Here are the Blue and Red responses, inline, so far: Blue: Student Loan Forgiveness. The simple answer is NO. Of all the things Democrats want to do, this one is a very expensive way to affect very few people. So much of what Biden has accomplished so far (the infrastructure bill comes to mind) are things this country needs, and that affect everyone. They move the country forward. Those are the things the government should be doing. I don't mind Republican opposition the the Student Loan Forgiveness program. But it does bother me that they couldn't get behind the infrastructure bill. Red: Awesome! Common ground! Fantastic! I salute you for bucking against your party! Good for you! Blue: I am for America, not party. My party is right more often than not, but not always. I would never vote for anyone who puts party before country. The fact that no republican voted for infrastructure bill (which is required for economic growth) is pure evidence that they are putting party before country. Red: Hey I am giving you credit for going against your party line. The Inf bill is a different topic – try to focus here. Blue: My "NO" answer is not necessarily affected by your "fairness" argument, though you have a point. [[ an (attempt at humor) aside: do you think it is fair that if you you enter the country illegally you can get a free plane ride to Nantucket? Or a bus ride to NYC or Chicago? I as an American citizen can't get that free trip. That's not fair either -- you don't have to dignify that with a response]]. My NO is based on the fact that there are so many other things that *need* doing. If people are unwise in how they spend their own money, the government doesn't need to come in and save them. We have other laws for that (e.g. bankruptcy laws). I feel bad for those with a huge student loan debt, but they did that to themselves. Red: Ahhh, yes that is funny “free rides for illegals.” Of course you know that was done to draw attention to a problem that the feds and northern blue states don’t seem to care about, because it doesn’t impact them (while it is ravaging states near the border). As for free stuff, I think your party is the king of free stuff for illegals (phones, healthcare, voting, etc. As well as plenty of Biden “midnight plane rides”). As well as free stuff in general, of which the college tuition thing is Exhibit A. Your last three sentences are perfect! I kind of want to say…welcome to the Republican Party!! Blue: Oh my god! Really, welcome to the republican party. First you congratulate me for not blindly following my party, they you say I have to join yours because I don't agree with everything democrats want. I am willing to disagree with my party on occasion. I wish republicans could too. Republicans are very much against helping people in need - they'd rather give tax breaks to corporations and the wealthy. We could instead sit down and solve real problems. We could make corporations pay their employees enough so that the government doesn't need to subsidize their wages so they can feed themselves. You can't have it both ways -- tweak laws that help corporations at the expense of their employees and then refuse to help them when they can't afford to live. Red: Again, I was giving you credit. Take it easy. Blue: I should add that I DO think the government should continue to have a safety net for those in need (e.g. those that get laid off and can't afford rent) at least until employers are required to pay a living wage. So don't take my argument that the government doesn't need to save those with huge student loan debts to mean that the government doesn't have a responsibility to help people in real need. Red: Ugh. A backslide here, but ok. “Living Wage.” Does that go for the kid at Burger King? As well as the 50 yr old at Burger King? Do they get paid enough to “live on,” whatever that might be? Totally new topic, so I guess we shouldn’t spiral on this though. Blue: Your argument is orthogonal to anything. It's a talking point on Living Wage. But it does nothing to further the discussion on how we help the American family. Which came first, Wal-Mart paying too little, or the government having tax-payer paid programs to subsidize those employees. Then does Wal-Mart keep wages low because the government will subsidize their wages? We could force corporations to either pay a living wage, or pay enough taxes to support the government programs that their employees are using. The government programs should be there for when wal-mart lays you off, not for while you work there. Your argument about teenagers making a living wage at Burger Kins is not helpful - but does allow republicans to continue to dodge the issue and not work to fix anything. If someone spends 40 hours a week at burger king, they should not receive any government subsidies. That should make republicans happy. How about joining the democratic party and help us make that a reality. Red: I think we are mostly in agreement here. . “If someone spends 40 hours a week at burger king, they should not receive any government subsidies” OK. I would like the free market to do the work, so yes, let’s not have the government to solve all of our problems. Blue: Lastly, an orthogonal point. Kinda like DeSantis who hastily called a special session of his legislature to retaliate against Disney without thinking through about the consequences, I think the loan forgiveness program too has not been thought through. It fixes a symptom, not the underlying problem. I think there is some consensus (at least I believe it) that an educated electorate helps the whole country. That having a high percentage of college educated adults is good for the country. So we need to find a way to educate more people. We can do that, especially if we encourage people to get useful degrees. Or we could better educate them in K-12. All of that helps the *whole* country. The loan forgiveness program is a hasty solution that wastes money that could be used to better educate K-12 graders, and only fixes a symptom and not the problem. Red: Hmmmm. Why not let the free market decide whether people need a college education or not? I think there is a valid argument that says many of the college educations are WAY over priced now, and many of these kids coming out of college are straddled with ridiculous loans and might not even be able to get a job in that field. Meanwhile the trades need tons of people, it is relatively cheap to get trained, and you can make good money. So why not let the market help adjust the prices colleges charge, the fields they train people for, and how many kids go into those professions? That is how you get a balance there. Blue: I don't think we are saying anything different here. But you went off on a tangent without addressing my comments. First yes, the free market will eventually stop people from geting useless degrees and taking on so much debt. Especially if we don't bail them out (again, I think this program is unwise - not unlawful, unwise). So we agree on that. But do you think it is good for the country to have an educated electorate? And if so, do you think (based on the above) that Fox News is helping or hurting our ability to keep people informed? Red: Educated Electorate – yes. But that doesn’t equate to “going to college.” A person should be “educated” enough coming out of high school. Then they can choose where to go from there. College is becoming ridiculously overpriced, especially with many schools just becoming Marxist echo chambers with little real learning going on. Biden trying to buy votes with “free college money” only exacerbates the underlying problem. Colleges have gone crazy with tuition rates and throwing more money into the mix will make it worse, not better. If a college education is not worth the price tag, and the loan, then people should not do it. That is how the free market works. Blue: If you think this is a way to buy votes, it is very ineffective. The number of people who would receive benefits is insignificant. We are talking about fewer than 350K people. Again this isn't the wisest program - for any reason - for democrats to be pursuing. But most certainly (other than a republican talking point) is not a good way to buy votes. Red: And yes, it is definitely not fair to people who don’t go to college, paid off their loans, or paid the fees directly. And yes it adds a ridiculous amount to the federal debt – right at a time when things are about to implode too, by the way (only a matter of time). It is also not the American way. As an individual, you make your choices and you reap the benefits or misery of those choices. You said it nicely: . “If people are unwise in how they spend their own money, the government doesn't need to come in and save them” I am going to marinate in that a bit, because it gives me a new hope for you (as well as the country in general)! I mean that in a good way my friend. Bravo! Well said! Blue: I'm fine with that. I'll be looking for something I can pin hope for you on. ;-) So, we agree that the government doesn't need to bail people out for their own bad decisions. Can we agree that corporations should pay people enough so that the government never needs to subsidize an employee who works 40 hours a week? Red: No, we can’t. I am a free market guy, not a government control guy. You are free to work for anyone you want. If they don’t pay you enough, go work for someone else. Gain skills. Research options.

My Rebuttal, #2 Let’s look at this section by section. The key phrase in all of your response is: " Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. " You've admitted nothing. Me: So I write an extensive answer to your original question, complete with sources and rationale for why I have the position I took, and then respond to every point you brought up, and you focus on one line? That doesn’t show that you have even read what I have written. And you have answered *none* of the questions I asked you along the way. There is nothing for me to “admit.” I am not on trial, and I have said nothing wrong. I have explained in great detail why I feel the way I do, which is the whole point of exchanging ideas with someone who thinks different than you. Just like I am learning from you in terms of how you form your position and what is important to you, your job here is to listen to what I am saying and try to understand the thought process I have. That is the whole point. Are you saying retaliation can never be justified? So you never punch back? If someone attacks you? Your character? Your family? Your way of life? 9/11? Come on. So the question is when is it justified, not if. What you are saying is that all you hatred toward democrats is valid, but when a republican does the exact thing, it is "justified". Me: Here you are going off the deep end again. I have no “hatred” for anyone, nor have I expressed that in this discussion. In fact, quite the opposite. And I have no problem with your position on this matter. My interpretation is that you are big on first amendment rights (as I am too), but also you support the right of a corporation to use its money/influence to try to change a state law. I certainly agree with their right to say what they want, and I have written in great detail why I think that is morally a bad idea in this case. And it is legal, at least to some extent, for them to work to overturn a law. Again, I think that is a bad idea, and I have explained why. You are conflating things here, as this is not really a republican/democrat thing, it is more of a philosophical/ideological thing. Not sure what reverse situation would be exactly applicable here. Your side says 'Hillary should be in jail for having her own email server, but it is political retaliation when the DOJ gets a warrant to enter Mara Largo' to retrieve documents that belong to the government. In this case it is not justified? Does "justified" only apply when your side does something bad? Or is the "justification" argument a way to dodge the bitter truth? Me: You veered off the path big time here. Please stick to the topic. That is a totally different discussion, and quite frankly it shows the hypocrisy of the left-leaning FBI more than anything else, so not something, in my opinion, that helps make your argument here. In fact, in this discussion, I actually went into a “hypocrisy check” just to check myself, and I think I passed it based on what I said above. The question is still open if your position passes that test, since you did not even bother to respond to the question I posed to you (on how you would feel if the “sides” were reversed). Disappointed. Me: So that is an attempt to “shame” me for thinking differently, I suppose. You should only be disappointed if I am not able to explain my thinking. But I did that. In quite a bit of detail. So that leaves me disappointed that you are not able to accept that someone thinks differently from you. I absolutely accept, and respect, your beliefs and values. I want to understand the “why” of your position, find common ground if possible, and then, perhaps, give you one or two points to think about. I know better than to think I will change your mind – but that is not the goal here. How bizarre it would be if every one of us thought the same. We each have our own world view, upbringing, education, and experiences that shape how we see the world. And no two of those paths are the same. The way we defeat the nasty divide that we have in this country is to recognize that diversity of thought is one of our strengths, not weaknesses. And the ability to respect each other’s beliefs is critical to a courteous and successful discussion of the issues we are facing as a country. I should add, thank you for taking the time to respond. Me: There is a flash of something positive! Hooray! Also, I should add that I am grateful you took the time to respond so thoroughly. It was a good answer in spite of the one-sided flaws. I do the same thing. You did out a lot in there that justifies your view on this specific question. But it does limit your honest and intellectual response when the dems do things you don't like. When I use those same arguments I hope you will acknowledge the hypocrisy. Me: You started out well, but then flagged a bit. “One-sided flaws.” Can you give me detail on where those flaws are? What was “one-sided” about my reasoning? I told you very clearly that I would believe the same if it was a company trying to overturn a law in a “blue” state. I can’t be any more universal than that, can I? I am giving you a non-partisan position, which is the best any of us can do. So – without resorting to topics that are not part of this discussion – can you show me where I am being hypocritical? And again, I am waiting for your response to my hypothetical, reverse situation, so you can do your own hypocrisy check (this should apply to you as well, correct?). That is a really healthy exercise. I also asked a few other questions along the way here, for which I would love to get your response. Hey, let’s refocus our efforts to learn from “the other side” here, versus attack with accusations, shaming, etc. Learning leads to understanding, and that leads to common ground. This country needs that more than ever right now. Thanks! Peace

Blue Response/Rebuttal #2 The key phrase in all of your response is: " Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. " You've admitted nothing. ----- What you are saying is that all you hatred toward democrats is valid, but when a republican does the exact thing, it is "justified". Your side says 'Hillary should be in jail for having her own email server, but it is political retaliation when the DOJ gets a warrant to enter Mara Largo' to retrieve documents that belong to the government. In this case it is not justified? Does "justified" only apply when your side does something bad? Or is the "justification" argument a way to dodge the bitter truth? Disappointed. I should add, thank you for taking the time to respond. Also, I should add that I am grateful you took the time to respond so thoroughly. It was a good answer in spite of the one-sided flaws. I do the same thing. You did out a lot in there that justifies your view on this specific question. But it does limit your honest and intellectual response when the dems do things you don't like. When I use those same arguments I hope you will acknowledge the hypocrisy.

My Response to Blue Position: Me: First of all, thank you for sharing these thoughts. I will respond inline, section by section. I like how you laid out the sources. I don't agree with all of the wording. We can agree to disagree of the few things that I find a bit slanted toward your view. I give you credit for not going off the deep end. My comments below are not to say that you are wrong, but to express how my views differ from what you state as your position. In most cases it's a wash. We agree on a lot of it, even though I'm adding my own twist to what you say. Me: This is a decent start. Admitting that it is okay to have a different viewpoint. Excellent. I can say, however, that I find some things you say a bit combative. See below. Source 1, bullet C: Disney said: "Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed..." Source 1, bullet D: DeSantis replies: "We view that as a provocation...". Source 1, bulled F: The next day DeSantis called a special session (expensive to the state) to discuss dissolving the special districts. That is plain and simple retaliation against a "provocateur" that didn't exist. Me: Not sure how those are “combative.” At least from me. That is just source material. Maybe you mean DeSantis was combative? I'm getting ahead of myself when I say 1) I never told you (I don't think) whether or not I agree or disagree with the bill DeSantis signed. 2) I completely agree that having special laws targeted toward a particular corporation is bad. 3) the two are unrelated. I have no objection to Florida removing the special status Disney had. But it should not have happened as retaliation (and DeSantis essentially admitted it was). Indeed he called a special session to make it happen immediately. Retaliation, pure and simple. Me: I think I have already agreed it appears to be a retaliatory move (section D of my answer). Keep in mind that, retaliation means, by definition, that somebody did something first, and you are responding to it. We have no disagreement here. The question is whether or not it was warranted/ethical (“did he abuse his power?”) My views on the bill (yours either) are irrelevant to this discussion. About 1/2 of the people agree with the bill, and about 1/2 do not. It's irrelevant which side you are on and which side I am on. But those that oppose it are (a) allowed to say so and (b) work to have it repealed. Me: You mention “people” here, and I think that is significant. This bill is the business of the “people” of Florida. And yes, they have the right to say what they want about it. They also elected representatives to the FL state legislature to represent them and to vote on bills like this one. Disney is NOT a person, and not a citizen of FL. It is a corporation. As such, it does not vote, and does not get a seat at the table for determining whether bills pass. The votes in the state house indicate support is not 50-50, as you state, but much more tilted towards supporting the bill. Mr Bob Chapek, CEO of Disney, is a person. But not even sure he lives in FL. And he was not speaking for himself, he was speaking for all of Disney. Because our positions on the bill are irrelevant, I will jump to your positions. A. "While corporations have the right"... I'm not sure how this applies. You didn't say anything wrong (i.e. corporations should pay attention to their bottom line) but it is not relevant to our discussion. Me: It is actually quite relevant. This is all a moral argument, is it not? Nobody has done anything illegal, so therefore we are debating the moral merits of what happened. So thus I am saying, while they have the right to speak their mind, others have the right to push back against them. Since this is a moral/ethical argument, context matters. B. "It is hard to see why a corp would turn into a political activist,"... Again, irrelevant. I will point out, however, that corporations express their views all the time. It is the prerogative to do so. And if they do it is not a provocation. Me: It absolutely can be a provocation, as it was in this case. From this source: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/28/business/disney-florida-lgbtq-law.html We have the following: “In its statement on Monday, Disney added that it was committed to the national and state organizations working to overturn the law.” So that is a corporation committed to overturning the law, which represents the will of the people of FL. Which is basically an effort to exert outside power to usurp the legal legislative process in a state. I would definitely consider that a provocation, from a corporation that is not even headquartered in FL (HQ is Burbank, CA). So you may be okay with one of the largest, richest corporations in the world ($67B in revenue)rolling into your state and trying to dictate which laws are allowed, but I would argue that most people would not like this in their state. The people don’t elect the corporation, they elect their legislators, and so by extension, they want those folks to make the laws they live under. That is how representative democracy works. So most folks would view what Disney did as meddling in the state’s affairs. C. "In my view..." I agree that Florida legislators can make any laws they want to make. Again, it's kinda of irrelevant to our discussion. You say that Floridians should be allowed to make their own laws. Then you say that just because Disney has a presence in Florida, it "doesn't morally give them the right to try to bully the state of FL". They expressed their view. This isn't a morality question. And why are you using the word "bully"? Since when is expressing your views an act of "bullying"? Are you guys making this a fight. People and corporations are allowed to lobby to fix any laws they disagree with. That's not "bullying". Me: See above. It is bullying when you directly say you are going to work to overturn a law that the state created, and you are a $67B company. Disney has vast resources at its disposal. “In its statement on Monday, Disney added that it was committed to the national and state organizations working to overturn the law.” That is absolutely a threat, not just a “position.” I think it is naïve to think otherwise (no offense). Let’s say a corporation, someone big like IBM, went into your state and worked aggressively, using all the money and power at its disposal, to outlaw abortion. And work to overturn a law that allowed abortion. So you would be fine with that? You are fine with corporate power overturning the will of the people in any given state? Even when the law has *nothing* to do with their business itself? D. "I don't like governments..." You say Disney initiated the fight. What fight? Why is this a fight? Disney expressed it's views, and DeSantis made it a fight ("it's a provocation") That is wrong. I cannot understand how when Disney expressed their views, they "attempted to usurp the power by elected reps" They spoke their mind. Period. They didn't initiate a fight. And they didn't usurp anybody's power. Disney cannot make laws. Also they didn't "throw punches" they simply made a statement - their 1st amendment right. Me: See above. Maybe you are just not clear in what they said they were going to do. So this gives you a chance to reverse your thoughts on this, perhaps. This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. You also say: "But I will admit that it does look like retaliation for Disney meddling in FL affairs" I give you credit for that. Disney's stock price is irrelevant and doesn't support or refute your point of view. You are implying a correlation between their comments and their stock price. You don't have any data to make that claim. Would you ridicule the left media if it said the reason the stock price was down was because they not have to pay Florida a large percentage of their profits? We don't know why their stock price is down and it really doesn't matter. Nor does it support your point of view. Pure noise. Me: OK, fair point. What I was trying to get across, was that this fight in FL has nothing to do with them as a business. And that perhaps, as a business, they should focus on what they do…as a business (instead of jumping into a huge political fight, which is bad business). That said, and while irrelevant, their stock did take a beating that correlated to them picking this fight. Can I prove it? Of course not – not sure how I would even do that. But the timing matches pretty well. E. "The bill itself, to me..." In some ways it is irrelevant if you believe the bill itself is a no-brainer. As you state that isn't the point. They passed a bill and DeSantis sighed it. It is the law. About 1/2 of the people like it, and about 1/2 of the people don't. We must allow the 1/2 that don't have a voice. DeSantis should not be "fighting back" at anyone who expresses their 1st amendment rights against the bill. It's not fight unless you make it one. Instead protesting a law you disagree with is just the standard American way to change our laws. "how do you expect me to fight back...against a company that wants to impose their will on his state. Wow! Just WOW! First, the easy one. It isn't just his state. The other half of the people have opinions too. It is just as much their state as it is his. 2nd, Disney is not in a position to impose anything on the state. Where did that come from. Who is provoking the fight here? You say we are in a culture WAR. Why do republicans want to start a war. It isn't a war unless we make it one. When Americans have differing opinions, it don't have to lead to war. Our history is full of people accepting that others may have a different opinions. You say the other side doesn't have integrity, so it's OK to fight back without integrity. Again Wow. No data, no evidence, just calling the other side evil to justify your nastiness. Me: Woah, slow down, I think you clearly misunderstood. First, based on the elected representatives and their votes, it is not something split half and half, at least from a legislative standpoint. Far more reps were for the bill (in fact, for both bills).And yes, all the PEOPLE of FL do get a voice. It is called elections. Disney is not a FL citizen nor an elected rep. As a side note, when polling has been done that accurately describes the bill, most people, including a majority of dems, support the bill. https://spectatorworld.com/topic/poll-americans-support-text-dont-say-gay-bill-parental-rights/ But hey, you can disregard so I won’t be “orthogonal”, just pointing out that it really isn’t a half/half thing like you keep saying. Turns out most people are good with the bill. DeSantis is “sticking up for his state” in terms of many of the public statements made, but it is the whole legislature that is responsible for passing both bills. And that represents the will of the people. So you might as well attack the people of FL for those bills. As I have shown you, with sources, Disney is doing MUCH more than just “giving an opinion.” They stated, very clearly, that they were going to work to overturn the law. So if you are going to escalate the fight, which is what Disney did, then you should expect escalation from the other side. I think you misunderstand the term “culture war.” This is not a hot war (violence), this is the war of words, laws, and changes to cultural norms. It is fought every day in the news, in politician statements, articles, opinion pieces, comments on news stories. And yes, posts like this on blog forums. It has been going on in the US for many years, perhaps decades, or maybe since the country was formed. But it has increased in intensity the last 10 years or so. You won’t find someone more tolerant than I am about other viewpoints. They are part of what makes this country great. And every citizen of every state gets to have their viewpoint heard, and indeed represented in their state house, per the laws of that state regarding the elections of representatives. That is how the system works. And by extension, everyone in the country can certainly express their opinion…on anything. But that is not the same thing as a corporation exerting its power trying to overturn the will of the people. Sorry, I am not a fan of that. Is it legal? Yes, at least in most cases. But so is punching back to try to limit that kind of influence. And what the Fl legislature did was completely legal. My point about ethics/integrity, is that due to Disney’s lack of ethics, the state of FL had to get down in the dirt/mud too. And I was making the point that sometimes you have to fight fire with fire. ---------- So, I'm not sure how satisfied I am with your answer. You say you'd be offended if a Dem governor did the same thing to a right-leaning corporation. If you had ended it there, I'd probably accept that you agree that DeSantis abused his power. But you gave him an out by saying corporations should stay out of it. Indeed a lot of your argument is an attempt to justify why the retaliation is acceptable. It never is. Me: “It never is.” Somehow I find it hard to believe you would accept it if things were the other way around, like the hypothetical I gave above. ----------- Bottom line. A lot of what you said is orthogonal to the question. It seems like a way to justify the retaliation. But in the end you said that you admit "it does look like retaliation". So I'll accept that. Thank you. Me: Yes, it was retaliation, but I am saying that I think it was justified. If someone walked up and punched you in the face, you could walk away, but you would also be justified in punching them back. I am sorry if that doesn’t sit well with you, but I hope you can at least understand why I have that position, based on everything I have laid out here and all the stated sources. And I can honestly say that I would have the same position if the roles were reversed. I will always be for the “will of the people” and in general, for “states rights.” Especially over the power of corporations. While I like to think we could both agree on that (wasn’t there a time when the left was very much against the influence of corporations in politics?), I can accept your position as long as you stay consistent on it (corporations are allowed to peddle their influence with impunity, I suppose). If a scenario comes up where the “sides” are reversed, you can bet I will bring it up and I hope, for your integrity, you stay consistent on your position. Peace! Sir Truth

Blue Response OK, so here is the opposing viewpoint: (full text in its entirety first and then my responses in a separate entry) I like how you laid out the sources. I don't agree with all of the wording. We can agree to disagree of the few things that I find a bit slanted toward your view. I give you credit for not going off the deep end. My comments below are not to say that you are wrong, but to express how my views differ from what you state as your position. In most cases it's a wash. We agree on a lot of it, even though I'm adding my own twist to what you say. I can say, however, that I find some things you say a bit combative. See below. Source 1, bullet C: Disney said: "Our goal as a company is for this law to be repealed..." Source 1, bullet D: DeSantis replies: "We view that as a provocation...". Source 1, bulled F: The next day DeSantis called a special session (expensive to the state) to discuss dissolving the special districts. That is plain and simple retaliation against a "provocateur" that didn't exist. I'm getting ahead of myself when I say 1) I never told you (I don't think) whether or not I agree or disagree with the bill DeSantis signed. 2) I completely agree that having special laws targeted toward a particular corporation is bad. 3) the two are unrelated. I have no objection to Florida removing the special status Disney had. But it should not have happened as retaliation (and DeSantis essentially admitted it was). Indeed he called a special session to make it happen immediately. Retaliation, pure and simple. My views on the bill (yours either) are irrelevant to this discussion. About 1/2 of the people agree with the bill, and about 1/2 do not. It's irrelevant which side you are on and which side I am on. But those that oppose it are (a) allowed to say so and (b) work to have it repealed. Because our positions on the bill are irrelevant, I will jump to your positions. A. "While corporations have the right"... I'm not sure how this applies. You didn't say anything wrong (i.e. corporations should pay attention to their bottom line) but it is not relevant to our discussion. B. "It is hard to see why a corp would turn into a political activist,"... Again, irrelevant. I will point out, however, that corporations express their views all the time. It is the prerogative to do so. And if they do it is not a provocation. C. "In my view..." I agree that Florida legislators can make any laws they want to make. Again, it's kinda of irrelevant to our discussion. You say that Floridians should be allowed to make their own laws. Then you say that just because Disney has a presence in Florida, it "doesn't morally give them the right to try to bully the state of FL". They expressed their view. This isn't a morality question. And why are you using the word "bully"? Since when is expressing your views an act of "bullying"? Are you guys making this a fight. People and corporations are allowed to lobby to fix any laws they disagree with. That's not "bullying". D. "I don't like governments..." You say Disney initiated the fight. What fight? Why is this a fight? Disney expressed it's views, and DeSantis made it a fight ("it's a provocation") That is wrong. I cannot understand how when Disney expressed their views, they "attempted to usurp the power by elected reps" They spoke their mind. Period. They didn't initiate a fight. And they didn't usurp anybody's power. Disney cannot make laws. Also they didn't "throw punches" they simply made a statement - their 1st amendment right. You also say: "But I will admit that it does look like retaliation for Disney meddling in FL affairs" I give you credit for that. Disney's stock price is irrelevant and doesn't support or refute your point of view. You are implying a correlation between their comments and their stock price. You don't have any data to make that claim. Would you ridicule the left media if it said the reason the stock price was down was because they not have to pay Florida a large percentage of their profits? We don't know why their stock price is down and it really doesn't matter. Nor does it support your point of view. Pure noise. E. "The bill itself, to me..." In some ways it is irrelevant if you believe the bill itself is a no-brainer. As you state that isn't the point. They passed a bill and DeSantis sighed it. It is the law. About 1/2 of the people like it, and about 1/2 of the people don't. We must allow the 1/2 that don't have a voice. DeSantis should not be "fighting back" at anyone who expresses their 1st amendment rights against the bill. It's not fight unless you make it one. Instead protesting a law you disagree with is just the standard American way to change our laws. "how do you expect me to fight back...against a company that wants to impose their will on his state. Wow! Just WOW! First, the easy one. It isn't just his state. The other half of the people have opinions too. It is just as much their state as it is his. 2nd, Disney is not in a position to impose anything on the state. Where did that come from. Who is provoking the fight here? You say we are in a culture WAR. Why do republicans want to start a war. It isn't a war unless we make it one. When Americans have differing opinions, it don't have to lead to war. Our history is full of people accepting that others may have a different opinions. You say the other side doesn't have integrity, so it's OK to fight back without integrity. Again Wow. No data, no evidence, just calling the other side evil to justify your nastiness. ---------- So, I'm not sure how satisfied I am with your answer. You say you'd be offended if a Dem governor did the same thing to a right-leaning corporation. If you had ended it there, I'd probably accept that you agree that DeSantis abused his power. But you gave him an out by saying corporations should stay out of it. Indeed a lot of your argument is an attempt to justify why the retaliation is acceptable. It never is. ----------- Bottom line. A lot of what you said is orthogonal to the question. It seems like a way to justify the retaliation. But in the end you said that you admit "it does look like retaliation". So I'll accept that. Thank you.

I will kick things off. So here are my top 3: 1. Get us the rest of the way through the "COVID crisis." Get us back to normalcy. Aggressively roll out the vaccines so that anybody who wants them can get them. Help all states open up their economies fully and get everyone back to school and work. Normalcy will solve many of the issues we are seeing today. 2. Leave the Gun Control stuff alone. That is just going to be a hornet's nest and it isn't going to solve anything, plus it is going to be extremely divisive. Instead, focus on enforcing existing laws and bolstering law enforcement in general, since crime is increasing in many places. 3. Work on job creation and business support. Allow business to re-open and ramp up and keep the runway clear for them to recover and to prosper. We need to work towards getting our economy back up to full strength again.