Trying to work the information here:
- The article seems highly editorial; it focuses on emotional trigger words and phrases rather than factual information.
Looking at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is editorializing. Is it factual? Does it present the objective facts that allow us to think for ourselves and make up our own minds?
(Right or wrong, we should resist being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information. We do this by applying due diligence and working (reviewing analyzing) the information instead of just reacting or taking it at face value.)
- The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network"
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting? Worth asking this question, imo.
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on don't seem completely unbiased or balanced. They may be right, but I'd rather review that for myself than just take Big League Politics word for it.
- It feels like there are a LOT of assertion and claims but limited facts. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Did he "restore' tax breaks, or has he simply not removed them, yet? Wasn't the key push to remove Disney from its OWN self-governing control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government, so that it complies with state law?
I'm just a bit wary of articles that are so long on editorializing and using emotive phraseology, but short on providing objective facts I can analyse.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm just wary of being herded into a particular viewpoint, regardless of who is doing it.
Work the information, people. Work the information. Understanding is so much better than reacting.
- The article is highly editorial; it focuses on Emotional Triggers instead of factual information.
Look at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is PURE editorializing. Is it factual, allowing you and me to see the actual facts and think for ourselves and make up our own minds?
Right or wrong, we should be resisting being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information. We do this by applying due diligence and working the information instead of just reacting or taking it at face value, imo.
- The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network" So, do you simply trust a mainstream media sauce at face value?
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting?
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on aren't unbiased, or even balanced. These are both anti-DeSantis 'journalists". So why doesn't the Big Politics article provide a balanced input or analysis? Any rebuttal information? Or just one sided ?
- There is a LOT of assertion and claims, and very few facts here. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Did he "restore' tax breaks, or has he simply not removed them, yet? Wasn't the key push to remove Disney from its OWN self-governing control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government, so that it complies with state law?
I'm just a bit wary of articles that are so long on editorializing and using emotive phraseology, but short on providing facts.
Suggestion: DON'T react to articles or info simply because they align with your biases and especially avoid allowing the right trigger words and writing manipulate your response.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm saying, let's apply due diligence to HOW we respond to the article and ANY information given to us.
Work the information, people. Work the information. Understanding is so much better than reacting.
- The article is highly editorial; it focuses on Emotional Triggers instead of factual information.
Look at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is PURE editorializing. Is it factual, allowing you and me to see the actual facts and think for ourselves and make up our own minds? None so far. It's ALL assertion.
Right or wrong, we should be resisting being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information, but this is what the article does.
- The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network" So, do you simply trust a mainstream media sauce at face value?
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting?
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on aren't unbiased, or even balanced. These are both anti-DeSantis 'journalists". So why doesn't the Big Politics article provide a balanced input or analysis? Any rebuttal information? Or just one sided ?
- There is a LOT of assertion and claims, and very few facts here. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Did he "restore' tax breaks, or has he simply not removed them, yet? Wasn't the key push to remove Disney from its OWN self-governing control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government, so that it complies with state law?
I'm just a bit wary of articles that are so long on editorializing and using emotive phraseology, but short on providing facts.
Suggestion: DON'T react to articles or info simply because they align with your biases and especially avoid allowing the right trigger words and writing manipulate your response.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm saying, let's apply due diligence to HOW we respond to the article and ANY information given to us.
Work the information, people. Work the information. Understanding is so much better than reacting.
- The article is highly editorial; it focuses on Emotional Triggers instead of factual information.
Look at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is PURE editorializing. Is it factual, allowing you and me to see the actual facts and think for ourselves and make up our own minds? None so far. It's ALL assertion.
Right or wrong, we should be resisting being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information, but this is what the article does.
- The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network" So, do you simply trust a mainstream media sauce at face value?
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting?
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on aren't unbiased, or even balanced. These are both anti-DeSantis 'journalists". So why doesn't the Big Politics article provide a balanced input or analysis? Any rebuttal information? Or just one sided ?
- There is a LOT of assertion and claims, and very few facts here. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Seems to me that the Florida gov,s primary push here has always been to remove Disney from its OWN control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government.
Even the "analysis" admits that the measures being put in place CAN change things from how they have been, even while still promoting his own personal take that RD and GOP in Florida are corrupted.
Sure, maybe the fundraisers and allies that Ron DeSantis puts on Reedy Creek's new board will stop having Reedy Creek build things like parking garages for Disney in the future.
Or maybe...Disney will start giving Ron DeSantis campaign donations again. And nothing will change.
The point here is:
DON'T react to articles or info simply because they align with your biases and especially avoid allowing the right trigger words and writing manipulate your response.
We're anons. Let's apply due diligence and work the information. Whatever is true will come out IF we do that. But if we simply react, because it aligns with OUR biases (and we have them, let's be honest), then it just slows down the process.
I'm not saying the article is incorrect or that Ron DeSantis isn't a fake conservative. I'm saying, let's apply due diligence to HOW we respond to the article and ANY information given to us.
Work the information, people. Work the information. Understanding is so much better than reacting.
- The article is highly editorial; it focuses on Emotional Triggers instead of factual information.
Look at the language: Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is folding to woke Disney, pushing a bill in the state legislature to quietly restore their special tax breaks after posturing publicly against the megacorp.
DeSantis is making the capitulation even as he and RINO Republican leaders in the state claim that they are punishing Disney – the exact opposite of what is happening.
These are all trigger words. The fact that they trigger patriots and/or anons doesn't change that fact that it's trigger language.
DeSantis is using sleight of hand to claim he is cracking down on Disney when he is really giving them what they want and enabling Disney’s campaign contributions to fill Republican coffers in the years to come.
This is PURE editorializing. Is it factual, allowing you and me to see the actual facts and think for ourselves and make up our own minds? None so far. It's ALL assertion.
Right or wrong, we should be resisting being manipulated by ANYONE who publishes information, but this is what the article does.
- The article relies heavily on analysis by certain sources. "the analysis of DeSantis’ measure states."
The FIRST reference is from a tweet by a journalist for USAToday. "Statewide government accountability reporter for @USAToday Network" So, do you simply trust a mainstream media sauce at face value?
https://twitter.com/DouglasSoule/status/1623709450744827904
The SECOND reference is an "investigative reporter" who appears to be staunchly anti-DeSantis from a while back. Is he unbiased? Or is this biased reporting?
https://twitter.com/Jason_Garcia
Here is his substack. Look through the articles, and think about what they say about this person's political orientation, etc.
https://jasongarcia.substack.com/archive?sort=new
The analyses that the article relies on aren't unbiased, or even balanced. These are both anti-DeSantis 'journalists". So why doesn't the Big Politics article provide a balanced input or analysis? Any rebuttal information? Or just one sided ?
- There is a LOT of assertion and claims, and very few facts here. Did DeSantis ever claim the things that the article claims? Seems to me that the Florida gov,s primary push here has always been to remove Disney from its OWN control and put that control into the hands of the Florida government.
Even the "analysis" admits that the measures being put in place CAN change things from how they have been, even while still promoting his own personal take that RD and GOP in Florida are corrupted.
Sure, maybe the fundraisers and allies that Ron DeSantis puts on Reedy Creek's new board will stop having Reedy Creek build things like parking garages for Disney in the future.
Or maybe...Disney will start giving Ron DeSantis campaign donations again. And nothing will change.
The point here is,
DON'T react to articles or info simply because they align with your biases and especially avoid allowing the right trigger words and writing manipulate your response.
We're anons. Let's apply due diligence and work the information. Whatever is true will come out IF we do that. But if we simply react, because it aligns with OUR biases (and we have them, let's be honest), then it just slows down the process.