What is the future of the Republican Party?

Archy1221 said:
Yes it’s why I posted it  :dunno

You do realize that the local reporters are not confirming this story, right? 
 

You also realize she retweeted not the Outkick article, but another persons take on Ron DeSantis who retweeted the article that had this little nugget in it, right?

Florida residents had called for DeSantis to veto the spending anyway, saying that Floridians’ tax dollars should not help fund a facility for a professional sports team.
Click to expand...
If you’re okay with Desantis’s decision to veto based on politics, that’s your choice.  Have at it.

The spokeswomen retweeted Josh Hamner’s take on the article without comment of her own.  To me, and most others, that says she agrees with his point.  He also has others tweets insinuating it was political and not based on fiscal conservativeness (is that a word?)

775A5C05-A7B1-4C5B-8042-71A9C6C0792C.png

 
Last edited by a moderator:
commando said:
helping people doesn't seem to be a priority

Click to expand...


Repubs in congress, when asked to comment:

giphy.gif


 
teachercd said:
Didn't all these gasbags just give like 40 billion to Ukraine...when it could have basically been used to solve all the education issues in OUR country?
Click to expand...
$40 billion to Ukraine is definitely a good thing. It's best to acknowledge that Congress can do both things, send money to them while also allocating money for education/baby formula/whatever else.

It isn't a zero sum game. 

 
Archy1221 said:
All budgets have politics associated with them.  
Click to expand...
If the argument is to play “politics” and selling projects using networks of who you know and persuading officials of what is and isn’t a good use of taxpayer money, I agree that it is definitely responsible govt and why we elect people.

But I also feel that not weighing pros/cons but instead proudly withholding money because a private business said something you don’t like is a dangerous place to go.

Im not naive enough to think this hasn’t always happened. But I’m not a fan of politicians doing for the world to see.  And I’m even more nervous about the many constituents that are cheering it on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
funhusker said:
If the argument is to play “politics” and selling projects using networks of who you know and persuading officials of what is and isn’t a good use of taxpayer money, I agree that it is definitely responsible govt and why we elect people.

But I also feel that not weighing pros/cons but instead proudly withholding money because a private business said something you don’t like is a dangerous place to go
Click to expand...
The article you posted about talks of constituents not wanting to spend state money on major league sports teams.   It is not widely circulated amongst the Florida media that he vetoed because Rays wanted anti gun donations.  

 
Archy1221 said:
The article you posted about talks of constituents not wanting to spend state money on major league sports teams.   It is not widely circulated amongst the Florida media that he vetoed because Rays wanted anti gun donations.  
Click to expand...
I don’t know if you’re intentionally missing the point or not.

The article I posted, was the Outkick article that “broke” the news that Desantis vetoed because of a political statement the Rays made. You are correct that the article also mentions some taxpayers were against the spending.  

A conservative media personality champions the veto because he claims Desantis is a conservative champion that understands that Floridians love their guns and Condtitution.  (I’m paraphrasing here based off his other Tweets so please don’t look for those literal words).

A Desantis spokeswomen retweets the conservative pundits tweet with no comment.  Reasonable people could deduce that Desantis’s decision was based on the Rays statement and not the wishes of taxpayers.

If the decision was made because Desantis listened to taxpayers and truly felt the money was best used elsewhere, good for him and bad for the Rays.  This would be really easy to communicate, they have interns on staff to handle things like this.  Instead, Desantis is in a situation where it looks like a decision was made out of spite.  That isn’t good governance in my opinion.

Bottom line: there are two possibilities.  The veto was out of spite, or Desantis listened to the concerns of some of his constituents.  One of his spokespeople is advertising it was out of spite.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Strangelove said:
...they can do both. Neither comes first or second.
Click to expand...
One did come first though.  I mean...we know that.

And even if they voted on them the same exact day...one would still come first.

It is okay to just say "Yeah, they should care about home first but still try to help out in other places after they help at home"

 
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd said:
One did come first though.  I mean...we know that.

And even if they voted on them the same exact day...one would still come first.

It is okay to just say "Yeah, they should care about home first but still try to help out in other places after they help at home"
Click to expand...
It's also ok to recognize that one is a decades long problem that could be solved (but isn't) over months or years whereas the other is an immediate need due to recent events. Saying Congress should do "home" stuff first is silly.

 
RedDenver said:
It's also ok to recognize that one is a decades long problem that could be solved (but isn't) over months or years whereas the other is an immediate need due to recent events. Saying Congress should do "home" stuff first is silly.
Click to expand...
Wow, saying Congress should care about America first is silly...

Okay!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RedDenver said:
It's silly to think that things that are time-critical should have to wait for things that aren't time-critical - that's not smart but rather foolish.
Click to expand...
I glad we agree...we both think it is foolish to ignore the issue of education and teacher shortage in the country.  

It is rare on this site where people start off on opposite ends but after just a few posts realize and can agree on one point making sense.  

Thank you, I appreciate it.  

 
funhusker said:
I don’t know if you’re intentionally missing the point or not.

The article I posted, was the Outkick article that “broke” the news that Desantis vetoed because of a political statement the Rays made. You are correct that the article also mentions some taxpayers were against the spending.  

A conservative media personality champions the veto because he claims Desantis is a conservative champion that understands that Floridians love their guns and Condtitution.  (I’m paraphrasing here based off his other Tweets so please don’t look for those literal words).

A Desantis spokeswomen retweets the conservative pundits tweet with no comment.  Reasonable people could deduce that Desantis’s decision was based on the Rays statement and not the wishes of taxpayers.

If the decision was made because Desantis listened to taxpayers and truly felt the money was best used elsewhere, good for him and bad for the Rays.  This would be really easy to communicate, they have interns on staff to handle things like this.  Instead, Desantis is in a situation where it looks like a decision was made out of spite.  That isn’t good governance in my opinion.

Bottom line: there are two possibilities.  The veto was out of spite, or Desantis listened to the concerns of some of his constituents.  One of his spokespeople is advertising it was out of spite.
Click to expand...
I’m not intentionally missing whatever point you are trying to make.   I’m giving you another possible explanation as to why the funding was vetoed, which interestingly enough, you admit is a possibility later on in your own post.   Here is further clarification for you…..


 
Back
Top