Trump vs. DeSantis

[acptulsa]

Experts that have admitted to lying to him.

Experts that 99% of this forum knew at the time were lying. Does that make us more stable than your VSG, smarter, or just less crooked?

You can make excuses until Doomsday. But you can't do a thing about this fact: This time he has a voting record to run on, and it's sad!

[Occam's Banana]

Desantis has never said he was for an assault weapons ban. Trump said that TWICE! Desantis never said he was for red flag laws. The first time I ever heard of red flag laws was from TRUMP. Nobody before Trump to my knowledge ever banned a gun accessory by executive order. Trump did and now Biden followed his example. And I don't want to hear your STUPID "well it's got struck down" excuse! It shouldn't have had to be struct down! And now gun owners are seriously hampered waiting for Biden's gun stock ban to be struct down, something Biden might not even have thought of if Trump hadn't set the precedent. Seriously the 2A is Trump's weakest area.

Even without Trump paving the way, Biden might well have thought of using EOs to enact gun control - or rather, his handlers might have thought of it (I suspect that Biden himself doesn't really think much of anything anymore, except maybe things like "what's for breakfast today?" - or "where's my ten percent?"). Someone was bound to try it sooner or later - and despite all the fan fiction, it is not at all to Trump's credit that he was the one to do so.

Unfortunately, while the courts did strike down Trump's half-assed gun-grabbery, they did not do so on the basis that POTUS has no authority to enact gun control via executive order end-runs around Congress or the Constitution - and so we're going to see Biden, et al. try to slip through the door that Trump opened for them. Eventually, one of them is apt to succeed.

[jmdrake]

Even without Trump paving the way, Biden might well have thought of using EOs to enact gun control - or rather, his handlers might have thought of it (I suspect that Biden himself doesn't really think much of anything anymore, except maybe things like "what's for breakfast today?" - or "where's my ten percent?"). Someone was bound to try it sooner or later - and despite all the fan fiction, it is not at all to Trump's credit that he was the one to do so.

Unfortunately, while the courts did strike down Trump's half-assed gun-grabbery, they did not do so on the basis that POTUS has no authority to enact gun control via executive order end-runs around Congress or the Constitution - and so we're going to see Biden, et al. try to slip through the door that Trump opened for them. Eventually, one of them is apt to succeed.

Thanks for your input. That prompted me to look this up.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/11476...uck-down-court

The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.

The decision doesn't have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.

Las Vegas mass shooting survivors turn to each other to find strength through tragedy
NATIONAL
Las Vegas mass shooting survivors turn to each other to find strength through tragedy
The case was somewhat unique because the issue involves not the Second Amendment but the interpretation of federal statutes. Opponents of the ban argued that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now being defended by the Biden administration.

"A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of 'machinegun' set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the lead majority opinion.

The court found that the definition of a machinegun — which is set out in two different federal statutes — "does not apply to bump stocks."

The ban had survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the federal circuit court in Washington. A panel of three judges at the 5th Circuit also issued a ruling in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court decision by a Texas federal judge. But the full New Orleans-based court voted to reconsider the case. Arguments were heard Sept. 13.

[Occam's Banana]

Thanks for your input. That prompted me to look this up.

https://www.npr.org/2023/01/07/11476...uck-down-court

The ban was instituted after a gunman perched in a high-rise hotel using bump stock-equipped weapons massacred dozens of people in Las Vegas in 2017. Gun rights advocates have challenged it in multiple courts. The 13-3 ruling at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals is the latest on the issue, which is likely to be decided at the Supreme Court.

The decision doesn't have an immediate effect on the ban though because the case now moves back to the lower court to decide how to proceed.

Las Vegas mass shooting survivors turn to each other to find strength through tragedy
NATIONAL
Las Vegas mass shooting survivors turn to each other to find strength through tragedy
The case was somewhat unique because the issue involves not the Second Amendment but the interpretation of federal statutes. Opponents of the ban argued that bump stocks do not fall under the definition of illegal machine guns in federal law. The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives says they do, a position now being defended by the Biden administration.

"A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of 'machinegun' set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act," Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod wrote in the lead majority opinion.

The court found that the definition of a machinegun — which is set out in two different federal statutes — "does not apply to bump stocks."

The ban had survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; the Denver-based 10th Circuit; and the federal circuit court in Washington. A panel of three judges at the 5th Circuit also issued a ruling in favor of the ban, upholding a lower court decision by a Texas federal judge. But the full New Orleans-based court voted to reconsider the case. Arguments were heard Sept. 13.

Just exactly so.:

And note that the court based it's decision on the legal definition of "machine gun."

Not on 2A grounds. Not on grounds of executive overreach. Just on grounds of a legalistic definition.

So all the gun grabbers (half-assed or full-assed) have to do to pass muster under this decision is change the legal definition of "machine gun."

How is that supposed to be any kind of significant or substantive win? Or even just a durable or lasting one?

[Anti-Neocon]

"You only have 2 choices. Pick."

This poll has been brought to you by CNN.

[Swordsmyth]

Desantis has never said he was for an assault weapons ban. Trump said that TWICE! Desantis never said he was for red flag laws. The first time I ever heard of red flag laws was from TRUMP. Nobody before Trump to my knowledge ever banned a gun accessory by executive order. Trump did and now Biden followed his example. And I don't want to hear your STUPID "well it's got struck down" excuse! It shouldn't have had to be struct down! And now gun owners are seriously hampered waiting for Biden's gun stock ban to be struct down, something Biden might not even have thought of if Trump hadn't set the precedent. Seriously the 2A is Trump's weakest area.

DS signed a red flag law among many other problematic things.
The 2A rulings that are striking down decades old gun control laws all over the country would not be happening without Trump's SCOTUS picks.
2ndA may well be one of Trump's weakest points, but he was still an overall positive for us about it.

[Swordsmyth]

[Swordsmyth]

Just exactly so.:

Executive overreach may not be the basis of the rulings yet but it is specifically being targeted by more Justices now thanks to Trump.
And the big 2A ruling they gave us subjected all gun laws to historical precedent which might not be as "shall not be infringed" as we want but it is a step in the right direction that is undoing many modern gun laws.

[devil21]

The original Don vs Ron thread, with way more posts and views, before OP tried to co-opt and data-mine it:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ersus-DeSantis

[devil21]

That video really should have ended with both getting hit by a bus at the same time.

bump

[Murray N Rothbard]

As a Libertarian neither is acceptable. But I hope to God Ron wins and gets the GOP ship righted. I'm very concerned about the cultural shift Trump has led among Republican line voters who barely think in terms of ideas and principles anymore.

[acptulsa]

I'm very concerned about the cultural shift Trump has led among Republican line voters who barely think in terms of ideas and principles anymore.

Well, that's a pleasant reminiscence, but I don't ever remember a time when it was particularly true. I remember a handful of candidates trying to drag conservative principles into the debate kicking and screaming. The most successful of these wound up in the strange situation of hearing the Golden Rule booed in South Carolina.

It's hard to understand the psychology of GOP voters if you don't watch any football. The first thing to remember is, sportsmanship and how you play the game is laudible, but winning rules and losing sucks. Second, when you get sacked twenty-five yards, but there's a personal foul after the play that comes with an automatic first down, that's a win. You just went ten yards the wrong damned direction, but you got a first down, you're still in the game and still have the ball, so it's a win. Which is why the most progressive liberal of 1960 typically had more conservative principles than the typical modern Republican.

Ideas we have, though they all keep coming from the clown show. It's easy to claim a fine set of principles when you're desperately clinging to whomever or whatever you think can stop the child mutilation and sterilization. And in all those other details, where the devil resides (and spends his time transferring money from the poor to the rich)? In times like these, principle has a hard row to hoe.

It's a shame. A principled candidate could win the general election with great ease, if either party were capable of nominating one.

[jmdrake]

DS signed a red flag law among many other problematic things.

Link or admit you are not telling the truth. The red flag law was passed before DeSantis became governor according to this ink.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...410-story.html

Ron DeSantis, a leading Republican candidate for governor and self-described "big Second Amendment guy," says he would have vetoed the historic Florida gun-control law passed in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre.

During a South Florida campaign stop, DeSantis also said, if he already was governor, he would have suspended Broward Sheriff Scott Israel over his agency's actions leading up to and during the Feb. 14 shooting.

https://www.floridabulldog.org/2023/...esearch-shows/

In 2018 Florida legislators — even the NRA posse — bowed to the urgent need for gun control after a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: They passed minimal reforms including a red flag law.

The 2A rulings that are striking down decades old gun control laws all over the country would not be happening without Trump's SCOTUS picks.
2ndA may well be one of Trump's weakest points, but he was still an overall positive for us about it.

All of the actually verified evidence shows Trump is weaker on the 2nd amendment than DeSantis. Florida's red flag law was passed BEFORE Desantis got elected and Desantis said he would have vetoed it. Trump never got the chance to veto a red flag law, but he is on record being in favor of it. He's also on record of being in favor of assault weapons bans both before and during his presidency.

[Swordsmyth]

Link or admit you are not telling the truth. The red flag law was passed before DeSantis became governor according to this ink.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/po...410-story.html

Ron DeSantis, a leading Republican candidate for governor and self-described "big Second Amendment guy," says he would have vetoed the historic Florida gun-control law passed in the aftermath of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School massacre.

During a South Florida campaign stop, DeSantis also said, if he already was governor, he would have suspended Broward Sheriff Scott Israel over his agency's actions leading up to and during the Feb. 14 shooting.

https://www.floridabulldog.org/2023/...esearch-shows/

In 2018 Florida legislators — even the NRA posse — bowed to the urgent need for gun control after a mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School: They passed minimal reforms including a red flag law.

All of the actually verified evidence shows Trump is weaker on the 2nd amendment than DeSantis. Florida's red flag law was passed BEFORE Desantis got elected and Desantis said he would have vetoed it. Trump never got the chance to veto a red flag law, but he is on record being in favor of it. He's also on record of being in favor of assault weapons bans both before and during his presidency.

He expanded it:


DeSantis hopes red flag laws will help thwart future shootings


But the solution, DeSantis says, isn't to have the government policing speech.
"Typically, the government isn't policing or holding people accountable just for speech," he said. "It requires incitement, or to be a threat."
If there is a threat, there are options. Florida's so-called red flag laws allow law enforcement to take away a person's guns temporarily if they determine a person is an immediate threat.
Many, including the governor, are behind it.
"I just want us to be responsive to that. The vast majorities of these instances have had red flags," he said. "The Marjory Stoneman Douglas report made that clear. So I think we need to identify that and do something about it."
Last week, Florida launched a threat assessment portal for schools and law enforcement to share information, which will be confidential. A statewide app called Fortify Florida allows anyone to report suspicious activity anonymously.


https://www.fox13news.com/news/desan...ture-shootings

[Swordsmyth]

As a Libertarian neither is acceptable. But I hope to God Ron wins and gets the GOP ship righted. I'm very concerned about the cultural shift Trump has led among Republican line voters who barely think in terms of ideas and principles anymore.

Yes, the GOP needs to go back to being the polite designated loser in the uniparty under the leadership of the Bushes.
It's very important for liberty.

[69360]

Yes, the GOP needs to go back to being the polite designated loser in the uniparty under the leadership of the Bushes.
It's very important for liberty.

I want the GOP to be the polite winners. Besides the mistake in Iraq, the country was in far better shape under the Bushes than it is now.

[jmdrake]

He expanded it:


DeSantis hopes red flag laws will help thwart future shootings


But the solution, DeSantis says, isn't to have the government policing speech.
"Typically, the government isn't policing or holding people accountable just for speech," he said. "It requires incitement, or to be a threat."
If there is a threat, there are options. Florida's so-called red flag laws allow law enforcement to take away a person's guns temporarily if they determine a person is an immediate threat.
Many, including the governor, are behind it.
"I just want us to be responsive to that. The vast majorities of these instances have had red flags," he said. "The Marjory Stoneman Douglas report made that clear. So I think we need to identify that and do something about it."
Last week, Florida launched a threat assessment portal for schools and law enforcement to share information, which will be confidential. A statewide app called Fortify Florida allows anyone to report suspicious activity anonymously.


https://www.fox13news.com/news/desan...ture-shootings

Nice try, but that doesn't change the fact that the law was already in place before he became governor. Try again.

[jmdrake]

Yes, the GOP needs to go back to being the polite designated loser in the uniparty under the leadership of the Bushes.
It's very important for liberty.

I know you much prefer politicians with no principals who have shown their support for assault weapons bans because...reasons. The only thing Trump cares about is Trump.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvdF8kUkyNk

[devil21]

Head-to-head polling means basically nothing at this point given how fluid people's minds are on people they barely know but even if Brandon only wins by 2% in the popular vote, he would still lose the electoral vote most likely. After a bloody campaign who knows if DeSantis would fare better or worse than orange man.

I'm wondering how/when people forgot all about the "stolen election" last go-round and are cool with running the same deal again, as if this time it'll be somehow different and worth buying into (consenting) again. It's honestly amazing to me how these same cycles repeat each election yet people still dutifully buy into the charade of choices. Fluoride really is a hell of a drug.

[Swordsmyth]

I'm wondering how/when people forgot all about the "stolen election" last go-round and are cool with running the same deal again, as if this time it'll be somehow different and worth buying into (consenting) again. It's honestly amazing to me how these same cycles repeat each election yet people still dutifully buy into the charade of choices. Fluoride really is a hell of a drug.

Silence (not voting) is consent.
Voting makes them cheat harder so it is easier to expose.

[devil21]

Silence (not voting) is consent.
Voting makes them cheat harder so it is easier to expose.

In a purely (Roman law) legal sense you are correct that silence is consent. In voluntary commercial contract disputes yes silence is consent.

However, the founding documents speak of "consent of the governed", which is executed by voting for republican (not to be confused with the fake political party) government representatives and executives. Remember that the founding documents were established long before the British BAR (Roman) legal system reinserted its pirate (Captain) Hooks into this country. They were, in fact, the documents that separated the country from that Roman legal system way back in the 1700s, yes?

But you already knew that, Mr. British Naval Officer Avatar, didn't ya?

[jmdrake]

DS nominated Dave Kerner, a Palm Beach county democrat, to be the Executive Director, Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, which oversees the state drivers licensing database, and can affect voter rolls.

https://www.flgov.com/2023/01/05/gov...otor-vehicles/

And Trump nominated Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Bill Barr and a host of other straight up traitors to be in his cabinet. And worse, Fauci wasn't even in Trump's cabinet but Trump picked Dr. Fauci to be the point person on COVID when Dr. Redfield, who openly supported the lab leak theory, was head of the CDC.

[Swordsmyth]

And Trump nominated Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, Nikki Haley, Bill Barr and a host of other straight up traitors to be in his cabinet. And worse, Fauci wasn't even in Trump's cabinet but Trump picked Dr. Fauci to be the point person on COVID when Dr. Redfield, who openly supported the lab leak theory, was head of the CDC.

Trump did a lot of things that were not great, but most of them had little effect, Bolton was not allowed to do anything.
Trump is trying to clean up the election system, DS is handing it over to the enemy.

[Swordsmyth]

In a purely (Roman law) legal sense you are correct that silence is consent. In voluntary commercial contract disputes yes silence is consent.

However, the founding documents speak of "consent of the governed", which is executed by voting for republican (not to be confused with the fake political party) government representatives and executives. Remember that the founding documents were established long before the British BAR (Roman) legal system reinserted its pirate (Captain) Hooks into this country. They were, in fact, the documents that separated the country from that Roman legal system way back in the 1700s, yes?

But you already knew that, Mr. British Naval Officer Avatar, didn't ya?

LOL
That's a Scottish rebel in a French uniform.

And you can prattle about different legal systems all you want, but the simple fact of life is that inaction is consent.
Not voting will not change a thing, the cabal that has seized control of our nation is not going to wake up the day after the election and say "only 10% of the public bothered to vote, I guess we all have to resign", they will instead celebrate that their rule is unchallenged and double down on tyranny.

But you know that.
It makes one wonder why you want all the liberty lovers here taken out of the voting equation.

[nobody's_hero]

Not voting will not change a thing, the cabal that has seized control of our nation is not going to wake up the day after the election and say "only 10% of the public bothered to vote, I guess we all have to resign", they will instead celebrate that their rule is unchallenged and double down on tyranny.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. I wish it were as easy as 'ignore them and they'll go away.'

[Occam's Banana]

So again, how can you promote liberty without the ballot box? Or is is hopeless?

"How can you promote liberty [or, presumably, any other cause] without the ballot box?"

Go ask Jesus of Nazareth.

Or Martin Luther.
Or Martin Luther King, Jr.
Or Samuel Adams.
Or Lao Tzu.
Or Marcus Junius Brutus.
Or John Locke.
Or Socrates.
Or Frederick Douglass.
Or Spartacus.
Or Mahatma Gandhi.
Or William Travis.
Or William Wallace.
Or Frederic Bastiat.
Or Sophie Scholl.
Or Ludwig von Mises.
Or William Lloyd Garrison.

Or any of far too many others to count (the names of most of whom are lost to us today) ...

Some of those men and women succeeded in their causes, and others did not (at least in the short term) - but few of them, I think, would have much if any patience with your absurd pretense at not understanding how a cause can be "promote[d ...] without the ballot box." In fact, such pretense is a gratuitous insult to the legacies of all those people, known and unknown.

Or is it a pretense? Are you really so fatuous as to imagine that no means adequate to the achievement of the causes those people took up were or are possible without some number of other people making marks on pieces of paper and then putting those pieces of paper into boxes, so that the marks on the pieces of paper in those boxes could then be tabulated and the results announced?

Not voting supports the status quo.

At best, voting is merely an epilogue. Assuming that any voting at all is involved in some significant or fundamental change, or in the achievement of some cause - and throughout the overwhelmingly vast majority of history, it has not been so involved - it is only after, and not before, such a change or cause has been (often lengthily and laboriously) "promoted" and striven for that any relevant voting is done. And even when such voting is "successful," it only serves to illustrate and confirm that the ground has already shifted. But how do you suppose the ground shifts in the first place? By magic?

"Not voting supports the status quo," you say? You have it just exactly wrong. If anything, voting is what supports the status quo. All the things you are pleased to dismiss or ignore (by lumping them all together under the phrase "not voting") are the only things that can actually challenge the status quo. Again, just ask Jesus - or Sam Adams - or ...

//

[acptulsa]

//

Now we know who he really is. Zippysmyth.

[jmdrake]

LOL
That's a Scottish rebel in a French uniform.

And you can prattle about different legal systems all you want, but the simple fact of life is that inaction is consent.
Not voting will not change a thing, the cabal that has seized control of our nation is not going to wake up the day after the election and say "only 10% of the public bothered to vote, I guess we all have to resign", they will instead celebrate that their rule is unchallenged and double down on tyranny.

But you know that.
It makes one wonder why you want all the liberty lovers here taken out of the voting equation.

Not voting != inaction. And "strategic voting" (voting for someone just because you think they'll win) is usually counter productive. Look at the poll @Anti Federalist just posted. As of right now, Desantis is better poised to be Biden then Trump. Now polls aren't perfect and polls can change. But there is no reason whatsoever to be locking in on voting for Trump.

How is the left beating the right at the moment? It's not by voting. They're winning by culture. Everyone knows who David Hogg and Greta Thunberg are. They offer nothing of substance just their emotional arguments for their pet causes. But they've got a platform. Trying to convince the dwindling number of people that daily sign in to this website to throw their support behind Trump when the primaries haven't even started yet does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of liberty. Absolutely nothing.

[Anti Federalist]

Not voting != inaction. And "strategic voting" (voting for someone just because you think they'll win) is usually counter productive. Look at the poll @Anti Federalist just posted. As of right now, Desantis is better poised to be Biden then Trump. Now polls aren't perfect and polls can change. But there is no reason whatsoever to be locking in on voting for Trump.

And it did.

Rasmussen pre-indictment poll has Trump over Biden 47 to 40 percent.