Trump Administration Removes Remaining HIV/AIDS Council Members

Technically, this happened yesterday, but there wasn't a post about it, and I just found out about it myself.

Well, to sum up, 6 members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA) resigned in protest of Trump's policies back in August. In November, they were down to 2 staff members and 10 council members. On Friday, the Trump Administration dismissed all remaining Council members with, believe it or not, Fed Ex letters.

Now, it's not unusual for advisory councils to shift around members after a change in administration. What makes this unusual, however, is that previously, current members of PACs have been allowed to serve out their remaining terms before retiring from the position, rather than being abruptly dismissed. It's also odd that, despite being dismissed, the council members were informed that they could...reapply for the position they were just dismissed from?

This whole thing reeks of, yet again, the Trump administration dismissing anyone that might disagree with them in favor of yes-men. Because as we all know, surrounding yourself with people who will never disagree with anything you say or offer different viewpoints is a great way to run a country.

Washington Post
CNN

Trump is a hostile threat and should be treated as such.

Ok. People who are still pro-Trump fall into one of two camps. The ones that know about the shit he's doing, and the ones who aren't. The ones who aren't need to be educating themselves more. The ones that do know, I have nothing nice to say about them.

erttheking:
Ok. People who are still pro-Trump fall into one of two camps. The ones that know about the shit he's doing, and the ones who aren't. The ones who aren't need to be educating themselves more. The ones that do know, I have nothing nice to say about them.

You are too kind. Those who 'do not know' are as unaware as the neighbors of Jews in Germany in the 30's and 40's. They know, and they are guilty.

By this rate I'll be surprised if America is gonna have democratic elections again in 3 years.

PsychedelicDiamond:
By this rate I'll be surprised if America is gonna have democratic elections again in 3 years.

Democracy died a long time ago.

Now i see why Trump was so impressed with China. I guess he also wants to beat them at being ineffective in dealing with HIV/AIDS

Kek GEOTUS is totally pwning those libtards; they're such snowflakes. #MAGA #WINNING #4DCHESS

Did I do it right?

PsychedelicDiamond:
By this rate I'll be surprised if America is gonna have democratic elections again in 3 years.

Oh don't be silly. Trump won't get rid of democracy in America without starting a revolt... he's not smart enough too.

thebobmaster:
This whole thing reeks of, yet again, the Trump administration dismissing anyone that might disagree with them in favor of yes-men.

I think there's also an undercurrent of Trump's corporate background. "Is this group of salaried people making me richer, more famous or popular, or any combination thereof in the immediate future? No? Then they're fired." He's purging the executive branch not just of people who tell him no, but also any department or personnel that he ignorantly considers superfluous.

PsychedelicDiamond:
By this rate I'll be surprised if America is gonna have democratic elections again in 3 years.

That's where Kris Kobach comes in. His job is voter suppression.

Jesus Christ, so they really are just getting rid of everyone except for Yes Men huh?

And I mean, the damage this could actually do is a little uncertain but hey I'm sure whichever antigay far right conservatives are brought on to replace them will do a fine job.

Jesus this is, really upsetting frankly. This could potentially undo decades of social progress at this rate.

Avnger:
Kek GEOTUS is totally pwning those libtards; they're such snowflakes. #MAGA #WINNING #4DCHESS

Did I do it right?

Almost, you just need about 80% more 'Cuck'.

Basically if you can just find a way to spin this to someone's wife on the opposing side is having sex with black men, then you'll have reached the peak. Also gloating directly into the faces of the people who this kind of stuff directly effects is good too.

No, please do go on about how there'd be no difference in how things are run if Hillary won. I need a good laugh.

FalloutJack:
No, please do go on about how there'd be no difference in how things are run if Hillary won. I need a good laugh.

Don't forget how Trump said he would be a great friend to the LGBTQ community. And we all know that Donald Trump never makes false statements or promises he doesn't intend to keep

Who needs public health advisors when you don't give a shit about public health, especially if it's tangentially related to demographics that aren't god-fearing gun-licking well-rounded Americans? They aren't going to help you rob from the poor and give to the rich now, are they?

Given California's official stance on HIV/AIDS I'm genuinly shocked this isn't being seen as a good thing by Democrats given it's the logical conclusion of what they've been pushing.

BeetleManiac:

FalloutJack:
No, please do go on about how there'd be no difference in how things are run if Hillary won. I need a good laugh.

Don't forget how Trump said he would be a great friend to the LGBTQ community. And we all know that Donald Trump never makes false statements or promises he doesn't intend to keep

Funny how the stance he's taken openly for 2 decades now, one that was unpopular even amongst Democrats until the mid-late 00s, is one the far left pretends he's reversed course on due to his giving the military what it wanted in the form of putting a significant health risk back on the list of things that get you disqualified from entry.

It's genuinely amazing how few actual members of the military supported Obama's move in the first place given how quickly the myth that it was wanted by the military arose. But hey a few political postings within the military stated it was a good thing, and sure they say that about literally everything the government does, but that's certainly how the military actually felt about it, the statements made by the vast majority of soldiers is wrong, not the people in positions where being the governments yes men within the military is the entire job description.

Xsjadoblayde:
Who needs public health advisors when you don't give a shit about public health

That is the most damning thing I've seen anyone say against California all year.

Oh wait, this isn't about the fact California is now perfectly okay with people spreading AIDS around without telling anyone.

Vrex360:

Avnger:
Kek GEOTUS is totally pwning those libtards; they're such snowflakes. #MAGA #WINNING #4DCHESS

Did I do it right?

Almost, you just need about 80% more 'Cuck'.

Basically if you can just find a way to spin this to someone's wife on the opposing side is having sex with black men, then you'll have reached the peak. Also gloating directly into the faces of the people who this kind of stuff directly effects is good too.

Damn, I knew I missed something. To be fair, there's only so much looking at r/the_donald that my brain can take. The shear stupidity, zeolotry[1], and hypocrisy drains my ability to think after too much exposure.

Zontar:

Xsjadoblayde:
Who needs public health advisors when you don't give a shit about public health

That is the most damning thing I've seen anyone say against California all year.

Oh wait, this isn't about the fact California is now perfectly okay with people spreading AIDS around without telling anyone.

And here comes Zontar with his typical mix of whataboutism and pure made up bullshit.

California law still categorizes the knowing sex without disclosure[2] of HIV/AIDS as a criminal offense (a misdemeanor)[3] which is the same status of crimes such as domestic battery, drug possession, prostitution, and DUI without injury.[4]

"Listen and believe"-ing of conservative alternative facts is bad for you mental faculties mate. Sources other than conservative blogs and alt-right echo chambers are your friend.

Even if we accept your alternate reality version of California, wouldn't such laws being passed make a federal HIV/AIDS advisory committee more important? (protip: the answer is yes) I mean it's not like you actually care though; you're just looking to score "political points."

Avnger:

California law still categorizes the knowing sex without disclosure[1] of HIV/AIDS as a criminal offense (a misdemeanor)

Yes, I know that it was significantly downgraded, it's still pretty retarded on the part of California's government, and the reason they use to justify it shows they're as disconnected from reality as anyone would expect California's government to be given it's result will be the exact opposite of what they think will happen.

It's actually sadly ironic that only days after the vote someone was arrested for intentionally spreading AIDS to try and kill gay people. There is no justification, no rationalisation, that can defend downgrading the crime. It should be convicted like murder, because that's what it is, not domestic violence or lower crimes.

[1] which is different from
"spreading AIDS without telling anyone"

Zontar:

Avnger:

California law still categorizes the knowing sex without disclosure[1] of HIV/AIDS as a criminal offense (a misdemeanor)

Yes, I know that it was significantly downgraded, it's still pretty retarded on the part of California's government, and the reason they use to justify it shows they're as disconnected from reality as anyone would expect California's government to be given it's result will be the exact opposite of what they think will happen.

It's actually sadly ironic that only days after the vote someone was arrested for intentionally spreading AIDS to try and kill gay people. There is no justification, no rationalisation, that can defend downgrading the crime. It should be convicted like murder, because that's what it is, not domestic violence or lower crimes.

Except AIDS is not a death sentence nowadays any more than diabetes or such. It is definitely still criminal to knowingly spread it (and is treated as such), but equating it with murder is, again, pure bullshit.

However, there are very clear reasons for downgrading the criminality. A large number of people don't get tested about whether they have HIV/AIDS due to the stigma associated with having it. Downgrading the degree of the charge means more people will be willing to take the test, find out, and treat it accordingly instead of hoping for the best and still spreading it.

Though, you refusing to do any type of research on this topic was clear from your initial post, so you not understanding the arguments for it is to be expected.

And to repeat: Even if we accept your alternate reality version of California, wouldn't such laws being passed make a federal HIV/AIDS advisory committee more important? (protip: the answer is yes) I mean it's not like you actually care though; you're just looking to score "political points."

Now if you're done deflecting from Trump's latest assault on government institutions dedicated to helping US citizens, let's get back to the topic at hand. Feel free to make a separate thread about your current lack of knowledge about SB-239 though.

[1] which is different from
"spreading AIDS without telling anyone"

Avnger:

And here comes Zontar with his typical mix of whataboutism and pure made up bullshit.

Just ignore him and play dead; maybe he'll go away...

Going back to the good old Reagan days, I see. America's worst days are yet to come.

The entire existence of a presidential council on HIV sounds like a holdover from the '80s when it was a terrifying new thing. I don't see any reason the CDC can't handle that.

Avnger says

"Except AIDS is not a death sentence nowadays any more than diabetes or such. It is definitely still criminal to knowingly spread it (and is treated as such), but equating it with murder is, again, pure bullshit."

Ok...so why should Trump have kept the advisors? Has Trump said anything like this, something to the tune of what you yourself said, like that it makes no sense to pay for advisors for a disease that isn't an automatic death sentence? Should Trump hire adviors for diabetes?

CaitSeith:
Going back to the good old Reagan days, I see. America's worst days are yet to come.

While Reagan was silent on AIDS at first...want to remind the class of just how much he was spending on AIDs research?

RikuoAmero:
Should Trump hire adviors for diabetes?

This last part left me scratching my head a bit. I mean, the answer is obviously "yes, diabetes is a massive and growing health concern" but I have no idea if you were being sarcastic or not by arguing against eliminating an advisory council simply on the basis that treatment for AIDS is better now than it was in 1985.

RikuoAmero:
Avnger says

"Except AIDS is not a death sentence nowadays any more than diabetes or such. It is definitely still criminal to knowingly spread it (and is treated as such), but equating it with murder is, again, pure bullshit."

Ok...so why should Trump have kept the advisors? Has Trump said anything like this, something to the tune of what you yourself said, like that it makes no sense to pay for advisors for a disease that isn't an automatic death sentence? Should Trump hire adviors for diabetes?

As @jademunky said... yes he probably should. Diabetes is a disease out of control in our country, and clear guidance provided by a group of medical professionals based on scientific evidence promoted as a national policy would likely be beneficial.

2 things though:

1. You took my quote completely out of context and applied a new one to it. Zontar and I were discussing California SB-239 and the criminal charges regarding AIDS spreading. An intellectually honest question may have been "should we lessen/increase the criminalization of knowing spread of diabetes?"[1] because it is at least semi-related to that conversation. Your question, however, is clearly designed to play "gotcha" with something I wasn't addressing at all.

2. Be a dear and actually click the quote button in response to others. That sends (well until trouble recently...) a notification to their inbox. Otherwise it comes across as trying to make a snide comment without wanting to deal with a response.

RikuoAmero:

CaitSeith:
Going back to the good old Reagan days, I see. America's worst days are yet to come.

While Reagan was silent on AIDS at first...want to remind the class of just how much he was spending on AIDs research?

It also still took him 6 years and 21,000 Americans dying for him to give a national address about the disease. Democrats in Congress were the ones pushing the funding in budgets.

http://sfaf.org/hiv-info/hot-topics/from-the-experts/2011-02-reagans-legacy.html

[1] BTW, my answer to that would be to consider children under a certain age contracting Type 2 to be cases of child abuse

One thing I want to address is that he isn't eliminating the Council. He's simply firing (or whatever the government equivalent is) all the Council members, saying that they can re-apply later if they wish.

The reason I'm focusing on that part is that a lot of the discussion is "Why is this Council even a thing? Why should Trump keep around an advisory Council for AIDS?" While a decent question, and one that could lead to some good debate, that isn't really the issue at hand. Again, the Council is still a thing. He's just eliminated all the Councilors, and is going to replace them at some point. Presumably, with people of his choosing. THAT'S the issue, to me. After all, Trump's previous appointments (for example, Besty DeVos as Secretary of Education) show that he has a history of putting people without qualifications in powerful positions, and I have serious concerns it may happen again.

thebobmaster:
One thing I want to address is that he isn't eliminating the Council. He's simply firing (or whatever the government equivalent is) all the Council members, saying that they can re-apply later if they wish.

The reason I'm focusing on that part is that a lot of the discussion is "Why is this Council even a thing? Why should Trump keep around an advisory Council for AIDS?" While a decent question, and one that could lead to some good debate, that isn't really the issue at hand. Again, the Council is still a thing. He's just eliminated all the Councilors, and is going to replace them at some point. Presumably, with people of his choosing. THAT'S the issue, to me. After all, Trump's previous appointments (for example, Besty DeVos as Secretary of Education) show that he has a history of putting people without qualifications in powerful positions, and I have serious concerns it may happen again.

That's if he actually ever gets around to making the appointments.
There's still - as of late November - around 250 positions Trump has failed to nominate anyone for that are being filled by temps, which are running up on their terms limited by federal law. There are still plenty of people awaiting their confirmations, but there's still far too many positions that haven't even gotten a nominee.

Dr. Thrax:
That's if he actually ever gets around to making the appointments.
There's still - as of late November - around 250 positions Trump has failed to nominate anyone for that are being filled by temps, which are running up on their terms limited by federal law. There are still plenty of people awaiting their confirmations, but there's still far too many positions that haven't even gotten a nominee.

And that's beside the general staffing problems John Kelly's run into. It's difficult to find people who want to work for the Trump administration who aren't child-eatingly insane and horrifyingly unqualified. Everyone worth their salt is trying to get out of the blast radius of the Mueller investigation.

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here