My point is, the Governor isn't the one running the board. So the Governor blustering in a campaign speech followed by board action on a related topic does not create a course of action against the governor.
The
exclusive reason it happened is because DeSantis spearheaded it. Stop focusing on semantics. There's no point to be had there.
It's almost like you're trying to be a contrarian on everything.
You've been proven wrong on this subject time and time again. Sure, your other political views can be totally valid, but your pattern on
this specific one is not. I'm sure you're a fine person and I don't mean harm, but you've long past sounded like a broken record.
DeSantis tried using this whole thing as an easy political pitch for voters he can dupe into thinking it was an important issue, so he could say he's a fighter against woke corporate forces. Ignoring the fact that executives of a company have 1st amendment protections that prevent government retribution for free speech, it was DeSantis' way to hog the national spotlight.
Defining an issue out of thin air and claiming a "win" is easier than actually trying to improve things like infrastructure quality, healthcare costs, or the low per-student K-12 education funding Florida has (and thus worse results versus most other states). Those require real discussions, based on real facts, with policy that can actually affect people's lives for better or worse.
Anyone that was legitimately trying to initially understand what was going on based on the facts and not noise with this tirade against Disney, a greedy company just like any other conglomerate but with massive positive economic impacts on Florida, could see this motive being as clear as day from the start. DeSantis never hid it. It was always about retribution for Chapek's U-tern on opposing a bill DeSantis passed, one which was also trying to find a solution to an issue that just doesn't exist. Plain and simple.
When DeSantis and team realized they couldn't just dissolve RCID because it's actually complex and taxes Disney at a
higher rate than they otherwise would be in exchange for autonomy, they had to go back and redefine what "beating" Disney was.
Then, of course, Disney's lawyers outsmarted him and his allies. He threw a fit.
And of course, DeSantis' recent rant about 100% laying out
specific examples of how to punish Disney to the detriment of the state's economy and freedom of speech. It is finally drawing widespread bipartisan pushback.
The whole thing was a charade and inherently authoritarian. If DeSantis wanted to change RCID that would've been totally acceptable.
It isn't acceptible as retribution.
If someone acknowledges these facts and then has an opinion that
likes what DeSantis is doing, that is totally fair. The same is true for someone that
doesn't like these actions.
If someone is okay with 1st amendment rights being trampled because they don't care so long as their side takes a win, I completely and vehemently disagree with them, but that opinion
is valid because it's starting from a place of facts. If someone says "It wasn't a 1st amendment issue because it wasn't retribution" that is a flagrantly invalid and illogical opinion.
This applies to any political view, party, or otherwise. Political Science is not immune from logical debate, just like economics is not, supply chain management is not, biology is not, the list goes on. Contrary to what people say, it's not all opinions. That view stems from the fact that most people (from both parties) legitimately have no grasp of the underlying facts. Valid opinions stem from facts. Logical opinions take that a step further and look at various evidence-based opinions that hold to scrutiny and comparison to reach a conclusion.
As another example, if the goal is to improve upward mobility, that's a vastly different goal than trying to save money in taxes. Both of those goals are valid, and what someone could want in policy (the opinion) would then be altered. Redefining what things do real world (the facts) to justify a belief is not.
I don't know anything about how a football organization runs. I don't claim to know. I'd defer to people that do rather than trying to have an opinion on it, or research using as reputable and least-biased sources I can find.
Frankly, the same goes for public policy. There's nothing wrong with not being intimately familiar with a subject, but I
do have an issue with people trying to act like they know a lot about a subject when they just flat-out don't.
Actual substantive discussion requires strictly adhering to evidence and the topic at hand while filtering out the noise.
I cannot stress enough that a difference of opinions is fine. In fact, it is most definitely a good thing overall!
It's the
only way we can learn and grow.
However, trying to shift the debate by ignoring objective truths, being unwilling to genuinely hear the fact-based views of others while acting as if a lack of knowledge on a subject is equivalent to someone who does, deflecting a valid argument with
whatboutism and/or logical fallacies is not at all productive.
Thus, we are 750 pages into a thread talking about facts that are long past settled.
Opine all you want, but start from a place of facts, and opine from there.
