GoAU
-
Posts
4,915 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by GoAU
-
-
4 hours ago, AU9377 said:
Number 1 - there was an attempt to get social media platforms to restrict the spreading of false and dangerous misinformation during an international pandemic that saw millions die. You are worried about that, but not worried about the government's collection of all other sorts of data?
Number 2 - why would he act differently than every other President in history? The former President spoke with Sean Hannity nightly.
Number 3 - This is rich. The current administration has actually gone the extra mile in showing its distance from decisions made at the DOJ. That is a far cry from his predecessor.
Number 4 - we need immigration reform.. What else is new?
Number 5 is misleading. He never attempted to forgive all student loan debt.
Number 6 - At no time has the administration suggested that gas stoves should be banned. The EPA was asked to study the amount of methane produced and determine if those levels could be harmful indoors. There are rebates and incentives to encourage people to buy electric appliances, but no bans.
7. Seems petty to me, but I have no idea.
8. More gun lobby stuff... God knows we don't have enough guns on the street.
1) Who cares what he claims his intent was - it’s authoritarian garbage to gain power he doesn’t have. Also, who said I didn’t care about collection of personal data? No need to put words in my mouth that I never said.
2) Speaking with some reporters more than others is one thing, intentionally freezing out reporters deemed “hostile” is a completely different matter. Trump took more questions from a hostile media in one week than Biden has taken his whole presidency. Trying to say he is just doing what every other president has done is disingenuous at best, and more likely pure dishonesty.
3) Do you really believe that? The fact that his biggest opponent just so happened to come under multiple indictments at that start of campaign season as opposed to the whole first 2 years of Biden’s presidency seems just a little coincidental don’t you think? The DOJ letting charges against the president’s son lapse under statute of limitations seem odd? How about a ridiculous plea deal that also precluded all future charges? That deal was absurd and it took a judge stepping in to prevent it. This is FAR from a neutral DOJ, keep drinking your Kool Aid.
4) What else is new is not even enforcing the laws he has available to him. To go even further, intentionally removing laws and tools he has to fight illegal immigration. Not to mention deliberately undercutting state’s attempts to enforce their own laws. He is circumventing laws and his duty in an attempt to sway future elections. Pure Authoritarian garbage
5) Whether he tried to forgive all or some, it is power clearly outside his role. More authoritarianism.
6) The EPA is under what branch? Also, what about air conditioners and ceiling fans? Crazy unilateral overreach - another example of authoritarian overreach
7) You really need to do some unbiased research if you don’t know much about it. “Finding a reason” to drive people out of business for minor clerical errors (we are NOT talking about criminal acts, that should be prosecuted) and bringing the full weight of the ATF / DOJ down on small business owners in an attempt to revoke their FFLs is pure authoritarian garbage.
8.) Trying to dismiss it doesn’t make it go away. And it’s not “pure bun lobby stuff” it is pure fact. There are estimates of 3-7 MILLION stabilizing braces in law abiding citizens possession and they have been there for over a decade. Chairman Biden unilaterally deceeed them to be illegal on a whim, and save an injunction in the 5th circuit court would have made millions of lawful citizens unknowingly felons overnight.
Sorry, but each and everyone of these are perfect examples of Biden’s authoritarian policies and you have debunked none of them.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
7 hours ago, StatTiger said:
AUsome video! Very well done - thank you!
6 hours ago, StatTiger said:He looked back one too many times.
I was so worried he slowed down a little bit thinking he was there and was going to coast in. Just glad he held on to the ball.
-
1
-
-
On 11/12/2023 at 11:17 AM, Win4AU said:
Lew is literally the foundation of the rebuild. Need 4 more just like him on the line.
This is so true. Lew has done an absolutely AMAZING job as a center. To step in and fill those shoes is great for anyone, to do it as a true freshman in SEC play is what makes it AMAZING!
-
1
-
-
18 hours ago, AU9377 said:
Can you list some of them?
Sure. Off the top of my head here are a few:
1) His attempt to create a “Ministy of Truth” to control the narrative on the internet
2) His stifling of the media and only calling on certain, pre-screened reporters as has been documented numerous times
3) His weaponization of the DOJ to attack his political adversaries while simultaneously protecting his son, brother, and other allies
4) His selective enforcement of laws and his duty under oath to secure our nation (border).
5) His attempt to grab power that is clearly NOT his in unilaterally forgiving student loan debt
6) Misuse of the EPA to unilaterally ban various appliances.
7) Directing the ATF to target legal firearms dealers in an intent to run them out of business for minor clerical issues
8 ) Directing the ATF, without authority, to retroactively ban items that have been legal for a decade or more like unfinished frames or receivers or pistol stabilizing braces which not only violate prior ATF rulings, the APA, and the 2A
Shall I go on?
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Aufan59 said:
I disagree. For large metropolitan areas to have less influence, one vote in a metropolitan area must be worth significantly less than a vote elsewhere.
In senate voting, this can be as high as 70:1.
Not a great system.
They already do in the House. Ask the people in rural Illinois, California and New York how they like having “Urban values” crammed down their throats.
In my opinion, this will be one of the biggest issues our country will have to face in the coming years. How do you respect people’s values and lifestyles without one side trying to force their will upon others?
-
1 hour ago, homersapien said:
What happen to that "life" that is involved?
You are not consistent.
I am consistent. One involves consent and a willing decision, the other doesn’t. The decision would be in the first trimester.
41 minutes ago, homersapien said:You are so right about this.
As a species we have let our technological capability far outstrip our moral/emotional/wisdom capability. And I have thought this for years - starting with the understanding the significance of fusion weapons.
I read a whimsical but interesting thesis a while back that postulated the reason we have failed to make contact with a fellow "advanced" species somewhere in the galaxy is that when a species develops artificial intelligence, extinction quickly follows.
“The Great Filter” as an answer to the Fermi Paradox - and probably one of the better thesis’.
-
1 hour ago, homersapien said:
You certainly don't think much of women if you seriously think casual or abortions for birth control in the third trimester are common. That doesn't even pass the common sense test.
We've already seen the threat posed to women with life-threatening conditions occurring in the third trimester who live in states with such restrictions, yet you would still have the state make those personal, medical decisions.
Since when is that "conservative"?
You are incorrect, I think equally of all people, have been married to a wonderful woman for almost 30 years and have raised 4 wonderful daughters who have grown into fantastic young women. So I wouldn’t try to ascertain what I or anyone else thinks.
If abortion in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters are so uncommon, and we carve out exceptions for life threatening conditions to the mother, what exactly ARE you fighting for? To me it sounds as if all you have left to fight for are the causal abortions?
-
I have never said there was not been a period with white privilege - slavery and segregation were clearly horrible examples. All I'm saying is that the best way to move forward, is to move forward. Treat everyone as equal, quit using racism to fight racism, and move forward. Instead, we continue to divide people by race, give preferences to some over others for things almost nobody today had anything to do with and wonder why there is racism. It's a recipe for disaster and makes zero sense.
If you have a better way to remedy the situation, I'd really like to hear your opinion.
-
34 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:
So, you trust the government to make crucial personal decisions? Interesting.
Go find a doctor in this country who will perform a late term abortion without necessity. You won't.
No, it’s not a government decision, it was a personal decision, made months earlier .
And no (before you say it) I don’t have an issue with an early abortion for rape and incest.
-
2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:
Unfortunately, those situations aren't that rare. Why do we not simply let women and their doctors handle it.
Because there is a human life involved that doesn’t get a voice in the decision. People can argue all they want about the beginning of life, but by the second and definitely by the third trimester it is undeniably a human life.
-
Garbage hit by the pigs
-
2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:
Liar. There are simply people who understand the necessity for late term abortion when a fetus is not viable and/or the mother's life is endangered. Inhumane "christians" disagree.
So how about we carve out exceptions for those two rare cases - how do you feel about that?
Your petty jabs and insults are kind of funny. You’re like a child….
-
Just because we have more people incarcerated has nothing to do with whether people are being held accountable. If we have record numbers of people committing crimes, the incarceration rate follows. You are looking at the effect, not the cause.
As to “white privilege” I’m sorry, but I just don’t buy it. There are plenty of white people born into poverty, single parent houses, etc. Racism cannot be used to fight racism. As long as you keep dividing people and using racism against whole groups of people, we all lose. People are people, some are born into better circumstances than others, but all are ultimately responsible for their own actions and making their own decisions.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, ScotsAU said:
I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone that supports late term abortions. Most pro choice folks are just asking to keep first trimester abortions legal.
According to the article above from Forbes, 93% of abortions happen in the first trimester (13 weeks) and 80% happen before 9 weeks. There are estimates of 630k to 886k abortions a year - so let’s assume the average of 758k. This would tell us 53k abortions a year are late term (2nd or 3rd trimester).
You would think there could be a consensus that this could be a reasonable start of some sort of compromise, but 48% support it and 43% are opposed to restricting abortion to the first trimester. So apparently there are a large number of people that aren’t opposed to later term abortion.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:
I think democrats who push for more massive programs, never ending regulations, and controls - are clearly trending towards nanny state, big brother central gov. Old school Marxist stuff.
However, Trump is a very different kind of threat. He’s a Putin wannabe - who ended democracy in Russia. 1st American candidate who did/has not accept the results of an election and has said he’ll pardon those you tried to overturn it. And he endorses gop candidates not based on ability but loyalty to only him. He is a text book banana republic/ mafia style dictator that manipulates the disenfranchised. I’d expect to see this in maybe Angola or Peru - but not in the friggin US. He’s imo a traitor.
I’m not a Trump first guy. I actually wanted Cruz in the first election, and prefer DeSantis or Nikki in this one. I don’t support everything Trump has done, but he did better than I first thought, and tons better than Biden.
I still laugh when people claim Trump is authoritarian though, especially when compared to Biden. For example, Biden’s “Ministry of Truth” attempt, weaponizing the DOJ against a sitting President, using “intelligence agencies and agents” to do his bidding, feeding the media what they will and won’t cover and the party line they will repeat, banning all sorts of appliances, and I can go on and on…..
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:
You are a liar. Trump has almost twice the executive orders as Biden. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders
Let me know when Biden attempts to deny the will of the people with force.
I swear, sometimes I can't tell if you are delusional or just slow, but I'll break down my post a little more clearly for you. If I would have intended to use only Executive Orders as the sole standard I would have stated such, but I did not. I suggest you reconsider your pathetic attempt at a personal dig and try again.
If you'd like to rehash January 6th all over again have at it. I'm still waiting to see where you can show evidence of Trump using force or commanding others to use force. Until then, keep spitting out your pre-packaged talking points.....
-
28 minutes ago, homersapien said:
That sounds like you are suggesting that all citizens are not created equal (have equal rights) or they shouldn't be.Hillary has constantly maintained the 2016 election results weren’t legitimate. r
1) To auburnnatl1's point, the reasoning behind the constitution does not reflect today's reality. Like it or not, we are currently one (large) country made up of states with limited degrees of autonomy. Our constitution needs to be changed to better reflect modern reality. Hopefully, it won't take the "election" of an authoritarian like Donald Trump to create enough of a crisis to prompt that change.
2) There is no rational reason why citizens representation should be diminished because they live in cities either nationally or in states. That's like saying sparsely populated counties should have equal representative power at the state level as more populous counties.
Hell, cities pretty much determine the outcome in even rural states. That's as it should be. To claim otherwise is clearly undemocratic.
I find it absolutely hilarious that you call DJT authoritarian, when Biden has launched more unilateral decrees, banned more items, and assaulted constitutional rights than Trump did. Out of curiosity, what would you say are a couple of examples of things Trump did that are "authoritarian"?
It's ironic that you bold "like it or not" in the same sentence advocating changing the Constitution to meet your whims. I suggest you are the one that should "like it or not". There is a measure to change the Constitution - and it isn't based on your opinion, like it or not.
As to point 2 - sure there is - it's called our Constitution. In reading our founding documents, it is clear that our nation was never intended to be run with as much federal muscle as we currently do, and bulldozing the rights of smaller states was never supposed to happen - that is why all states, regardless of population, get 2 Senators. I would counter your argument that the Electoral college give too much power to states with large cities. California, for example, has more electoral weight than the lowest 15 states combined.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, homersapien said:
Well, then you tell me what he's talking about.
The lack of holding individuals accountable for their actions is not only common in this day and age, it's pervasive. Look how many heinous crimes are committed by people with rap sheets as long as my arm. As a society we refuse to punish people that habitually break the law, and then feel as if passing more laws is the answer.
The part about holding people responsible for things that happened before they were born would appear to be directed at CRT, but honestly I'm a lot less concerned with that than I am the way we refuse to prosecute violent criminals
-
17 hours ago, ScotsAU said:
The stance that’s really never made sense to me is the “never abortion” folks. If you are against abortion aside from rape, incest, or life of the mother, I’m going to disagree because I know the science of human development. But I can at least sort of understand the position of someone that believes life starts at conception (it doesn’t) thinking that abortion in most cases is wrong. I strongly disagree with this position, but I see why some people buy into it.
But someone who thinks the product of rape or incest is going to have any kind of life is completely deluded. More than likely, that child ends up in the system because the mother isn’t going to want a reminder of her abuser in her life. If the mother does keep the child, there’s very likely going to be resentment. In either case, that child is doomed to a rough life from the start. Then there’s health of the mother… Explain to me how allowing a living breathing person with developed self-awareness to die at the expense of another life form with no consciousness yet is a “pro-life” stance. Someone who takes a never abortion position is either a sadist or is very out of touch with reality.If you are stating when life doesn't start, I assume you feel you know when it does start?
The second half of your post is interesting in that because you feel someone likely won't have "any kind of life" it's better to kill them than to let them live? Do you extrapolate that to disabilities too?
I'll admit, I am personally against abortion, HOWEVER I also don't feel that my personal beliefs in this area should necessarily align with law. What I DO think needs to happen is a clearly defined point needs to be established, because mid and late term abortions should clearly be criminal. If anyone ever sees / reads about partial birth abortions and aren't completely repulsed, they need to seek help immediately. I think the vast majority of the country agrees there is a middle ground - the issue is drawing the line in the broad, grey area. Not all Pro-Life people are absolute, just like not all Pro-Choice people support late term abortion. Someone just has to have the guts to throw something out there. Wouldn't somethin like 16 weeks be adequate?
-
2
-
-
15 hours ago, Aufan59 said:
Yes, the founding was an even smaller minority rule.
It isn’t necessarily good design when a few people can dictate bad policy on the rest.
It's also not a good design when a dozen or so large metropolitan areas can dictate bad policy on everyone else. This was the reasoning for the states to have more autonomy.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I feel bad for having clicked on that steaming pile of manure.....
-
1
-
-
You’re not really asking for examples though, are you?
-
2
-
-
I don’t see it as self righteous at all, just an observation.
-
3
-
1
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, homersapien said:
Sowell is full of it. Always has been.
May or may not be the case (I know next to nothing about him), but the statement above is accurate.
-
1
-
1
-
How long will Republicans cling to the pro-life movement as it becomes less popular?
in Politically Speaking
Posted
So, someone who allegedly pledged to pursue retribution (I haven’t seen the actual quote or video) is worse than someone who is actually doing it?
Once again, you state Trump is authoritarian, ignore the specific examples on Biden and just keep regurgitating the same party lines.
It has to do with a lot more than appliances - just selectively pick and choose. Other than repeating liberal media hyperbole, care to cite any specific examples of Trumps authoritarianism?
Care to name any political appointees that Biden made to anyone that wasn’t aligned with his political agenda?
The issue isn’t “pushing for” ita making authoritarian edicts that is the issue.
Or a Biden actually doing it? Keep burying your head in the sand.
And in event you missed it the few dozen times I’ve said it - Trump is not my first choice in either election but I’d gladly take him over Biden.