isn't DeSantis obliged to the members of his State, even those who hold opposing political views?
As has been said before, Disney executives have not lost one iota of their power to speak freely, considering they own multiple media platforms not available to most people.
The only way Disney executives can be incarcerated in this instance is if they refuse to pay taxes to Florida. Until then, they can say whatever they want, whenever they want.
The issue isn't really about free speech.
Politicians use the government to retaliate against political opposition at every chance. That has been going on since the founding of the country.
The real problem is how much of this political retaliation society has been willing to tolerate as "business as usual"
If this retaliation isn't a free speech violation, then no retaliation is.
and maintain that the Manhattan D.A. investigation into Donald Trump was a political attack.
My reply was in response to this question from you:isn't DeSantis obliged to the members of his State, even those who hold opposing political views
Insofar as DeSantis has violated the Florida or US constitution, he is accountable to that, as I said already.
A political attack that would never have happened if Trump never said the words "I am running for President"
While I agree with the principle, the last 6 years have established a precedence that allows for the political retaliation against any political opposition. You can't expect all that to change over a matter of days as the public has accepted numerous violations. Trump warned that what they did to him will be done to others. Now we are just starting to see what he meant by that.
Yes, and it's incumbent upon those who maintain the principle to denounce violations of it every time they are aware. It doesn't necessarily have to start in public discourse; it can start here.
So what is the dispute here?
Free speech means the government cannot use its power to silence you, it does not mean you have a right to “win” on social issues.
While I agree with the principle, the last 6 years have established a precedence that allows for the political retaliation against any political opposition. You can't expect all that to change over a matter of days as the public has accepted numerous violations as the normal business of politics. Trump warned that what they did to him will be done to others. Now we are just starting to see what he meant by that.
Trump was a beloved celebrity until he uttered those words. There are over 100 instances of documented government retaliation against Trump after those words were spoken vs the one against Disney.
Pretty sure he’s having flashbacks from when I did that to him in our debate.
Can’t win if you don’t fight back
This is not remotely similar to what happened to Disney.
Exactly my point.
Trump was a beloved celebrity until he uttered those words. There are over 100 instances of documented government retaliation against Trump after those words were spoken vs the one against Disney.First of all, politics is not a team sport, there is no 100-1 scorecard. If someone retaliates against Trump, that would be wrong and should be addressed. Just as what happened to Disney is wrong and needs to be addressed. Why is that so difficult?
[coal] Sorry. I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
Sorry. I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
I’m no political strategist, but that doesn’t seem like a way to win to me. But then again, everything I just said only matters to one who values things like reason and logic. If on the other hand all you care about is political power, then by all means carry on.
It’s only retaliation if I think it is. Every other time it isn’t
This is a debate site. The idea is you’re supposed to express and defend your view points,
I just don't take your thoughts on this matter seriously enough to expend the time to respond.
When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.
If only you knew some history.
I do. I am well aware of how fascists and autocrats gain power. The problem is, when this is your stated approach on a debate site you demonstrate that it is you who need not be taken seriously since your words have nothing to do with reason or logic or anything you believe to be true but rather are just your attempt to own the other side. It’s also why you’re still talking about your debate victory… two years later.
When people get tribal they act collectively, people acting collectively to violate rights can't be fought the same way individuals are, to match their force and coordination you need to treat them like the collective they behave as. It's called war, and it's horrible; but defeat is not the noble way out.It’s a pretty self defeating approach to take on a debate site. If one isn’t here to defend their actual beliefs I have no idea why they are here.
