News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[Disney Analyst]

The fat, sweaty, bloated one from Vegas? I’ll have to read his bio and see.

I think it’s Mickey Rooney, playing Elvis.

 

[JGamer]

At this point I am conviced DeSantis knows that his comments are a First Amendment violation and he is saying them to fire up his base. He is a well educated man and has to be carefully choosing his words so that Disney can make this a constituional case. This can become a rallying call duing his inevitable campaign.

Make no mistake, neither side wants this to go to the Supreme Court and for DeSantis to win. A win for DeSantis would mean corporations do not hold the same rights as inviduals. That ruling would mean an end to Citizen's United and all that corporate campaign money would dry up on both sides.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I'm not. I love Buc-ee's, but unfortunately the beaver wears a red hat for a reason :/

They do redeem themselves by offering employees actual really good wages and benefits. Can't say that about a lot of republican owned businesses.

Buc-ee simply likes Red.

Being a beaver, it should be that hunting safety orange hat.

I am sad that now colors are weaponized.

 

[tissandtully]

Buc-ee simply likes Red.

Being a beaver, it should be that hunting safety orange hat.

I am sad that now colors are weaponized.

That was just a correlation I made as a joke, but you can look at who Buc-ee's donates to see what I mean.

 

[Prince-1]

I think it’s Mickey Rooney, playing Elvis.

Rooney is too short. He could, however, play Mickey.

 

[Big_Shakalaka]

I think it has been a bad battle to pick, though. Lashing out at Disney World just makes him look like a petty and petulant wannabe tyrant and his main opponent look positively statesmanlike.

Hate to break it to ya, but that's EXACTLY the kind of person his political party loves embracing these days. He's the perfect person.

 

[Big_Shakalaka]

Make no mistake, neither side wants this to go to the Supreme Court and for DeSantis to win. A win for DeSantis would mean corporations do not hold the same rights as inviduals. That ruling would mean an end to Citizen's United and all that corporate campaign money would dry up on both sides.

Stop making me root for DeSantis here.

 

[MrPromey]

The reasoning seems to be "Y'all just dun't like DeSantis!"

Let me think, where have I heard a similar defense of another individual before...

And of course two things can be true at the same time.

I think that's a nuance a lot of people seem to miss these days in our politics.

 

[MrPromey]

... I guess that quote from Abe Lincoln I saw on Google was right when he said not to believe everything you read on the internet.

First, the original quote was actually from Mark Twain and second, he was talking about Reddit - not the rest of the internet.

 

[mikejs78]

The governors office tracks it's public opinion reactions constantly. I suspect the research data his office sees gives him the clear resolve to keep doing what he is doing. Even the Florida legislature easily passed the bill last year that Disney were ardently against. Each legislator also has their finger on the pulse of their individual voters too.

They would not be sailing in these political waters if they did not feel the political wind behind them.

Even if he had gotten 99% of the vote, it wouldn't give him the right to violate the constitution.

 

[Disney Glimpses]

Today, he also said he was going to use the legislature to "nullify" the agreements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that against the US Constitution's contracts clause?

 

[MrPromey]

I think it has been a bad battle to pick, though. Lashing out at Disney World just makes him look like a petty and petulant wannabe tyrant and his main opponent look positively statesmanlike.

There is certainly a base that loves this but Florida is a purple state.

We're actually a purple country.

Every time someone gets in power, they claim winning is a clear mandate of the will of the people for everything on that candidate's laundry list, totally ignoring that more than 50% can't even be bothered to vote in most elections so no, there is no mandate from the American people when anyone in high office gets voted in.

Him wasting tax payer money flying to other states for speeches and going after Disney on a "social" issue is not, I can assure you, the will of the majority of whom he governs. Even most people politically aligned have more important and personal concerns right now (just one of which is home owner's insurance).

What this guy is doing is making some people love him but between this and other things, he's not going to be flipping many independents in his direction - not on the state or federal level.

It would be entertaining watching him try to pivot if/when the time comes and he has to, though.

 

[Tha Realest]

Well, I guess that's one way to spin what actually happened.

Might want to read up on Vice’s reporting (an organization that is no friend of Desantis and would generally be aligned with Jones’ worldview):

Rebekah Jones' Viral Claims About Her Son's Arrest By 'Fascist' DeSantis Don't Match Available Evidence

The son of a former Florida employee who claimed she was asked to alter COVID data was arrested for threatening to shoot up his former school.

www.vice.com

 

[mightynine]

You cannot make this stuff up.

More projection than an old school movie theatre.

 

[Brian]

Today, he also said he was going to use the legislature to "nullify" the agreements. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that against the US Constitution's contracts clause?

A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case, and set the parameters for a judicial test to determine if a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts. They can, provided:

1. It does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest

Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.

 

[peter11435]

As a personal policy, I don't entertain Holocaust comparisons. Call me when the gas chambers open.

That’s how we end up there again

 

[peter11435]

A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case wherein a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts, provided it:

1. Does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest

Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.

1. It would
2. They don’t
3. It’s not

 

[Brian]

1. It would
2. They don’t
3. It’s not

Court dismissed. Bring in the dancing lobsters!

 

[Chi84]

Just a friendly reminder: This thread is supposed to be about RCID and yesterday it was very much on track. Today it seems to be getting much more into personal feelings about politicians. That's how threads get locked, and I wonder if some of the people posting here have that as their goal.

 

[GoofGoof]

A 1983 SCOTUS decision laid out a case wherein a state can make a law that interferes with existing contracts, provided it:

1. Does not substantially interfere with the rights of the contracting party
2. The state has a legitimate and significant interest
3. The law is reasonably related to furthering this interest

Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/459/400/

In my humble opinion, this is not really an open and shut case, but I'll let the lawyers on this site weigh in with their take.

Yeah, um….can revenge against a company that spoke out against the Governor be the state’s legitimate and significant interest?