Why would conservatives vote for DeSantis?

[toobfreak]

Why would conservatives vote for DeSantis?​

Serious question. DeSantis has done more than any other candidate or recent president to increase the power of the state over individual rights and no one seems to care. Is conservative ideology changed in terms of using the state to enforce it’s desired social outcome?

The book is still open on DeSantis AFAIC. I don't know about the individual rights thing you claim, but I've seen and heard a lot of things I like about the guy, for instance, his getting Disney under wraps. His proclivity for asserting State dominance over federal control. He also seems a pretty good thinker and speaker on his feet compared to others in the GOP. Frankly my original thought a year ago was for him to be Trump's VP, but that ship seems to have failed. So right now, while there is a lot about Trump which bears improving and DeSantis will be an ongoing study as I learn more about him, either of these two men right now seem the best the GOP has to offer, which is to say, by the record and increasingly bad direction the entire democrat party has been heading for years, makes them the best, only choices in the foreseeable future.

 

[Coyote]

Agree. Mostly. But you concede everything, right there at the end. If you endorse hands on government for your side, you're endorsing it for the other side as well.

We've got to resist the temptation to use government as a weapon in the culture wars. That's not what it's there for. In a country as diverse as ours, "live and let live" is the only thing that works.

I’m not a “hands off” government. I tend to see these things as a spectrum rather than you are either one or the other, if that makes sense. I support it's use in guaranteeing the same rights and freedoms for all and equal protection. In terms of legislating culture wars no.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

In terms of legislating culture wars no

So you disagree with legislating a new definition for marriage. Good to know

On Monday, Democrats in both chambers of Congress introduced a bill to redefine marriage in national law, which they have dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill would prevent any state from exclusively protecting the natural family in law, in the (unlikely) event the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 opinion which created the constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.

The ‘Disrespect of Marriage Act’: Democratic Bill Would Redefine Marriage

With economic pressures squeezing middle-class families tighter than any time in a generation, congressional Democrats have decided to ram through a series of l

washingtonstand.com

 

[BackAgain]

Serious question. DeSantis has done more than any other candidate or recent president to increase the power of the state over individual rights

Really? How about a list to support that claim?

and no one seems to care.

Maybe they just don’t see it as you do?

Is conservative ideology changed in terms of using the state to enforce its desired social outcome?

That’s a weird question. Conservatism doesn’t embrace overly powerful government. But it does acknowledge a proper need for governments. What “social outcomes” are you speaking of, exactly?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I think we're missing the point here.


He is using the power of the government, to regulate whatever social outcome is desired.


On one hand, Florida is pretty much all red, so the constituents must support it.


However, it does set a dangerous precedent in my opinion, for say, future democrats to do what they want, to achieve whatever social outcome is desired.

It’s kind of funny to see you concerned about how democrats may react while watching them do what they’re doing now.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Now books can be gay? How does one determine the sexuality of a book?

Now do Playboy.

 

[BluesLegend]

Compromising principles and selling your soul to achieve a desired political outcome? What do you actually stand for then?

LMAO said no Dem in the past 40 years.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Compromising principles and selling your soul to achieve a desired political outcome? What do you actually stand for then?

Oh my. The party of no principles and have sold their soul is concerned about you.

 

[Coyote]

Really? How about a list to support that claim.

I psted some examples in post 64.

Maybe they just don’t see it as you do?

That’s a weird question. Conservatism doesn’t embrace overly powerful government. But it does acknowledge a proper need for governments. What “social outcomes” are you speaking of, exactly?

Well...that isn't any different than liberals then. we just don't agree on what is "proper need". However how intrusive should government be in private lives?

Social outcomes: no transgender people, no same sex marriage, no mention of same sex marriage, non hetero lifestyles, promition of traditional familues only.

 

[Coyote]

So you disagree with legislating a new definition for marriage. Good to know

I agree with supporting equal rights and marriage is one of those rights. Your culture does not have the right to deny others their rights.

On Monday, Democrats in both chambers of Congress introduced a bill to redefine marriage in national law, which they have dubbed the Respect for Marriage Act. The bill would prevent any state from exclusively protecting the natural family in law, in the (unlikely) event the Supreme Court overturns Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 opinion which created the constitutional “right” to same-sex marriage.

The ‘Disrespect of Marriage Act’: Democratic Bill Would Redefine Marriage

With economic pressures squeezing middle-class families tighter than any time in a generation, congressional Democrats have decided to ram through a series of l

washingtonstand.com

And? Why do you deny the rights of marriage to same sex couples? It is a matter of equal rights, not culture wars.

 

[BackAgain]

Rather than link it all to sources (I will if you insist), I’ll state it since it has been in the news. But, I didn’t say what you just said: it’s using the power of the state.

The “don’t say gay” law Is one example.

No it’s not. It’s appropriate for a state government to make laws about what should or shouldn’t be in the curriculum of its schools. And the fake name of the law (which doesn’t do what that false label suggests) doesn’t help.

Another is several laws on Demonstrations.

Florida's controversial anti-riot law remains temporarily blocked

A controversial measure that critics argue chills Floridians' right to peacefully protest remains blocked as a legal challenge to the new law moves through the courts.

news.wfsu.org

The bill redefines rioting and gives broad discretion to law enforcement in how to define it.

So. How is defining the term used in a criminal law somehow an imposition of the rights of people?

The vagueness of these laws is deliberate,

Doubtful. Can you support that opinion?

because when people don’t have a clear legal line, they can’t tell what is legal or not,

Which is why the government defines it.

and will be afraid to protest because it could be a felony.

Absolute rubbish.

Indeed, this proposed definition is damn clear and includes several important qualifiers:

A person commits a riot if he or she willfully participates in a violent public disturbance involving an assembly of three or more persons, acting with a common intent to assist each other in violent and disorderly conduct, resulting in: Injury to another person; damage to property; or imminent danger of injury to another.

Damn fine and rather clear language. Yiur “fear” is baseless.

DeSantis administration requires events at the Capitol ‘align’ with its mission

The Department of Management Services, which oversees state facilities, over the past few months has changed rules for groups or individuals who want to reserve space inside the Capitol.

www.politico.com

Another law places limits on who can demonstrate or set up space in the Florida Capitol, requiring not just a permit, but that it be approved by special departments and that it “align with the state’s mission”.

Misguided I suspect. I doubt it would survive judicial scrutiny.

Meanwhile, as DeSantis signs a bill to stop “Big Tech” from “censoring” free speech, be is also looking at using the government to censor freedom of the media by doing away the high bar for suing public figures.

Why not? Lots of people criticize the Sullivan rule. Justifiably.

This opens all media to a ton of frivolous lawsuits and will ultimately stifle free expression especially for smaller entities without the resources to fight it.

I don’t know that it will. But do you imagine any court — judging the constitutionality of the law — would allow that to happen?

These are just a few examples of legislation thart directly impacts basic rights.

I happen to agree with you about the recent bill to deal with criticisms of the governor or other elected officials by blogger. Absolutely unconstitutional. And a stupid thing for any American to oppose.

Still, you state guesswork as fact. And you also misperceive the effect of some things.

 

[Billiejeens]

Here’s a list of books banned, under review in Central Florida schools

The 2022-23 school year is coming to a close, but students and teachers are still seeing people pushing to pull certain books from the shelves within districts across the nation.

www.clickorlando.com

Of the books banned between July 2021 and June 2022, 41% had LGBTQ themes, protagonists or prominent secondary characters, 40% had characters of color as primary or prominent secondary characters, 21% dealt with race or racism, and 22% contained sexual content.

No books were banned.

 

[Markle]

I don't understand the left's obsession regarding children. It's a no win situation for them. Parents won't stand for it

Their obsession with children is simple.

"When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."

Adolf Hitler

 

[Lastamender]

I’m sorry you were incapable of understanding the OP.

You peaked at "I'm sorry."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why would conservatives vote for DeSantis?

Because conservatives are advocates of authoritarianism and big government interfering in citizens lives – more government, bigger government at the expense of individual liberty, it’s the conservative way.

And DeSantis has demonstrated that he’s a big government authoritarian conservative.

 

[Orangecat]

Why would conservatives vote for DeSantis?​

You have to be seriously dull to even ask that question.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

But you are using the State to remove parental rights.

Conservatives use the state to violate a woman’s right to privacy.

Conservatives use the state to violate the voting rights of minorities.

Conservatives use the state to violate the due process rights of immigrants.

Conservatives use the state to violate the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans.

Conservatives use the state to violate the First Amendment rights of social media.

Conservatives use the state to ban books, ban expressions of individual liberty, and ban the teaching of science and facts.

Conservatism has always been about authoritarianism and control – compelling conformity and silencing dissent.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

This is precisely why people call Florida Republicans "fascists" and "authoritarians". They're literally employing the same strategy that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party used in Germany in order to solidify their power; oppress "undesirables"; and eliminate all opposition.
You know who else persecuted, then later killed, LGBT people? Hitler and the Nazis.

 

[Jessica-stormlover]

In fact, LGBTQ people were the first groups targeted by the Nazi's. One of first acts was them attacking the School of Sexualogy and burning books on sexuality and LGBTQ issues/studies that were discussed at the time.

 

[Markle]

Serious question. DeSantis has done more than any other candidate or recent president to increase the power of the state over individual rights and no one seems to care. Is conservative ideology changed in terms of using the state to enforce it’s desired social outcome?

President Biden unilaterally abandoned our oil independence.

President Biden unilaterally mandated worthless masks.

President Biden unilaterally mandated experimental vaccines ending millions of citizens' careers and livelihoods.

President Biden unilaterally mandated schools to close causing irreparable harm academically and psychologically for the rest of their lives.

President Biden unilaterally started the nationalization of our banking system.

President Biden unilaterally abandoned Afghanistan causing the death of thousands of civilians and forcing women back into the dark ages.

President Biden unilaterally has launched us into a proxy war with Russia over a country in which we have no strategic interest.

President Biden unilaterally pushed Russia and China together in an alliance made in hell!

And the list goes on.

But you're left whining that it is a REPUBLICAN robbing people of their freedom and rights.