Sorry Desantis, but I think Disney may have gotten the last laugh

I suggest ya'll lead the exodus out of Florida. Have fun.

 

I think we'll be just fine.

 

Some of you can't understand sarcasm even when I basically highlight it for you.

When I said "peaceful protests" what I meant was this.

Newsom did take punitive action, he asked to re-evaluate Walgreens deals and withdrew from the agreement, they just had the opportunity to re-bid and it didn't materialized. He tried and he failed but he still tried. The IRS selectively targeted conservative groups and apologized for it. The DA who ran on indicting Trump is now indicting Trump and we're supposed to believe that's just blind justice? That's trash.

It's an authoritarianism issue and it looks like you don't understand what the term "heckler's veto" means.

It shouldn't be acceptable... in the long run. But sometimes to reach that "acceptable" outcome you have to fight fire with fire. When somebody cheats you and consistently cheats you, you make them pay for cheating you or they'll keep doing it.

Be better? Spare me that sanctimonious bullcrap.

There's a reason I'm so rigid on this. It's because I know that almost regardless of what DeSantis does, it won't change how Democrats react, and it's not because they're these men and women of principle . It's because they've built a reputation of consistently throwing whatever they can at the wall and seeing what sticks, of changing the rules whenever something doesn't go their way, and of doing whatever it takes to further their agenda.

If you're like that with a spineless Republican Party, you have nothing left when guys like DeSantis and Trump come along. And you have nobody to blame but yourself.

 

Well said

 

Actually, he's right. The claim that they only targeted right-wing groups was debunked.
As IRS Targeted Tea Party Groups, It Went After Progressives Too

No, he'd have been charged a long time ago for his alleged crime.

 

Wrong again.

"The Internal Revenue Service apologized Friday for subjecting Tea Party groups to additional scrutiny during the 2012 election...Lois Lerner, who heads the IRS unit that oversees tax-exempt groups, said organizations that included the words "tea party" or "patriot" in their applications for tax-exempt status were singled out for additional reviews."

IRS apologizes for targeting conservative groups

Poster cites a 2013 article that has been shown to be incomplete reporting.
From Newsweek 10/10/2017
"The original claim was that the filters that the IRS's tax-exempt organizations unit had used were biased against right-wing groups. Now, it turns out that even that was not true. In addition to keywords like "tea party," the unit was also looking for words like "occupy," "progressive," and "green energy."

Actually, that information is not new. We have known for years that the IRS was using both left- and right-oriented search terms, but this report provides exhaustive documentation of that fact."

Wrong again.

 

Then why'd they apologize and settle, gator_lawyer?

Justice Department settles with conservative groups over IRS scrutiny

The U.S. Justice Department has reached a settlement with dozens of conservative groups that claimed the Internal Revenue Service unfairly scrutinized them based on their political leanings when they sought a tax-exempt status, court documents showed.

That is complete bullshit and you know it.

DA Bragg boasted during his campaign about suing Trump

“I certainly have more experience with [Trump] than most people in the world,” then-candidate Bragg told The Wall Street Journal in April 2021.

At a December 2020 Democratic candidates forum, Bragg also pointed to the foundation case as a key reason for him to inherit a probe of Trump that was opened by outgoing Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance Jr., The New York Times

“I have investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their misconduct with the Trump Foundation,” Bragg said. “I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable.”

Bragg also boasted, “It is a fact that I have sued Trump more than a hundred times.”

Same guy is choosing not to prosecute misdemeanors.

Either you haven't been paying attention (perfectly acceptable, much better ways of spending your time and I understand that, but I don't think that's you), you're a complete moron (also don't think so), or you are a complete liar (can't think of any alternative).

 

Poster claims that Newsome acted punitively vs Walgreens except the company had a contract to dispense drugs to Calif. and decided to withhold selected drugs at their discretion. That's not the agreed contract. Note that Newsome did not sue Walgreens, just opened the bid to other companies that would dispense all legal drugs to his state. Positively nothing like DeS and his denial of 1st Amend rights to Disney.
Poster seems to have issues with facts and comparisons.

 

Gonna restate again, they targeted both right-wing and left-wing groups, which contradicts your "authoritarian" argument. I just posted an article from NPR.

Michael Cohen flipped on Trump years ago. If Trump was a regular guy, he'd have been charged with a crime back then. And your comment about Bragg not prosecuting some misdemeanors is irrelevant when Trump is charged with felonies.

 

@coleg Yeah, it's called CYA mode. Can't damage the national perception of the IRS now can we?

The IRS settled and apologized for targeting conservative groups.

The House Oversight Committee also found that the scrutiny received by liberal groups did not match the scrutiny received by conservative groups.

 

But the House Oversight Committee found that they targeted conservative groups more. Some internal audit covered for the IRS because we can't damage the national trust in an institution like the IRS now can we? It's run by your boys. Supreme Court on the other hand, completely different story.

I'm aware he has been charged with felonies. Trump was charged with falsification of business records, which is... you guessed it... a misdemeanor on its own. But Bragg REALLY wants to get Trump so he pulled some legal magic (legal bullshit) to elevate that misdemeanor into felonies by (probably) going to the campaign finance well which is going to be incredibly difficult to prove without even getting into Statute of Limitations issues.

I shouldn't have to spell out my entire thought process to you, but I guess I overestimated you.

And this is a guy who basically ran on being light on crime.

Here's something else I know, if a DA who has sued Barack Obama over 100 times, brags about it, campaigns on prosecuting Obama, then prosecutes Obama on the scantiest of grounds... you all would be saying everything I'm saying and tacking on the race card.

 

As retaliation for disagreeing with him on abortion.

Almost there, bud... you can do it!

By the way... "all legal drugs?" As though pharmacies take no discretion in which drugs they offer?

Come on, dude. You can't be THAT naive.

 

1. I don't care who it targeted "more." The fact that it was targeting both sides contradicts any argument that it was done for some sort of partisan "authoritarian" purpose. The IRS acted improperly. Those improper actions were not part of some "authoritarian" attempt to destroy the Republican Party.
2. I have to chuckle at you disregarding an "internal audit" (which was actually an audit by Treasury's OIG) because it is purportedly too "biased" while relying on findings of the Republican-controlled House Oversight Committee. Funny stuff.

In other words, Trump is charged with felonies for breaking the law. Bragg's office will have to prove it. They may not be able to prove it. And we'll see what happens. Sounds like the system is working fine. The fact that you aren't disputing the underlying conduct and are instead whinging about the motives for the prosecution says it all.

This implies that there is a "thought process." Based on the drivel you've vomited on to this thread, I'm comfortable saying that you're overestimating yourself.

Bragg is prosecuting Trump because he's white?

Let's make this real simple. Do you dispute that Donald Trump reimbursed Michael Cohen for paying off Stormy Daniels? If so, what is the basis for your refutation?

Hell, on this very page, you tried to claim that the question isn't if Trump broke the law:

Imagine whining that it's unfair a powerful person was charged with a crime and then trying to claim that whether he broke the law doesn't actually matter. You're so full of manure.

 

Trump knocks DeSantis over Disney feud

Trump cuts off Desantis’ one remaining testicle:


DeSanctus is being absolutely destroyed by Disney. His original P.R. plan fizzled, so now he’s going back with a new one in order to save face,” Trump said on Truth Social, referring to the Florida governor by a nickname.

Trump speculated that “Disney’s next move will be the announcement that no more money will be invested in Florida because of the Governor. In fact, they could even announce a slow withdrawal or sale of certain properties, or the whole thing. Watch! That would be a killer.”


Meatball Ron is so bad at this. Trump is toying with Desantis like a big fat overfed red tabby tomcat would play with a one legged blind mouse.

 

For as bad and unhinged and downright factually wrong Trump’s rants usually are, it’s amazing how on point he’s been with DeSantis.

 

Definitely both. This is the guy that a certain contingent is adamantly determined to follow off a cliff, though. Just like they were eager to follow Trump.

 

"The question isn't whether he broke the law" - phrase uttered by the contingent that regularly blasts liberals for being soft on criminals. You can't make this kind of stuff up.

 

There are many that are yet unaware of ALL the many wacko conspiracies of which you seem to have intimate knowledge. Please keep us abreast of the Gateway, Western J. and Infowar imaginary battles. We get a lot of laughs from them. Meanwhile we just keep proving your theories/statements wrong.