Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Politics In General Disney and de Santis Clause

That all depends on whose ox is gored and how much they will contribute to his campaign, doesn't it?

You are talking about "social" undertakings (paid for by taxes on, in theory, by everybody) which, for the most part, I support. There is a real difference between the two, as you are well aware of. You are also one of the most determined of those who admire the possibility of a socialist solution to ALL problems! Its a shame that there isn't a country that is Socialist that hasn't taken over any and all from its citizens.

In the last decade or so there's been at least a dozen stories about this or that community contracting with PRIVATIZED outfits to do what they'd like to refer to as
"policing". Law enforcement contracted to a privately owned company is a thing that raises a lot of red flags for me.

Call me crazy if you like but from where I sit, things like "sworn public servant" are one of the few absolutist positions I take on issues.

Cops MUST BE sworn public servants employed by city, county, state or federal governments.

Military, same damn thing, I am dead set against private military anything at all, under any circumstances. If it's a matter of killing people and breaking things (the military's main JOB) then it is either done at taxpayer expense and wholly under the purview OF said taxpayers and their elected reps or it doesn't get done.
Find a good enough reason to engage the democratic process on those decisions.

In a free society, mercs and paramilitaries should be flat out illegal as Hell and activity in such must be a legally actionable crime.
And free societies should never allow privatized law enforcement because the temptation for unaccountable abuse and corruption is bad enough anyway, and is always ALL the MORE SO under privatization, as we've already seen in the private corrections industry, which is by the way the third in my DON'T list...

NO privatized corrections under any circumstances.

Florida Power is a huge contributor to Republican causes. Because they are largely pro-fossil fuel.

The Solar Industry is a huge contributor to Democratic causes. Because they are pro-clean energy.

His reason for vetoing a bill sent to him by a Republican-controlled state congress was that the people of Florida have been hit with enough hardships recently and that he didn't feel it was fair to legislate another corporate price gouging tactic into existence.

Why don't Democrats have someone like him? Positioning themselves as the assumed 2024 party nominee. Acting on hot-button Democratic issues instead of talking about them. Grabbing headlines and media attention?

Don't confuse the red-meat showman with the savvy politician. Trump was nothing but a re-meat showman, there was no savvy politician behind the act.

And don't pretend that he's the next Mussolini either. He's as American as you and me, he knows and understands the law. ( Naval Justice School (2005), Harvard Law School (2005), Yale University (2001), Dunedin High School (1997) A Florida native with blue-collar roots.

Again...why don't Democrats have someone like him?

And if he is the next Mussolini, I'd like to remind you of Mussolini's fate.

Sounds to me like your version of a "free society" is pretty tightly controlled.

Which begs the question of just how "free" it really is. There seems to be a really long list of things you aren't free to do and people you aren't free to associate with and things you can and can not own and things you can and can not do for a living...

A truly free society has no inclination to harm themselves or others with firearms.

Prisons wouldn't exist in a "free" society, only hospitals. Policing would only need to be minimal, because kids will be kids.

In a free society, everyone would have pretty much everything they wanted and needed. Which eliminates most of the motivation for criminal activity. All would be healthy, well-educated, well-fed. and gainfully employed.

In a free society, EVERYTHING would be privately owned because there is no dividing line between government and the people. Free people govern themselves and government ownership is collective ownership.

There are many of them! And once again I point out that they are the happiest nations on earth. The Scandinavian model is the one I always point to but a lot of European nations have successfully followed suit. I don't keep track but I imagine a lot of nations worldwide are aiming for it.

All you have to do is legislate living wages, socialize healthcare, and make college free or at least debt-free.

You need a tax code that actually prevents the hoarding of massive wealth.

You need labor laws that guarantee an equitable work/life ratio.

Governments need only switch their focus from what is good for the richest among us to what is good for the most of us. From capital interests to social interests.

That poverty exists in the world is reason enough that billionaires should not exist.

There is not, I think, a single country, Scandinavian or not, that has a socialist government. One even has a king and queen! They do have a number of social government agencies though. They also, incidentally, all have millionaires as well! I don't think a socialist nation would have any of those either.

Its pretty obvious that you and I have different ideas about what a socialist government is all about. Its kinda like calling China a communist country. Its not! They just like to call themselves "Communist" because they used to be.

You are right, however, about their status as happy places. One of the reasons is that they trust their governments. They also don't allow anybody to attack government without facts that support their claim. In the United States not only can anybody accuse gov of anything but many seem to make their living attacking our government as well.

Incidentally, I have a lot of relatives over there and been there myself a number of times.

Because, by and large, Democrats are much more honest and uncorrupted at present. That can change. I'll remind you that Ted Cruz also has a law degree from Harvard. Having a degree from Harvard does not imbue one with integrity. The list of white collared criminals from Harvard is very long indeed.

I do think that DeSantis is more crafty than Trump, but he is no more honest or nor a public servant. He's a vile, repulsive, manipulative, vindictive sociopath with slightly more brain capacity. Moreover, he is not particularly smart. Crafty and smart are not the same thing.

(WebMD) I don't know how advanced his condition is, and I am not a psychologist, so I can't make a formal diagnosis, but I do recognize the behaviors.

That's why I was mentioning who's ox was gored. He sees some opportunity, because he's an opportunistic parasite. Only he knows what he's playing at, but everyone knows he's playing.

I'm not a doctor like you so I can't diagnose him with all these things.

Just as I can't answer questions for him nor judge him for crimes not yet committed.

Of course they have millionaires! Do you think socialism denies people the fruits of their labor? Nossir. It guarantees them a larger share of it. What is noticeably lacking is Billionaires. There are no billionaires.

Their government can take any form, depending on what folks want and are comfortable with as long as it is democratic.

Just because the working models don't fit your definition of socialism doesn't disqualify them from being socially oriented in their legislation rather than focusing on capital.