DeSantis thread

[cableok]

Yet more proof that this guy is the absolute antithesis of what America needs right now. He is simply power-hungry and wants his way above all else and is a big government hypocrite. There is absolutely no good reason that ranked-choice voting should be banned in all local elections in Florida other than the fact that extremists are in power and they know that RCV allows people to vote what they want and not the divisive us/them that the extremists like Desantis thrive on.

The only way I would ever vote for Trump is if my only choices were Trump or Desantis.

https://www.wptv.com/news/state/florida-bans-ranked-choice-voting-in-new-election-law

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. — Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a billthat creates a police force dedicated to pursuing voter fraud and other election crimes, but that's not all it does.

The bill signed on Monday also eliminates ranked-choice voting for all elections in Florida.

Senate Bill 524 specifically said it was "prohibiting the use of ranked-choice voting to determine election or nomination to elective office; voiding existing or future local ordinances authorizing the use of ranked choice voting."

This means cities or counties can't pass their own laws on ranked-choice voting.

Ranked choice voting is an interesting concept. I am neither for or against it, but I remembered that WSJ had a great article explaining their opinion as to why it is a bad idea. Essentially ranked choice voting allows someone to vote for and vote against someone. While that may be appealing to some, I am not a fan of that thought.

For years, I have been on a committee that chooses the Teacher of the Year. We use a version of RCV. In practice, it allows mediocracy to rise to near top because people tend to vote their favorite at the top and what they believe as non-competitors next…and then place other top candidates at bottom.

So while I agree that RCV may be useful in primaries, I don’t believe RCV is a better solution for general elections.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ranked-choice-voting-is-bad-for-everyone-11625674248

 

[steross]

Ranked choice voting is an interesting concept. I am neither for or against it, but I remembered that WSJ had a great article explaining their opinion as to why it is a bad idea. Essentially ranked choice voting allows someone to vote for and vote against someone. While that may be appealing to some, I am not a fan of that thought.

For years, I have been on a committee that chooses the Teacher of the Year. We use a version of RCV. In practice, it allows mediocracy to rise to near top because people tend to vote their favorite at the top and what they believe as non-competitors next…and then place other top candidates at bottom.

So while I agree that RCV may be useful in primaries, I don’t believe RCV is a better solution for general elections.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/ranked-choice-voting-is-bad-for-everyone-11625674248

Yiur opinion points out minor flaws in RCV while ignoring the major flaws in single choice voting that has made our electorate apathetic and hating the constant division it creates. And, the divisive politicians are now codifying it for all. I’ll read the WSJ later but know as a subscriber that it will be a biased opinion. As far as your point about “mediocrity “ my guess is your choice for “top” is simply the last person that other people want. I know that is how I feel when you are voicing opinions about politicians. Maybe consider your idea of the top is their idea of the worst.

But, it really doesn’t matter as my point wasn’t about RCV per se. My point was about a state level politician who is so power hungry and pro big government that he not only made the rule for his level of government he felt he should decide for local politicians, too. That is is not conservative at all and the sort of my-way-is-right-for-all that we don’t want as the exec at a federal level.

 

[cableok]

Yiur opinion points out minor flaws in RCV while ignoring the major flaws in single choice voting that has made our electorate apathetic and hating the constant division it creates. And, the divisive politicians are now codifying it for all. I’ll read the WSJ later but know as a subscriber that it will be a biased opinion. As far as your point about “mediocrity “ my guess is your choice for “top” is simply the last person that other people want. I know that is how I feel when you are voicing opinions about politicians. Maybe consider your idea of the top is their idea of the worst.

But, it really doesn’t matter as my point wasn’t about RCV per se. My point was about a state level politician who is so power hungry and pro big government that he not only made the rule for his level of government he felt he should decide for local politicians, too. That is is not conservative at all and the sort of my-way-is-right-for-all that we don’t want as the exec at a federal level.

How is a WSJ piece from 2017 about RCV a biased view?

So are you against all laws made by larger governments that decide how local politicians act? My guess is no - that you are selective. But if not, glad to see you are moving away from big government.

 

[steross]

How is a WSJ piece from 2017 about RCV a biased view?

So are you against all laws made by larger governments that decide how local politicians act? My guess is no - that you are selective. But if not, glad to see you are moving away from big government.

Where did I say I was against all laws that are made by a larger government?
What I am against is appeals to ridicule.
There are laws that need to occur at a higher level. For example, I would not want a city to be able to create its own military and impose a draft. But, the method of voting chosen for local elections does not even come close to that. And, you know it. Which is why you didn't argue the merits of his action but instead tried the ridicule fallacy to defend the big-government politician that you like. I'm sad to see you have become such a huge advocate of domineering big government, but only the big government you want which is even worse than true progressivism.

 

[cableok]

Where did I say I was against all laws that are made by a larger government?
What I am against is appeals to ridicule.
There are laws that need to occur at a higher level. For example, I would not want a city to be able to create its own military and impose a draft. But, the method of voting chosen for local elections does not even come close to that. And, you know it. Which is why you didn't argue the merits of his action but instead tried the ridicule fallacy to defend the big-government politician that you like. I'm sad to see you have become such a huge advocate of domineering big government, but only the big government you want which is even worse than true progressivism.

I am not a fan of big government. I never once said I was either a fan/against RCV or the new FL law. I am consistent about government over-reach unlike others that pick and choose based on laws they like/dislike. I don’t agree that states should make actions that prohibit municipalities from enacting their own decisions.

RCV is not a partisan issue. I do applaud ways to make our electorate less divisive, but I am not sure RCV accomplishes that. I am not passionate about RCV, but I do have concerns that a person who got the most votes would not win an election.

 

[steross]

I am not a fan of big government. I never once said I was either a fan/against RCV or the new FL law. I am consistent about government over-reach unlike others that pick and choose based on laws they like/dislike. I don’t agree that states should make actions that prohibit municipalities from enacting their own decisions.

RCV is not a partisan issue. I do applaud ways to make our electorate less divisive, but I am not sure RCV accomplishes that. I am not passionate about RCV, but I do have concerns that a person who got the most votes would not win an election.

Here is how this works. I post in the Desantis thread complaining about Desantis and a law he put through. You post disagreeing with my complaint. That implies support of him. That is how you are taken every time you do it like this which is often. You often did the same with Trump. Make multiple posts defending him then claiming that you don't support him.

You can later claim you are not what you have made multiple posts defending, but at that point, it doesn't matter. Just like if you dress flamboyantly and march in the pride parade then say "I'm not really gay" people are still going to have an opinion of you.

Sure you didn't specifically state that you support these big government moves by Desantis. Nor did you make a statement like "While I vehemently disagree with these over-reach actions by Desantis, I have concerns about RCV...." You are not at all being consistent because you STILL have not directly commented on his big government overreach and everything you have written implies support whether that was your intention or not.

So, your words say one thing and then you claim another. Which you do frequently. My opinion is based on your words.

 

[cableok]

Here is how this works. I post in the Desantis thread complaining about Desantis and a law he put through. You post disagreeing with my complaint. That implies support of him. That is how you are taken every time you do it like this which is often. You often did the same with Trump. Make multiple posts defending him then claiming that you don't support him.

You can later claim you are not what you have made multiple posts defending, but at that point, it doesn't matter. Just like if you dress flamboyantly and march in the pride parade then say "I'm not really gay" people are still going to have an opinion of you.

Sure you didn't specifically state that you support these big government moves by Desantis. Nor did you make a statement like "While I vehemently disagree with these over-reach actions by Desantis, I have concerns about RCV...." You are not at all being consistent because you STILL have not directly commented on his big government overreach and everything you have written implies support whether that was your intention or not.

So, your words say one thing and then you claim another. Which you do frequently. My opinion is based on your words.

Because it is a DeSantis titled thread, I can’t comment about your post about RCV because you struggle with nuance? I didn’t even post a strong opinion about RCV, just my personal experience with the Teacher of the Year board in which my experience showed flaws.

That is a perfect example of problems with one direction dialogue. I said nothing in my initial reply about DeSantis or government laws, but you felt need to add context, which wasn’t there, to my post.

And where did Trump come from this? Wow.

 

[steross]

Because it is a DeSantis titled thread, I can’t comment about your post about RCV because you struggle with nuance? I didn’t even post a strong opinion about RCV, just my personal experience with the Teacher of the Year board in which my experience showed flaws.

That is a perfect example of problems with one direction dialogue. I said nothing in my initial reply about DeSantis or government laws, but you felt need to add context, which wasn’t there, to my post.

And where did Trump come from this? Wow.

What, I can't comment about your constant defense of the actions of Trump while saying that you didn't like Trump in a thread about Desantis? Wow.

This is a perfect example of the problems of someone wanting to show political spin not saying what they feel.

So, fine, I will ask directly. What do you think of the big government actions of Desantis? What do you think of EXACTLY this move? Do you support his coming run for president given that he is doing these things and you just declared that you do not support over-reach??

 

[cableok]

What, I can't comment about your constant defense of the actions of Trump while saying that you didn't like Trump in a thread about Desantis? Wow.

This is a perfect example of the problems of someone wanting to show political spin not saying what they feel.

So, fine, I will ask directly. What do you think of the big government actions of Desantis? What do you think of EXACTLY this move? Do you support his coming run for president given that he is doing these things and you just declared that you do not support over-reach??

I can’t and won’t defend statements that I have never made. I am unclear what you mean by “constant defense of actions of Trump”? That sounds like something our pigeon-poster does when he starts losing a debate.
If you are referring to that I was a fan of the federal tax cuts — then yes, I believe people should be able to keep what they earn.

As for DeSantis, I think he has a great opportunity in 2024. I can’t think of any politician that I have voted for that I support everything they did. And just because I like a politician does not mean I blindly support everything they do. And conversely, just because I don’t vote for a politician doesn’t mean I am against everything they do.

 

[steross]

I can’t and won’t defend statements that I have never made. I am unclear what you mean by “constant defense of actions of Trump”? That sounds like something our pigeon-poster does when he starts losing a debate.
If you are referring to that I was a fan of the federal tax cuts — then yes, I believe people should be able to keep what they earn.

As for DeSantis, I think he has a great opportunity in 2024. I can’t think of any politician that I have voted for that I support everything they did. And just because I like a politician does not mean I blindly support everything they do. And conversely, just because I don’t vote for a politician doesn’t mean I am against everything they do.

Complete dodge of my questions on the EXACT action of Desantis. On that, you are very consistent! Very funny that you are doing exactly what I am talking about while being galled that I am talking about it. See, by replying to my very direct , specific question with the vague, but implied, "I don't support every action" you will later be able to say "I never said I didn't support THAT!" You should consider being a press secretary for one of these right-wing nutbags that you support oops, I mean, sometimes agree with.

 

[Jostate]

I can’t and won’t defend statements that I have never made. .

This is kind of the JD strategy. He does it to me all the time.

 

[CowboyJD]

I can’t and won’t defend statements that I have never made. I am unclear what you mean by “constant defense of actions of Trump”? That sounds like something our pigeon-poster does when he starts losing a debate.
If you are referring to that I was a fan of the federal tax cuts — then yes, I believe people should be able to keep what they earn.

As for DeSantis, I think he has a great opportunity in 2024. I can’t think of any politician that I have voted for that I support everything they did. And just because I like a politician does not mean I blindly support everything they do. And conversely, just because I don’t vote for a politician doesn’t mean I am against everything they do.

This is kind of the JD strategy. He does it to me all the time.

In your head…..

24/7

 

[Jostate]

In your head…..

24/7

Yes, that is a standard message board come back these days. Now I eagerly await you saying "you owned me".

 

[CowboyJD]

Yes, that is a standard message board come back these days. Now I eagerly await you saying "you owned me".

We what otherwise am I to think?

Cable in a debate with someone else referencing me. You puppy dogging him with a “me too”.

You sending me dms out of the blue about something I posted two years ago that you were still dealing with.

 

[Jostate]

We what otherwise am I to think?

Cable in a debate with someone else referencing me. You puppy dogging him with a “me too”.

You sending me dms out of the blue about something I posted two years ago that you were still dealing with.

Actually I respond to a relatively small percentage of your posts. I see your little pissing matches on here all the time and usually ignore them. I have given you a few likes when I agreed with something you said. I try not factor into my likes or dislikes personalities but take each post on it's own. Voting for or against the person just leads to the cliquishness of the site. You've called me names and I never respond in kind. I agreed with another poster because you do attribute statements to others they never posted.

I miss the days when OP.com was us against them as in OSU fans against the rest. It's turned into us against them in the AV versus the rest or left against right politically. We like to lay blame for the divisiveness in society on the political party we disagree with, but it appears to me the reason for the divisiveness is some people, like you, thrive on it. By your own admission, you're not even here to make political points most of the time, just post childish condescending memes.

As far the DM I think it was 6 years ago after you posted something about me not loving my kid. I was having a bad day at work and let it get to me. I've apologized a couple of times now. Feel free to continue your pissing match with others. I'll sit it out.

 

[CowboyJD]

Actually I respond to a relatively small percentage of your posts. I see your little pissing matches on here all the time and usually ignore them. I have given you a few likes when I agreed with something you said. I try not factor into my likes or dislikes personalities but take each post on it's own. Voting for or against the person just leads to the cliquishness of the site. You've called me names and I never respond in kind. I agreed with another poster because you do attribute statements to others they never posted.

I miss the days when OP.com was us against them as in OSU fans against the rest. It's turned into us against them in the AV versus the rest or left against right politically. We like to lay blame for the divisiveness in society on the political party we disagree with, but it appears to me the reason for the divisiveness is some people, like you, thrive on it. By your own admission, you're not even here to make political points most of the time, just post childish condescending memes.

As far the DM I think it was 6 years ago after you posted something about me not loving my kid. I was having a bad day at work and let it get to me. I've apologized a couple of times now. Feel free to continue your pissing match with others. I'll sit it out.

For the record, you sent the DMs a little over two years ago and you have never apologized.

And with the you have said here and in the AV, you can take your weak attempt to play the victim and shove it, dude.

You’ll be back pulling your same crap….soon.

 

[Jostate]

For the record, you have never apologized.

And with the you have said here and the AV, you can take your weak attempt to play the victim and shove it, dude.

You’ll be back pulling your same crap….soon.

Okay then. I'm sorry for the personal attack in DM.

 

[CowboyJD]

Okay then. I'm sorry for the personal attack in DM.

 

[UrbanCowboy1]

Okay then. I'm sorry for the personal attack in DM.

 

[Jostate]

View attachment 96337

If that's what it takes to prove I'm not homophobic let's just do this.