DeSantis for the win

El OchoCinco said:
His advisors need to tell him to stop talking about it because he has too many soundbytes claiming he took on Disney, going after Disney, retaliating against Disney and his book tour...etc...
More...

he's surrounded himself w/yes men (Lapado, Ruffo, that twitter spokeswoman hag) so here's to hoping the mouse keeps sinking him. He'd have to listen to fox et.al to correct course

El OchoCinco said:
Whether his actions were legal is not at issue, it is the claim that they were retaliatory which makes it easier to prove if Ronnie keeps running his mouth and creating a record. Add to that trump supporters who want to.see him bogged down with this while trump keeps rising it is going to get messy .
More...

How is legality not an issue? If SCOTUS has determined time and time again that corporate speech is protected speech, how is the state coming after you over said speech through retaliatory means not stifling it and thus a 1st amendment violation?
 
Cuddles said:
he's surrounded himself w/yes men (Lapado, Ruffo, that twitter spokeswoman hag) so here's to hoping the mouse keeps sinking him. He'd have to listen to fox et.al to correct course
More...

Ah yes, because Newsom, or Biden or anyone else in the Democratic Party - all surrounded by hard challenging people that question.
 
Cuddles said:
he's surrounded himself w/yes men (Lapado, Ruffo, that twitter spokeswoman hag) so here's to hoping the mouse keeps sinking him. He'd have to listen to fox et.al to correct course



How is legality not an issue? If SCOTUS has determined time and time again that corporate speech is protected speech, how is the state coming after you over said speech through retaliatory means not stifling it and thus a 1st amendment violation?
More...


The act of changing the district leadership and removing powers from Reedy Creek was decided on by the legislature... I dont think that by itself was an illegal act. Doing it in retaliation to free speech and constantly talking about how he was going after Disney is where he removes all doubt of intent.
 
Tsing Tao said:
This is rather amusing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1651573572442234880
More...


Also lets be honest.... all Governors hand out special priviledges to bring business to their state via tax breaks and concessions or other favors..... its the only reason we have Honda or Audi plants in the U.S. or Amazon moved to Northern Va....

It is like Hillary rallying against wall street and money interests while running a campaign supported by those same people.
 
Tsing Tao said:
You might be right. And I don't disagree that they were retaliatory in nature. But Disney picked the fight. The governor didn't wake up one morning and decide to go after Disney without provocation. As a corporation, Disney should have known better than to get involved and openly challenge the governor and the laws being passed in the state when it really had nothing to do with them (was a political issue not affecting them). So the governor didn't really have much of a choice.

And when you put a for-profit corporation up against the not-for-profit state, it never goes well for the corporation.
More...


You do realize the law does not distinguish between who picked a fight, only between who violated the law or the constitution. If I go up to you in a bar and call you a name you dont get kill me because I picked a fight.

A corporation expressing its 1st amendment right is legal, a government official passing retaliatory legislation for free speech is not.

It is very hard for people to sometimes separate the law from the political stance. If mcAuliffe beat Youngkin for VA and decided the NRA (headquartered in Northern VA) was speaking out against any gun control laws they tried to pass and McAuliffe decided to revoke longstanding tax breaks or concessions for being in Va it would be illegal.

When the public moved against Nike, Bud Light, Chik Fil A or Papa John...it was the public voting with their feet and dollars...not the government violating constitutional rights. Just because you dislike the stance Disney took does not make the actions correct.
 
El OchoCinco said:
You do realize the law does not distinguish between who picked a fight, only between who violated the law or the constitution. If I go up to you in a bar and call you a name you dont get kill me because I picked a fight.

A corporation expressing its 1st amendment right is legal, a government official passing retaliatory legislation for free speech is not.

It is very hard for people to sometimes separate the law from the political stance. If mcAuliffe beat Youngkin for VA and decided the NRA (headquartered in Northern VA) was speaking out against any gun control laws they tried to pass and McAuliffe decided to revoke longstanding tax breaks or concessions for being in Va it would be illegal.

When the public moved against Nike, Bud Light, Chik Fil A or Papa John...it was the public voting with their feet and dollars...not the government violating constitutional rights. Just because you dislike the stance Disney took does not make the actions correct.
More...

They'll never get it. They didn't get it during boycotts ("cancel culture"), they didn't get it during counter protests, they didn't get it when Twitter, fb, google, youtube, moderated content. They won't get it now.
 
B7YpmP1IIAAmQIu.jpg



The MAGA's don't understand that Republicans are pro business, they don't legislate the fascist shit DeSantis has been doing.
Ronnie High Heels is not a Republican.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top