Who is the worst governor in the USA?

[Anonymous]

[Soteris]

Probably DeSantis. His move against Disney in particular has ruined any business confidence in his state since if even Disney can't be sure that the government will honor their contracts then what chance do they have? Disneyworld also can't operate in a state where they do not have full authority over. Their brand is reliant on that control to be able to construct a "magical place" so even if Disney crushes the state in their lawsuit (not sure if they already have but they do have a very good chance to do so) its no longer worth it for Disney to invest further into Florida.

Without Disneyworld and with business confidence shaken I honestly dont know what more Florida has to offer. It is a pretty shitty state all things considered without much value aside from tourism which is going to hit rock bottom.

[Avicenna]

You need a reality check- business confidence in Florida is very high. Most companies running amusement parks don't have a special self-governing status (i. e., being a state within a state), yet they still do business profitably. Disneyland isn't a self-governing state within a state in California, so it's obviously not necessary. As for future investment, California is a much more expensive place to do business than Florida.

And why is a Swede living in Sweden so passionate about Florida politics without being knowledgeable about them in the least? Makes no sense. Maybe you should focus on your own country and its considerable problems.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna Most amusement parks are not Disney but they sure as hell wish they were but to be that they require control over infrastructure and more. Without that its just an amusement park and that is just not good enough. If California promised Disney the old Florida deal they would move there in a heart beat. Its not a case of how expensive it is but about profits.

The question I pose to you is, why are you as an American less informed about some random event in Florida than me as a Swede who honestly could not care less?

[Avicenna]

Soteris, thanks for the laughs. I'll let you indulge the illusions that you have.

But I will enlighten you on something- Disney is headquartered in California, they don't have to "move there", and in fact they want to move corporate jobs from California to Florida because they can't expand in California, plus the customer base is different- Disney World gets a lot more visitors from outside the US than Disneyland does. And if you move expenses from a more expensive jurisdiction to a less expensive jurisdiction, you will increase profits.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna It appears your ability to read is declining over your elderly years, let me type this again. Disney can no longer invest into Florida because their investments there is completely wasted since they can no longer work with that state. If they could pick up their amusement park and move it, they would. Next best thing is just to start expanding somewhere else, either way Disney world in Florida is going to be relegated as a backwater project at best from now on.

[WindAtMyBack]

@Soteris

Apparently you don't understand what the special district was. It has been very controversial since the start, which was more than ten years before DeSantis was even born.

You don't seem to understand the effect of the repeal. Nor do you seem to understand business. Nor do you understand the basic reality of politics. There is no way in hell that a super profitable business like Disney World will cease expansion because of this. This repeal put Disney on the same footing as every other tourist attraction in Florida, which is an extremely lucrative industry.

I'm sure they'll have a massive public relations campaign and talk about how horrible it is, and how much this will hurt Disney World and Florida. But in the end they will continue to expand as long as it's profitable.

Basically this repeal took away special privileges that Disney should never have had in the first place.

I actually remember when Disney World was built in Florida. It was highly controversial. I was against it myself. I was too young to know about this special deal they got, but I certainly remember that it was controversial. I was against Disney World then and I'm still against it. As far as I'm concerned it was a disaster.

[Avicenna]

@WindAtMyBack; As you've noticed, Soteris is a Swedish leftist whose arguments merely reflect his ideological biases rather than any reality. Thanks for sharing your perspective.

[Avicenna]

But Soteris, thanks for the laughs you provide when you pretend to know what Disney will do.

[Soteris]

@WindAtMyBack Oh I am fairly well read into what it actually is and why it is so important for Disney in particular. Also sure, its been controversial, especially to people who dont understand it however people who are read up on the situation is mostly just neutral to the whole situation because its a pretty good deal for both the government and Disney.

This argument is also completely irrelevant since if you actually had a problem with it you could go about it like a normal human being through negotiations rather than channel your inner child and rip it up to look good for your voters. The way it was repealed is just as damaging as the fact that the government reneged on one of its own contracts (and will probably lose in court because of it and having to give Disney back their privileges).

As for Disney World being super profitable.. yes.. But only because of the freedoms it has to control their area. Without it they are no longer profitable and Disney World as it is can no longer exist. They would have to scale it all back to a "normal" amusement park but a "normal" amusement park is not even close to the massive investments Disney makes into Disney World which is why it will effectively die.

Again, Disney invested so heavily into Disney World because it was special. If its no longer special then its not worth even a fraction of that investment. How hard is this to understand? You can complain that Disney should never have had those privileges in the first place but what you can't say is that Disney World would exist without them.. because it literally can't and it won't.

[Avicenna]

Soteris, you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna I do, you dont.

[Avicenna]

How about, for starters, you explain this: "if you actually had a problem with it you could go about it like a normal human being through negotiations rather than channel your inner child and rip it up to look good for your voters. The way it was repealed is just as damaging as the fact that the government reneged on one of its own contracts (and will probably lose in court because of it and having to give Disney back their privileges).".

-Negotiate what exactly?
-Can you cite case law which indicates that ending the Reedy Creek Improvement District was a breach of contract?
-Can you cite case law or any other law which suggests that Florida will have to give Reedy Creek back to Disney?

[Soteris]

@Avicenna Negotiate what? A change in the contract or for the contract to be agreed to be repealed. What DeSantis did was just to onesidedly destroy the deal which personally I dont think he has the authority to do in the first place but that is besides the point. The fact that Disney did not get to come to terms with this is incredibly damaging to business trust since it establishes a precedent where Florida can revoke contracts it has with businesses without warning and without compensation. What value does Florida have at that point if they can't be trusted?

As for why it was illegal? First of all this was a retaliation against Disney by DeSantis which breaches their constitutional free speech right, according to the contract Florida was not allowed to alter the freedoms of Disney until their bonds was paid off which violates the contract clause in the constitution and according to the supreme court decision of Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy:
"once a local government issues a bond based on an authorized taxing power, the state is contract-bound and cannot eliminate the taxing power supporting the bond"

So yeah.. Eat shit Avicenna.

[WindAtMyBack]

You keep talking about a contract. What contract is that? And if anyone broke the so-called contract, it was Disney, a long time ago. Show me the contract. Show the time limit where it says it must be valid for over 50 years. Maybe there is such a clause, but if so I haven't seen it. It explicitly says they must obey state laws and regulations. Those laws and regulations change over time. Nothing new there.

As for your rant about DeSantis, you are right that he doesn't have the authority to do it. The legislature did it, not him. It would never have reached his desk if the legislature didn't pass it.

Disney was already on very thin lice, for many reasons. They started fucking with the government and lost, simple as that. They might try to pretend they are good wholesome Micky Mouse. But in reality the Disney company has always been an aggressive tiger who plays hard ball.

I'm also gonna guess that you are one of those people who think lobbyists are evil and corrupt. In that case Disney is evil and corrupt because they lobbied the shit out of the state to get their very lucrative deal in the first place.

You seem to forget that thousands of other tourism based companies in Florida do quite well without such special treatment that Disney got.

Are you an environmentalist? Do you realize how much of an environmental disaster Disney World is?

Why are you even defending them? Is it because of a certain liberal political stance they have? Because of that you ignore everything else about them and the excessively sweet deal they got?

[Avicenna]

I see that you have Googled to come up with your disjointed response, which is why it's incoherent- you don't actually understand the issues. You've pretty much parroted Disney's own response.

So let me get this right, the Improvement District, which gives taxing and many other powers, comes about from a contract only and not from legislation? That's what you're claiming. Where is the wording of this contract that you're citing? You're claiming that the State of Florida needed Disney's OK to end an improvement district the state authorized in the first place.

How did DeSantis "one-sidedly destroy this deal"? Please explain.

Did this alleged contract between Disney and the State of Florida allow for the dissolution of the Improvement District? Can you provide the text of this contract so we can evaluate your claims? Remember, you're claiming that the State of Florida could not legally take the self-governing improvement district (a special privilege) away from Disney.

As for Von Hoffman v Quincy, it applied only to the bonds issued by the City of Quincy and if applicable to the bonds issued by the Reedy Creek Improvement District, would only apply to the bonds, not whether it could be dissolved altogether.

You're also claiming that a corporation's "free speech rights" were illegally taken away from it- yet Disney is continuing to take positions on all sorts of things and to make public statements. I don't see any evidence that Florida is keeping Disney, a company with 37 lobbyists in Tallahassee alone, from saying anything it wants to. There is no constitutional right to have a public corporation functioning as a county- it's a special privilege.

[Soteris]

@WindAtMyBack The contract was partially a 92 pages of law signed into effect but doubtlessly also contains hundreds of other pages spread around all over the place as is the nature of deals on this level. As such I doubt there is a single place with them all lined up in an easy to read format except maybe in a briefcase carried by a Disney Lawyer or something similar.

You can read some of it here:
edocs.dlis.state.fl.us/.../...V1Pt2Ch0614-1068.pdf

Chapter Chapter 67-764 etc.. Point is that its a lot of boring reading that I am specifically not going to do. Also there is no end date. As far as I know, there is no expiration date on this and as long as Disney can uphold their end of the contract they can keep this going forever. This is also legal for Disney which has been proved in the state supreme court.

Also again, it is unconstitutional to revoke this for the government and the contract forbids them from applying additional limitations before paying back the deposit which they have not done.

[Soteris]

@WindAtMyBack
The DeSantis is in control of the Florida legislature and as such responsible for this.

Disney has the most brutal and bloodthirsty lawyers in the world. My money is on them winning. Regardless of my opinion on Disney (I despise them as a company), they are objectively helping Florida in this case. At the time where Disney got this land through the contract it was less than worthless and Disney transformed it to such a degree that they are responsible for the welfare of probably half the state. If Disney leaves, it will go back to being a worthless piece of land and Florida will plummet again. Its literally best for everyone if Disney just continues as normal.

If you are asking for my personal beliefs however, I am fucking ecstatic. I love when USA does stupid things and especially when it happens to Republicans. Having Florida try screw Disney over and then having them leave only to see the state decline into insignificance again would be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. I however do have standards, I do not try to trick you into making a dumb decision just because it amuses me, hence why I think this was a stupid move although it entertains me greatly.

[Avicenna]

You've brought up legislation, which is not a contract. Legislation can be repealed or overriden by additional legislation. You can scream all you want that is unconstitutional, but not only is it not per se unconstitutional to repeal legislation or pass legislation that amends or overrides previous legislation, it's done all the time. The only issue is the bonds issued by Reedy Creek.

DeSantis obviously couldn't change legislation by himself. The legislation went through the process mandated by the Florida Constitution to become law.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna A contract is just a promise that is legally enforceable. A law is pretty fucking legally enforceable and again only a part of this whole spiderweb of an agreement. Changing laws is also one of the primary things that is usually unconstitutional. For example, you can easily pass a law limiting freedom of speech only to have the supreme court hammer your dumb face in for passing an unconstitutional legislation.

DeSantis has enough control over his legislature that he can decide what gets proposed and passed.

I also did not say that Florida needed Disneys okey to end the contract. I said that it would be much better because at least then it would not undermine business confidence in the trustworthiness of the state where as unilaterally revoking a contract would just mean your words are not worth the paper its printed on and no business could in good faith believe in an agreement with the Florida government.

The free speech claim is specifically regarding DeSantis acting against Disney because they spoke out politically against Republicans which DeSantis is not allowed to do. If it is a retaliation against Disney it is an infringement of their first amendment rights which I think is a watertight case right about now.

Von Hoffman v Quincy set a precedent which applies for Disney in Florida. There is a bond involved in the contract as well.

You should probably learn to google yourself.

[Avicenna]

I understand that you are a citizen of a parliamentary democracy, but deSantis is not a dictator, which you seem to think he is. I already told you that the legislative process was followed. Business confidence in Florida is high, regardless of what some Swede thinks, and has not been undermined by Disney being shown that they can't expect to have special privileges that other businesses do not have. But I'm glad you've come to your senses and now admit that the legislature can repeal legislation or amend it.

So in summary:

- Reedy Creek gets it statutory authority from legislation passed by the Florida legislation
-The Florida Legislature repealed Reedy Creek's statutory authority as a public corporation
-TBD are the issues surrounding the dissolution, especially the bonds issued by Reedy Creek (the bonds
-The State of Florida is not obligated to give special treatment to Disney
-Disney's right to free speech has not been abridged
-Revoking a public corporation does not mean a company's rights to free speech has been abridged (after all, they're still lobbying and giving politicians money)

Unlike you, Soteris, I am familiar with this topic, being a FL resident. Keep babbling all you wish, but you're clearly wrong.

[Soteris]

@Avicenna *sigh* If anything its Americans who are living in more of a dictatorship than us in Sweden. Both because you have a two party system which concentrates power and also because you have more of a personality driven system than we do. Hence why DeSantis gets to "rule" over his party on a state level. Party cohesion is a vital part of US politics and that is all about "following the leader" in the case of Republicans which in Florida is DeSantis.

Also you got the series of events wrong. DeSantis only retaliated against Disney because they supported a gay agenda. Because this is a direct response to a political act of Disney it is a breech of freedom of speech for the government AKA the legislature to single them out.

The manner in which they repealed it is also unconstitutional in several ways that I have already outlined not to mention probably illegal in half a dozen other ways most notably in the way that I dont even think the Florida legislature has the authority to change this in the first place.

It is also very dumb since this again, undermines business confidence in Florida and also makes Disney World unprofitable thus ruining Florida. All because DeSantis wanted to retaliate and pander to his voters a bit. Truly the hallmarks of a clueless politician looking for applause.

I also like the fact that I am the only one bringing facts since I am the only one who knows about them on this topic.

[monorprise]

Disney had an unfair advantage over every other business. The deal with Disney was never suppose to be a forever thing.

[Soteris]

@monorprise I literally do not care if they had an unfair advantage or not. The government can't just revoke it, since that is unconstitutional in seven different ways and also harms business confidence as well as will probably be reversed in courts because Disney has the most ruthless lawyers in the entire world.

But the point here is that Disney World can not exist without this unfair advantage. Removing this unfair advantage is the same as killing Disney World.. which is the thing that is keeping Florida on the world map more or less. Good or bad, only an idiot would kneecap their own state like that which is where DeSantis comes into the picture.

[monorprise]

@Soteris There are many theme parks in Florida beyond Disney world that never had any such advantage. Disney world can survive playing the same rules as all the rest of them and even thrive.

Indeed what really upset their board was when the State decided to move the soon to be build Rail station to near Universal Studios rather than Disney world.

[Soteris]

@monorprise No. No, no, no. Disney World is veeeeery special. For it to be even close to worth the quite frankly ludicrous investments made by Disney it requires total control over the land it operates on as well as the immediate surroundings. By design, it can not operate like any other amusement park and if they were forced to then it would be cheaper by far for Disney to literally close down the whole operation and sell it off as scrap.

[Soteris]

With news coming out of Disney winning over Florida in the first battle so far I feel like I should take a victory lap since I fucking called it. Its a really suicidal idea to mess with Disney lawyers.

[Sixgunsound]

It’s a four way tie between Stretchen Gretchen, Andrew Cuomo, Gavin Newsome, and Kathy Hochul. I qualify that by all of their refusal to do their jobs or listen to the will of their tax cattle. By other qualifications arguably most governors are horrible people.

[Sixgunsound]

Thanks for MHO

[KatherineJ]

I can only worry about my own state. Mike DeWine is “iffy” at best.

[Anonymous]

Going to have to say New Mexico's Michelle Lujan Grisham, She has done harm to New Mexico , and it is her fault as all of New Mexico's neighbors are doing better than New Mexico under her.

So there are no regional/ geographic, cultural, or economic issues she didn't cause.

[Avicenna]

It would have been Andrew Cuomo if he was still in office, but Gavin Newsom has got to be it. Kate Brown (OR), Gretchen Whitmer (MI), Phil Murphy (NJ) and Kathy Hochul (NY) are all dishonorable mentions.

[AviatorTom]

That's an unfair question. There are 50 governors and I only live in one state, so I really don't know much about other governors.

[ShadezMcgee]

Tied between Gavin Newsom and Andrew Cuomo (frmr), no question.

[maximumpower]

Newsome.
But then again, the people in California voted him in, so they deserve him.

[BCRanger10]

Easily Gavin Newsom.

[NewsReader]

Gavin Newsom of California

[docster]

Newsom and Hochul.

[MzAsh]

Mike Pence.

[monorprise]

He's not a Governor... Mike Pence stop being Governor of Indiana in 2017. The State however did fine under him, although wouldn't say great.

[MzAsh]

He was my governor in Indiana and no we absolutely didn’t do find under him.

[exitseven]

Gavin Newsome.

[JPresidente]

John Bel Edwards. Total clown.

[CloudMassacre]

Kristi Noem of South Dakota

[Anonymous]

DeSantis, easily.

[_Troian_]

Barrack Obama lmao.

[Wise4myage]

That's easy, Gov Newsom, aka Gov Hair Jell.

[Anonymous]

Kim Reynolds gets my vote.

[Anonymous]

it's nobody other than Gruesome Newsom.

[joeldalton]

Newsome

[anylolone]

Witmer.

[BLP11520]

Newsom and whitmer