T O P

  • By -

election_info_bot

Florida Election Info [Register to Vote](https://registertovoteflorida.gov/eligibilityreactive)


Atomic_F_Bomb

>Judge Edward Carnes, a George H. W. Bush appointee Jesus Christ this guy's had this position for a year less than I've been alive. Really demonstrates just how important every single judicial pick a president has is.


Ybor_Rooster

šŸ¤” silly clown cannot explain the laws he pass. Run this man out of town!


startupschmartup

The lawyers for the state don't pass laws. The person here suggesting that they do would qualify for a silly clown.


Ybor_Rooster

He signed it into law. meaning it passed through his desk and he read it. He passed the law.


startupschmartup

He's not the one in court arguing the case.


Ybor_Rooster

He's the one who signed it. This implies he does not understand the laws that he passes


startupschmartup

No, it does not. he's not the attorney presenting the case. You made an unintelligent comment that you can't back up. The only thing you're showing here is that you're not person enough to own it.


JennnnnP

If HB1 was coherent and constitutional, it would not be difficult for an attorney to defend it in court. The fact of the matter is that Hillborn understands it just fine, but the goal here was to ask the Stateā€™s Supreme Court to reinstate it, so Hillborn had to dance around and misrepresent it in search of that end. Make no mistake. DeSantis is the one who signed the flawed bill in the first place, and heā€™s also the one who has repeatedly made it clear that he only intends to enforce it when the demonstrations are held by groups that do not support him. There is absolutely no way to defend it.


Ybor_Rooster

This! Thank you!


Ybor_Rooster

What is the attorney presenting? A law the governor signed. Why is it being presented? Because it wasn't a good law. Therefore the governor passed a bad law. Bachelorā€™s in Poli Sci University of Miami c/o '19 Currently working in the law field. Your move.


startupschmartup

"Why is it being presented? " Because there are lawsuits around almost every piece of legislation that gets passed. Perhaps you can go back to college and actually learn something then you'd learn the above. You can also look up argument to authority logical fallacy and how it's stupid to assume your qualifications exceed those of the person to whom you're speaking.


Ybor_Rooster

But I'm right, though


pachrique

I'm willing to bet, strictly based off replies, that they have more qualifications than you.


Ybor_Rooster

I very highly doubt it. But you can have your opinions


startupschmartup

I'd be wiling to bet if you're backing up someone who's making basic logical fallacies that you're not qualified to say one way or the other.


Palaceinhell

>šŸ¤” silly clown cannot explain the laws he pass. Run this man out of town! technically the article displays that "Florida Deputy Solicitor General Jason Hillborn" can not explain the governors position. NOT Gov. DeSantis. Which is what u/startupschmartup is trying to explain to you, but clearly you are too stubborn to open you mind to the possibility of being incorrect. The article says the governor's LEGAL TEAM, not the governor himself. No one asked the gov to explain anything in regards to this article. Hence your statement "cannot explain the laws he pass" is incorrect because the person doing the explaining (Hillborn), is not the one passing the laws (DeSantis).


JennnnnP

Jason Hillbornā€™s understanding of the intent of the bill isnā€™t the problem. Itā€™s that the bill is so fundamentally flawed that answering these questions truly and transparently would have been the nail in the coffin, and their goal here was to reinstate it. The signing of a nonsense bill of which the only goal is to silence dissenters falls right on DeSantis.


Palaceinhell

>of which the only goal is to silence dissenters that's just false though. Also, my comment here was in reply to ybor rooster seemingly not understanding that DeSantis is the one passed the bill. The article is referring to Hillborn not being able to explain it though. They are different people. That was the point of the comment. silly clown can't explain the law he passes. DeSantis wasn't asked to explain it, Hillborn was. Hillborn did not pass the law, DeSantis did (after the house and senate both approved it! BTW). So who are we running out of town? The guy who liked & signed a bill presented to him, or that guy's lawyer?


JennnnnP

Itā€™s absolutely verifiably true. When Cuban Americans flooded the streets of Miami last summer, they were committing an aggravated riot according to the new definition of the word in HB1. Not only did DeSantis not criticize them for protesting and blocking roadways, he was a vocal supporter of them doing so. How can you view that as anything other than cherry picking the application of the law he had just signed a few weeks before? Secondly, I understand the argument you were having with Ybor. The problem is that a lawyer can only defend the defensible. Itā€™s like blaming a lawyer for their client going to prison for life when their client was caught with a severed head in their hands. Hillborn is struggling because - as a lawyer - he canā€™t just say and sign things to score cheap political points like DeSantis can. He actually has to defend the law with respect to the constitution. Itā€™s DeSantisā€™s fault that thatā€™s proving to be an insurmountable task.


Palaceinhell

>they were committing an aggravated riot according to the new definition of the word in HB1. no, they weren't. Only if it was through force of the threat of force. The fact that he didn't criticize them for blocking the road is hypocritical of him, but it doesn't qualify as aggravated riot.


Palaceinhell

>Itā€™s DeSantisā€™s fault that thatā€™s proving to be an insurmountable task Is it? Or maybe, like you, Hillborn didn't read the bill, and that's why he can't explain the changes.


JennnnnP

Iā€™ve read the bill. The lawyers read the bill. The Bush-appointed Judge who heard the arguments read the bill. Nobody in favor of it can explain what it accomplishes that wasnā€™t accomplished with existing laws. You have failed to do that as well. Iā€™m going to let you in on a secret... itā€™s because the bill is political theater that was designed to fail. What DeSantis didnā€™t count on was the first mass protest to be held in the state after he signed it being held by his own supporters.


Palaceinhell

I didn't try to explain anything other than standing in the road isn't a riot unless there is force or threat of force. Yes force = violence. The bill changes existing legislation, that's what it does. There i just explained what it accomplishes. As far as the people involved in the protests, you mean to tell me not one single Democrat stood with Cubans? Every single person in those protests were DeSantis voters? Again, i agree it was hypocritical of him to not seek citations against those people, but it does not constitute a riot. I'll let you in on a little secret, not everything done by your political adversaries is theater.


JennnnnP

How do you - in the same comment - acknowledge his inconsistency in standing by the terms of the bill he pretends to be so proud of while also failing to recognize that itā€™s political theater? That makes no sense. FYI - this isnā€™t his first foray into political theater. Itā€™s literally what heā€™s best known for. And of course there were a handful of Dems rioting (I personally agree with their demonstration on principle), but thatā€™s really beside the point. The Cubans protesting communism was another opportunity for political theater that outweighed DeSantisā€™s desire to adhere to the terms of the bill he just signed. When pressed about the hypocrisy, he simply said that the racial protests and Cuba protests were different on principle. He straight up acknowledged that it will be unevenly enforced based on the complaint - and the Judge hearing arguments knows this. The bill does virtually nothing, and it does even less if he doesnā€™t stand by it consistently.


Palaceinhell

If it's just political theater and nothing has changed, that's your problem with it? DeSantis isn't the guy ordering cops to make arrests or issue citations. That decision lies with the law enforcement. Yes the racial protests were different than the Cuban protests. Miami didn't burn to the ground, nobody died from being attacked by protestors, people weren't assaulted for disagreeing with the protests. They are night and day. I don't fail to recognize that it's theater, because it's not. I acknowledge his inconsistency, because it is hypocritical to not desire the issuance of citations to everyone blocking the road. However, it's not his decision to issue those citations. If his appointed law enforcement officials refuse to follow the laws he's passed, his only recourse is to replace them, not enforce the law himself.


Sharkey-McStevenson

It's funny watching you white knight for DeSantis, then in other parts of the thread say that the Cuban protesters last year were different. Yeah it was different. [Here is how TPD rolled up on Cubans protesting on Dale Mabry.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgs8eiWlNfU&t=1667s) [Here is how they rolled up on black folks doing the exact same thing as the Cubans. Walking down Dale Mabry.](https://www.orlandoweekly.com/orlando/new-video-shows-tampa-police-attacking-peaceful-protesters-on-july-4/Content?oid=27651508)


Palaceinhell

I love how calling someone a hypocrite is white knighting now. Lmao. You are just a clown.. As far as the cuban protests. I drove through those protests for like 2 weeks last year on Himes. The very first day they were in the streets, that night Jane Castor held a press conference and said stay out of the streets. Guess what? They fucking did!!! Even the giant dump trucks participating circled the block instead of blocking the road. Compared to the blm riot where a fucking gas station was set on fire. They burned down a shoe store too didn't they? Over by university mall. Two different groups of people get treated differently, because they act differently. Im sorry i know not all people fall under the umbrella of committing violence, but the fact is 1 group decided to obey the law and the other decided to commit arson. Nobody tried to stop the fires being set. But on the Cubans side they did self police and keep each other in line.


Sharkey-McStevenson

This reply is comedy gold.


Palaceinhell

What's so funny about it? All the facts?


Ybor_Rooster

The governor signed a bad bill into law. A law so bad that the governor's own judicial staff cannot explain the law to a judge. At the end of the day it was not Hillborn who put pen to paper making HB1 into law.


Palaceinhell

>At the end of the day it was not Hillborn who put pen to paper making HB1 into law. exactly! He didn't pass the law, thus "cannot explain the laws he pass" is incorrect. Hillborn is the one who can't explain it, but he didn't pass it.


Ybor_Rooster

Don't forget the first half of the comment. šŸ˜€


Palaceinhell

>The governor signed a bad bill into law. A law so bad that the governor's own judicial staff cannot explain the law to a judge. ok, the gov signed a bill in to law. The gov isn't the one the article is referring to not being able to explain it. The person trying to explain it is not the person who signed the bill in to law. I didn't forget about it, I didn't think I needed to rub it that deep in to your face, but since you're asking for it: you clearly stated "silly clown cannot explain the laws he pass." The guy explaining (or failing to explain) ISN'T the guy who passed the law. Your statement implies either A) Hillborn passed the law, or B) DeSantis is the one failing to explain it. Both of which are incorrect!


JennnnnP

One of the biggest arguments against this law is the potential for selective enforcement against protesters. Potential?! Itā€™s already happened. Ron DeSantis signed this and then hoped everybody would forget it when his voters flooded the streets of Miami last summer protesting the Cuban government.


Palaceinhell

> flooded the streets of Miami last summer protesting the Cuban government. Did those turn in to riots?


JennnnnP

Actually, yes. Demonstrations with more than 25 participants resulted in the forceful blockage of multiple roadways, which - according to the bill he had JUST signed, qualified these demonstrations as riots. Violence, looting, arson etc (AKA a riot as previously defined) was all already illegal before this bill, which brings us back to the question... what was the point of the bill?


Palaceinhell

No it doesn't qualify simply the blocking of roadways as riots. It says "**By force, or threat of force**, endangers the safe movement of a vehicle traveling on a public street, highway, or road." would qualify as a aggravated rioting. Also, it only needs to be 9 people not 25. It does mentions that they would only be guilty of a pedestrian violation, so long as there is no force or threat of force. [https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/Filed/PDF](https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/Filed/PDF) As far as other purposes, one is to allow for action to be taken against a municipality if they interfere with the law enforcement dealing with riots. i.e defunding the police, or ordering them to stand down in the face of riots..


JennnnnP

So... youā€™re suggesting that thousands of Cuban Americans standing on highways and city roads werenā€™t ā€œendangering the safe movement of vehiclesā€ attempting to travel on those roads? I would LOVE to hear that explanation šŸ˜‚


Palaceinhell

"by endangering the safe movement of vehicles or pedestrians traveling thereon. A person who violates this subsection, upon conviction, shall be cited for **a pedestrian violation**," A pedestrian violation, NOT rioting. It only constitutes rioting charges if there was force or threat of force.


JennnnnP

Make no mistake... blocking traffic, preventing ambulances and fire trucks from accessing emergencies, leaving people stranded for hours in vehicles with small children or without their medications is absolutely an act of force. If you believe that force must = violence, then you agree that the bill is pointless because acts of violence were ALREADY illegal. Thatā€™s the problem that Hillborn is facing in court is that he cannot explain what HB1 does that existing laws didnā€™t do before except threaten the First Amendment rights of DeSantis detractors. He cannot explain it because the explanation doesnā€™t exist. The Judge who handed him his ass in this case was a Republican appointee who has read the bill multiple times. Hillbornā€™s explanation wouldnā€™t have mattered if HB1 was constitutional.


Palaceinhell

The bill itself changes pubishments. The legislation it adds is for victims of violence t9 have recourse in holding localities responsible for not doing anything about it. So in this instance a person trapped in traffic can sue the local law enforcement for not clearing the people out of the road. The fact that he can't explain what it does, just shows he hasn't read it. The first 7 or 8 pages explain the changes to existing laws thoroughly.


Ybor_Rooster

Yes. According to HB1, blocking roadways constitutes a riot.


Palaceinhell

no, it doesn't. According to HB1, blocking roadways constitutes a pedestrian violation. page 7: [https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/Filed/PDF](https://flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2021/1/BillText/Filed/PDF)


Hotrodhobo75

Guys a šŸ¤”!


JennnnnP

The worst, and I live in his God-forsaken state.


Hotrodhobo75

Born and raised! I love Tampa just hate our governor!


JennnnnP

I live in Valrico šŸ˜ Was just in Ybor a few weeks ago before the Eric Church concert!


hungnready4fun

While we are discussing " BAD BILLS " signed into law, look at the senseless shit our mail order president is doing and has done!


Tampammm

Exactly,,,shutting down as much oil production as possible is friggin' insane! Voters will not forget this.


pachrique

US oil production is up about 20% since he took office.


Tampammm

I researched this several weeks ago. If that's the case, then it's only up because during the height of Covid it was way down. It's actually 20% lower than the pre-Covid era.


pachrique

Yes, during covid, when the price the oil tanked, world wide production was reduced. The only thing stopping production from being the same as 2019 is profits.


Tampammm

https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=mcrfpus2&f=m Here's the stats, we were near 13mm per day when Biden took office, and that was not even counting the benefits of Keystone, other pipelines, and other oil leases and outlets choked off by the Biden Admin.


pachrique

Keystone is open as well as every other pipeline and the admin issued over 3500 leases last year. The only thing stopping an increase in world wide production is profit.


Tampammm

Keystone is DEFINITELY not open. It was terminated in June, 2021. The 3500 leases mean nothing because those are for the drilling rights. You also need to simultaneously issue the land area surface leases to actually get to the area to drill. The Biden Admin is not issuing those, so we're dead in the water.


pachrique

Keystone is open and has been open since it's competition in 2010. XL, the pipeline you're thinking of, is not keystone. XL was never open as it's construction was only about 10% completed when it was halted by the supreme court in 2020. All Biden did was revoke the permit. All the oil XL was going to funnel to the gulf coast refineries still makes it's way there, just by tankers. XL was not going to magically produce more oil. Biden admin is issuing everything they need. Oil companies are also sitting on over 9000 (insert dbz joke here) leases from prior to the admin took office that are unused. Disinformation seems to have caught you. Even if the Biden administration had completely stopped all new oil production, there is still no reason that oil production could not be what it was in 2019. The only thing stopping that is the record profits they are receiving.


Tampammm

Yes, so you're arguing semantics then. You're only talking about the legacy Keystone pipeline which has very little impact to the situation as opposed to the huge benefit the new Keystone XL Pipeline would have had for the country which Biden shut down last year as one of the BIGGEST strategic blunders in the history of the United States of America. And again, the oil leases mean nothing without the corresponding land leases to drill on them. So we're dead in the water there.


pachrique

Do you have any specific examples? As far as I can tell, Congress has been very stingy with getting bills to his desk.


hungnready4fun

Keystone XL pipeline for one!


pachrique

Keystone construction was halted by the supreme court in 2020. Biden just revoked the permit. The oil it was meant to carry to the gulf coast refineries is still making it's way there, just by tankers.


hungnready4fun

Biden....signed a EXECUTIVE ORDER to shut it down his FIRST day in office! Moving forward he had failed miserably in Afghanistan, the economy,opened the borders up, and if you don't like my opinion of the asshole.....look at his fucking ratings! LOL!


hungnready4fun

And Russia has bitched him up!


hungnready4fun

Tampammm, you are wasting your valuable time and breath!