more than a few Conservatives are uncomfortable with his recent actions....from the attached link...
---------------
“You cannot censor your way to freedom of expression,” said Will Creeley, FIRE’s legal director. “You cannot trade one orthodoxy for another. What we’ve seen recently in Florida is a troubling willingness to do just that.”
-------------
Frayda Levin, a member of the Club for Growth’s board of directors, said there is great interest in DeSantis but she is increasingly concerned that he has become “too heavy-handed” in his pursuit of hot-button social issues. DeSantis is one of six Republicans invited to a Club for Growth donor summit in Florida as the conservative organization distances itself further from Trump. Former Vice President Mike Pence, former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley are also invited.
“I’m a genuine libertarian; I’m kind of a live-and-let-live kind of girl,” Levin told CNN. She said she has no problem with candidates espousing strongly held personal beliefs on social issues but said she objects to DeSantis “putting the power of his state behind his socially conservative views.”
------------
Your thoughts...
Link: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/19/politics/ron-desantis-conservatives-florida-2024/index.html
(no message)
what Ron is doing...you must have an opinion on this...take your time...i can appreciate the jumbled thoughts...
I'm always willing to criticize any party or any candidate (even those I vote for) if they deviate from the principles I espouse...but I might still vote for them. You are only interested in pushing me to stick to my principles when you think doing so will help your candidate. (Tyrone: "Turn the other cheek so I can slap you. You won't turn the other cheek?...you hypocrite.") It is just another example/proof of you being a pure partisan. That's why so many people avoid talking with you on this forum. You are not interested in genuine debate.
But, here we go:
Rights (non-discretionary matters): I'm a libertarian. I'm hardcore libertarian when it comes to individual freedoms/rights, like the right to free speech, the right to freedom of religion, the right to life. Right now, that means I have a strong bias towards the GOP, since the Democrats oppose those things more.
Discretionary use of Power: I have a natural bias against any use of government power. The first use of government power that is justified is the military and the courts, and since I am not an anarchist, I am comfortable with such uses (although I wish we didn't spend so much on the military). Other uses of government power are more discretionary, and they typically lean right or lean left. I have chosen a conservative lifestyle for myself, and so if a discretionary abuse of power must happen (and it will), then I vote for the conservative discretionary abuse of power. Why wouldn't I? I think it is best for me, and best for our country (if it must happen). That doesn't mean I'm no longer a libertarian, or that I have betrayed my principles. I would still oppose on principle most uses of government power to select winners, but since libertarians are not in office, and since I am forced to choose between a Democrat abuse of power and a GOP abuse of power, I make prudential decisions. I will oppose both uses of power, but I will vote for the least harmful use of power, and I will argue against the most harmful use of power. Lately, this has meant voting GOP, and arguing against Leftists here in the Open.
I haven't bothered to inform myself on Desantis actions in Florida, because I don't live there, and I have chosen not to be obsessed with the 2024 election because it is not healthy for me. I'm only vaguely aware of what he is doing, and I'm comfortable with that for now. I've got plenty of time to pick the next least harmful candidate for me to vote for in 2024. He sounds pretty good so far, though, since he is willing to fight you.
best 'endorsement' of RDS is what I'm seeing...my concerns with RDS stem from his decision making...most recently, his naming of Ladapo as FLA Surgeon General...just look at what the Faculty at UF's School of Medicine had to say about that...Ron makes 'emotional' and 'political' decisions instead of "Intelligent" ones...just like his messing with Cruise Lines who were desperate to fill their boats with tourists...often older ones...who didn't want to get sick with COVID...or DisneyWorld who made a business decision to market their operation to a wider...and perfectly legal...audience.
In short...RDS has the intelligence to do the job, but no Wisdom or Judgement...a college degree and a few years as a Navy lawyer aren't going to cut it.
We'll debate his candidacy more as time progresses...be assured of my openness to full debate.
Meanwhile, thanks for all that equivocating on Libertarian choices...leaves me wondering if you're a "Cafeteria" Libertarian, or simply one who is totally biased toward conservatism and will never accept another point of view...would be nice to know in any future debate.
Don't know why you would think I did, other than that you see everything through partisan glasses. I did acknowledge that your attacks on him make me think he must be doing something good, but for now, I don't really care. Reread my post, and don't equivocate about my post.
Also, I stated basic libertarian theory. If you think I equivocated, feel free to point out where I did. This is basic stuff. I used to be a card carrying, state convention attending, capital-L Libertarian. Everything I said is in line with libertarianism. There are some issues that libertarians can legitimately disagree on, but that usually involves a change in assumptions, not a change in the overall theory of libertarianism. There are some voting issues which cannot be decided by libertarian philosophy; at that point, of course, libertarians are free to choose whatever they want without violating libertarian principles.
I guess you would take the position that if a voter can't agree 100% with a candidate, then they can't vote for a candidate because they would be a hypocrite if they did...at least, you take that position with me. I doubt you really take that position about your own voting (does that make you a hypocrite?). Obviously, everyone reading here can see that is a false premise. I haven't voted for a candidate I agree with ~100% since the 2000 election. Since then, I've voted pragmatically, selecting the candidate that will destroy our nation in the slowest way possible among the two probable-electable choices offered to me.
Being against a woman’s right to choose isn’t a principal, it’s just taking away her rights as a citizen.
2. You shine in the partisanship department. You, Baron, MAS, Cole, Eli, Starkdoody and most R’s here are far right partisan hacks. To prove this we have your posts.
Hypocrisy is you.
Are you for my right to choose to hit your face? Or, would you say that you are "anti-choice" on that issue?
When you understand why you are "anti-choice" on that issue, you will understand why I am "anti-choice" on the murder of young humans.
And, maybe you will also understand that harming another individual without justification (we call that "aggression" or "aggressive violence," as opposed to "defensive violence") is not a "choice." There is no legitimate moral choice for individuals to engage in aggressive violence. Granted, you have the free will to make that choice in fact, but that is why we have courts...to handle those who freely choose aggression/victimization. It is not a legitimate choice. No moralist would support that choice. There has to be a justification for violence (e.g., self defense); only then do you have a legitimate/legal/moral choice to engage in violence. You still don't have to do it, but at least you have a moral choice potentially available to you.
Libertarians are for freedom of choice on all issues in which there is no victim. Do whatever you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone. But, we don't recognize a right to choose murder, because there is a victim. Once there is a victim of an act (a non-consenting party), then you have no legitimate choice, and you are morally (and should be legally) restricted from victimizing that person. No moralist (theological or otherwise) recognizes victimizing someone as a true "choice." This is the fundamental principle of secular law in all civilized societies. That is why I am against abortion. That is why those who support the right to abort have to jump through all kinds of hoops to try to justify it, and will even admit that it should be reduced because they know it is an aggression (and they know they need a justification to justify violence against another human). Many fellow libertarians are for the right to abortion, but in order to get to that position, they have to define the unborn baby as a non-human, to define the victim out of existence through sophistry that goes against biological science. That is basically what Hitler did (since you recently mentioned him, I will assume the prohibition on doing so is removed for the time being); he made certain individuals sub-human, stripping them of their right to life. Stripping humans of their most basic human right is a road that I think we should avoid for obvious reasons.
sustain a debate on that very important issue?...btw, keep in mind that women actually are a "Non Consenting Party" in a large number of cases.
That is a large number of deaths, and at 100%, the percentage can't get any larger. Do you have any concern for those victims? If not, why not?
If you want to talk about the 1.5% of cases of women being victims before the abortion (not as part of the abortion) separately, let's do that. I don't envy the person trying to argue that that justifies killing another innocent human being, but willing to hear you give it a shot. But, we really should focus our attention on the 98.5% of cases first, and deal with the special cases later.
(no message)
fact that Women are absolutely victims in attacks such as rape....they are bona fide PERSONS being assaulted...they DO NOT have to accept the results (i.e. pregnancy) of such attacks...they have a choice to make...preferably in consult with their religious, medical, legal and family advisors...but it is her choice.
This, I believe, is what Pope Francis meant when he recently acknowledged that a fetus is not yet a "PERSON" and that there was a critical need to treat such situations in a "Pastoral" manner...i.e. help the PERSON, ie. Woman, make the best CHOICE.
Women are not brood mares, they are human beings with the right to live their lives as they so choose, and the option of abortion needs to remain available to them.
There's much more to discuss...will you stay the course and continue the debate?
You said I denied the "fact that Women are absolutely victims in attacks such as rape." I did no such thing. Obviously women are victims in attacks such as rapes. Who could believe otherwise? And yet you think it is ok to make something up like that, and pretend it is fact, and then when I don't want to continue talking to you, you will pretend you won.
Apologize for saying that, and we can continue.
By the way, you totally misrepresent what Pope Francis said. And you still want to focus on the small percent special cases, and ignore the huge majority of cases...the reason for that is obvious. But, before we get into that, you need to apologize for saying that I said women aren't raped, and raped women are not victims. You totally made that up.
i.e. you DID NOT say or agree that women were "Non Consenting" parties (victims)...now, after the fact, you say that your "Obviously" intended to say such things...that doesn't work. No apology needed.
Now, given that you finally do acknowledge women are NON CONSENTING VICTIMS in rape cases, should they be REQUIRED BY THE STATE, under threat of criminal action, to carry a pregnancy to term?
One step at a time, Ned...we'll cover my interpretation of Pope Francis in short order...let's stick to this rare, but real circumstance....what is your answer?
P.S. That 'Apology' gambit seems like a thinly veiled attempt to aid your buddy, Baron...nothing can help him now, his falsehood is clearly documented for all to see...he's got to live with it.
(no message)
one refusing to engage in an honest debate...that's okay, I'll be bringing it up with everyone else before long and then you can choose whether or not to participate.
Why not? Obviously you hate Jews.
That's what you just did to me. First you said I said something despicable. When I denied it, you knew I was right, so you said I didn't deny that despicable thing you brought up, implying that I believed something I don't. Totally despicable behavior on your part.
See how this bullshit tactic of yours is not helpful to an open and honest discussion? See why people who are paying attention know they can't trust you?
Reminder: You did not condemn Hitler. I'll be sure to remind everyone of your hatred for Jews.
Interesting strategy by you...try to insult a worthy opponent so he doesn't want to debate you.
resulting fetus is not a Person according to the Catholic Church's Magisterium view as acknowledged by Pope Francis when he said just recently....
-----------------
On abortion, I can tell you these things, which I’ve said before. In any book of embryology it is said that shortly before one month after conception the organs and the DNA are already delineated in the tiny fetus, before the mother even becomes aware. Therefore, there is a living human being. I DO NOT SAY A PERSON, because this is debated, but a living human being. And I raise two questions: Is it right to get rid of a human being to resolve a problem? Second question: Is it right to hire a “hit man” to resolve a problem? The problem arises when this reality of killing a human being is transformed into a political question, or when a pastor of the church uses political categories. (emphasis mine)
-----------------
Note that I've attached a commentary by someone who attempts to deflect from the Pope's statement...btw, it was originally brought up by 'Hensou' who believes that it changes the understanding of what he said...as this ending paragraph shows, it doesn't....the Pope's words are still the same today as they've been before...the fetus is not a person...
------------------
'What does all of this mean? Well, for one thing, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE MAGISTERIUM HAS ACKNOWLEDGED ON MULTIPLE OCCASIONS THAT THERE IS A DEBATE ABOUT PERSONHOOD. It is also clear that the Church has not always considered the life of a human person to begin at conception, nor has the Church definitively taught this. That said, the Church has always regarded abortion to be evil from the moment of conception. More recently, the Church has pushed back against the idea that “delayed personhood” is relevant to its position on the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception. It has taught instead that life, from the moment of conception should be treated and respected as a human person. And in this, Pope Francis has always been in line with Catholic Tradition. (emphasis mine)
-----------------
The raw fact of the matter is that in cases of rape where pregnancy results, the woman (A PERSON) is violently assaulted and a new human life begins...but it is not yet in fact a person. The woman is left with a choice which only she can make...take the pregnancy to term, or not...as Pope Francis goes on to say, it is not simply a civil matter, but a pastoral one. My reading is that the STATE has no say in this and that the woman needs to seek guidance from her Pastor, Doctor and Family for guidance in making that choice....and abortion is absolutely an option since it represents JUSTICE for the Non Consenting Victim...the only PERSON in this scenario...the WOMAN. This situation is important because of its clarity...all others are variations of the underlying problem...UN-WANTED PREGNANCIES.
I've stated multiple times that my personal goal...along with that of many, many others...is to put all efforts into dramatically reducing the occurrences of "Un-Wanted" pregnancies so that abortions are selected less often...you should know by now what those efforts entail.
Link: https://wherepeteris.com/pope-francis-and-the-personhood-debate/
(no message)
I explained why I believe the answer is yes...what's your response?
(no message)
Turn the other cheek!! SLAP!!
Turn the other cheek!! SLAP!!
Use your enemies principles against themselves...ignore their principles when it hurts you, use their principles when it hurts them. Straight out of the partisan's playbook.
(no message)
What's good for the goose is good for the gander. You fucking libs turn a blind eye to the extension of authoritarian power and only start paying attention when that power can be used against you. You don't get to start bitching about Desantis POSSIBLY using the same power structure you've excused for the last four years (I'm including liberal covid policy). Don't post this horseshit again.
The trump card in Desantis's pocket is that he's fighting the good fight against your deviant ideas.
(no message)
I believe he/she is onto something there ;-)...
btw, Dems are all about seeking to help the marginalized in our society...too many Reps, like RDS only want to demean and persecute them.
(no message)
done...he might then come to welcome them, realizing that being Gay is not a choice and affirming that they deserve as much respect as any other child of God...I don't get that 'vide' from him and in fact see him trying to demean them and treat them as unwelcome...even passing laws that deny their lived reality...to me this is de facto persecution...not at all Love and Acceptance.
The statement "passing laws that deny their lived reality" doesn't actually mean anything. Reality is reality. Putting "lived" in front of it doesn't mean anything. He hasn't passed any laws that deny reality.
What has Desantis done to demean and persecute marginalized people?
(no message)
What law has been passed that denies reality? What has he done to demean and persecute marginalized people?
(no message)
“I’m troubled by this trend, because what I think the interpretation will be is that this is working,” Katherine Mangu-Ward, the editor-in-chief of the libertarian magazine Reason, said in a recent podcast episode centered around DeSantis’ tactics. “DeSantis is raising his profile every single week. He is putting himself in a better position to potentially win the presidency. And he is doing it through indiscriminate use of state power, not only to achieve kind of broader ends, but also just to score points.”
“That is not a good way to run a state. That is not a good way to run a country,” she added.