Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Ron Desantis
Should I be pleased that he gives an alternative to Biden Trump?
What do I need to know?
What do I need to know?
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hopkirk. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
I think he'd be a disaster, so that's possibly a ringing endorsement as far as AB members would often see it :P
But a couple of particularly important points:
1. He's had State Laws changed to suit his own interests, by repealing laws that would have required him to resign as Governor in order to run for President, or by repealing (or at least severely curtailing) laws ensuring transparency of political spending and travel arrangements;
2. Plenty of laws attacking LGBT rights, and also women's rights in general, including introduction of a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, which in practice would be a near-total ban. The LGBT rights attacks include the "don't say gay" law, which functionally is the same as our own infamous Section 28.
3. Introduced laws that have led to, or at least have the effect of leading to, book bans in schools and public libraries. This really ought to be the most chilling part: it's sold as being about "parents' rights to control their children's education", but in reality ends up being an opportunity to remove debate or discussion about race, gender, sexuality, and critical views of Christianity. https:/
4. The overall package is then an utter contempt for the US Constitution, particularly First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. That alone makes him unfit to be President.
But a couple of particularly important points:
1. He's had State Laws changed to suit his own interests, by repealing laws that would have required him to resign as Governor in order to run for President, or by repealing (or at least severely curtailing) laws ensuring transparency of political spending and travel arrangements;
2. Plenty of laws attacking LGBT rights, and also women's rights in general, including introduction of a ban on abortion after six weeks of pregnancy, which in practice would be a near-total ban. The LGBT rights attacks include the "don't say gay" law, which functionally is the same as our own infamous Section 28.
3. Introduced laws that have led to, or at least have the effect of leading to, book bans in schools and public libraries. This really ought to be the most chilling part: it's sold as being about "parents' rights to control their children's education", but in reality ends up being an opportunity to remove debate or discussion about race, gender, sexuality, and critical views of Christianity. https:/
4. The overall package is then an utter contempt for the US Constitution, particularly First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and expression. That alone makes him unfit to be President.
It's well to remember the useful adage, "The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy," YMB :)
The thing about populists is that they are ultimately interested in power for their own ends, rather than to serve the people who end up falling for their spiel. And, as a practical matter, for all that it can look good to make enemies of certain people or interests, it's obviously unsustainable in the long run.
The general state of US politics is pretty sad. It's a travesty that the best the Democrats think they have to offer is somebody who should have retired a decade ago, but Biden's merely a single example of the problem of doddery old people who should be "encouraged" to retire already: in the US Senate, there are five people aged 80 or more, including two 89-year-olds; and over a third are 70 or older. Dianne Feinstein, the oldest, is evidently suffering from her old age, and while she is no longer seeking re-election there are still two more years where somebody (likely) suffering from dementia holds high office -- a particular nightmare in the current 50-50 Senate; while Chuck Grassley, the next-oldest, won't leave the Senate until he's passed 95. At the other end, the number of under-50s isn't even in double figures. Not that age is everything that's important: Ron DeSantis's relative youth is only a superficial benefit. But it's still taking the worst from a classical view of politics, ie some idea that only the elders are suited to make law and to lead.
The thing about populists is that they are ultimately interested in power for their own ends, rather than to serve the people who end up falling for their spiel. And, as a practical matter, for all that it can look good to make enemies of certain people or interests, it's obviously unsustainable in the long run.
The general state of US politics is pretty sad. It's a travesty that the best the Democrats think they have to offer is somebody who should have retired a decade ago, but Biden's merely a single example of the problem of doddery old people who should be "encouraged" to retire already: in the US Senate, there are five people aged 80 or more, including two 89-year-olds; and over a third are 70 or older. Dianne Feinstein, the oldest, is evidently suffering from her old age, and while she is no longer seeking re-election there are still two more years where somebody (likely) suffering from dementia holds high office -- a particular nightmare in the current 50-50 Senate; while Chuck Grassley, the next-oldest, won't leave the Senate until he's passed 95. At the other end, the number of under-50s isn't even in double figures. Not that age is everything that's important: Ron DeSantis's relative youth is only a superficial benefit. But it's still taking the worst from a classical view of politics, ie some idea that only the elders are suited to make law and to lead.
// That all sounds a bit ageist to me //
The specific example of Dianne Feinstein is hardly ageist -- she's shown clear signs of dementia, and really should be seen as unfit to serve (the problem being that it's very difficult to force somebody out who doesn't want to go).
But it isn't so much that elderly senators themselves are the problem. Rather, it's the fact that there's a necessarily limited number of senators, and inertia means that they increasingly represent an America of decades past: if the old senators don't quit then younger ones can't come in, with new views, more energy, a fresh perspective etc.
One relatively uncontroversial way to address this would be a term limit of, say, four election cycles (corresponding to 24 years in the Senate). Presidents have term limits; why not Senators?
The specific example of Dianne Feinstein is hardly ageist -- she's shown clear signs of dementia, and really should be seen as unfit to serve (the problem being that it's very difficult to force somebody out who doesn't want to go).
But it isn't so much that elderly senators themselves are the problem. Rather, it's the fact that there's a necessarily limited number of senators, and inertia means that they increasingly represent an America of decades past: if the old senators don't quit then younger ones can't come in, with new views, more energy, a fresh perspective etc.
One relatively uncontroversial way to address this would be a term limit of, say, four election cycles (corresponding to 24 years in the Senate). Presidents have term limits; why not Senators?
Clare \Ron DeSantis's relative youth is only a superficial benefit\
His approach to the Covid pandemic in keeping the Florida economy open for business, resisting statewide lockdowns and focusing on targeted measures to protect vulnerable populations, such as nursing homes and long-term care facilities, I'd say were the right decisions made by a young state governor with a
bold and insightful alternative standpoint!!
He also argued that the negative consequences of prolonged school closures, such as learning loss and mental health issues, outweighed the risks of COVID-19 transmission among children!!
Given the $Billions saved down to the implementation of his polices throughout the lockdown era, I'd say he was a bit more than just a superficial benefit!!
His approach to the Covid pandemic in keeping the Florida economy open for business, resisting statewide lockdowns and focusing on targeted measures to protect vulnerable populations, such as nursing homes and long-term care facilities, I'd say were the right decisions made by a young state governor with a
bold and insightful alternative standpoint!!
He also argued that the negative consequences of prolonged school closures, such as learning loss and mental health issues, outweighed the risks of COVID-19 transmission among children!!
Given the $Billions saved down to the implementation of his polices throughout the lockdown era, I'd say he was a bit more than just a superficial benefit!!
It's maybe tempting to praise DeSantis for his stance, but it also extended to spreading anti-vaccine rhetoric and undermining doctors and medical advisors at every turn. That's dangerous -- not least because Florida has had among the worst Covid outcomes in the US, but also because it's contributed to a general increase in distrust of doctors and medical experts, at least within the state of Florida.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
Would You Have Heard Of Mada Pasa
News8 mins ago
ChatterBank17 mins ago
You've Got To Laugh Haven't You?
News35 mins ago
Accidental Delete Of An Outlook Email
Technology42 mins ago