I have a lot of respect for her accomplishments.
I would like to see our agriculture policy change. We have the ability to feed the world and I think that would help reduce tension in the world. Right now we pay farmers not to grow food. We should continue to pay them but allow them to export the product.
I know there are still issues with that since we would harm their local farms but we need to figure out something to do with the capacity we can produce.
There should be few starving people in the world with the amount of food we can easily generate.
Sorry I gotta run for work, don't have time to say much other than "Yeah, the impeachment was total bullshit." I think it makes Clinton trashy person, not that it impacted how he ran the country. It was a grift, but that's all they've ever got.
Also might want to read this over, too.
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo
Given my PTSD and my understanding of trauma, it’s very likely that my thinking would not necessarily be changing at this time had it not been for the #MeToo movement—not only because of the new lens it has provided but also because of how it has offered new avenues toward the safety that comes from solidarity. Just four years ago, in an essay for this magazine, I wrote the following: “Sure, my boss took advantage of me, but I will always remain firm on this point: it was a consensual relationship. Any ‘abuse’ came in the aftermath, when I was made a scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position.” I now see how problematic it was that the two of us even got to a place where there was a question of consent. Instead, the road that led there was littered with inappropriate abuse of authority, station, and privilege. (Full stop.)
Now, at 44, I’m beginning (just beginning) to consider the implications of the power differentials that were so vast between a president and a White House intern. I’m beginning to entertain the notion that in such a circumstance the idea of consent might well be rendered moot. (Although power imbalances—and the ability to abuse them—do exist even when the sex has been consensual.)
But it’s also complicated. Very, very complicated. The dictionary definition of “consent”? “To give permission for something to happen.” And yet what did the “something” mean in this instance, given the power dynamics, his position, and my age? Was the “something” just about crossing a line of sexual (and later emotional) intimacy? (An intimacy I wanted—with a 22-year-old’s limited understanding of the consequences.) He was my boss. He was the most powerful man on the planet. He was 27 years my senior, with enough life experience to know better. He was, at the time, at the pinnacle of his career, while I was in my first job out of college. (Note to the trolls, both Democratic and Republican: none of the above excuses me for my responsibility for what happened. I meet Regret every day.)
“This” (sigh) is as far as I’ve gotten in my re-evaluation; I want to be thoughtful. But I know one thing for certain: part of what has allowed me to shift is knowing I’m not alone anymore. And for that I am grateful.
I—we—owe a huge debt of gratitude to the #MeToo and Time’s Up heroines. They are speaking volumes against the pernicious conspiracies of silence that have long protected powerful men when it comes to sexual assault, sexual harassment, and abuse of power.
Exactly. It’s complicated. It’s trashy but it shouldn’t have become the circus it became.
I agree with the power issues but that’s between them and not the American people. It shouldn’t have blown up like it did.