Talk:DeSantisites

A few notes

First of all, shouldn't the title technically be spelled "DeSantesites"? Secondly, I don't think the 2022 Pennsylvania gubernatorial election was winnable for the GOP since the party's nominee, Mastriano, is a hard-populist "Christian nationalist" fringe nutjob who ran against a Democrat with perceived pragmatic credentials. And how is DeSantis pursuing consistent pro-Israel policies a terrible thing? —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Saturday, 16:37, February 11, 2023 (EST)

I'm not sure we should assign a pejorative name and collect disparaging information like this when there is a fair probability DeSantis could be the GOP nominee. It could be used to attack DeSantis should he be the nominee. That of course, may be the strategy here. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 17:06, February 11, 2023 (EST)

As of right now, there's a 40-50% chance DeSantis will be a Republican president in either 2024 or 2028. How many times have we seen these propaganda efforts both from within and outside the GOP in presidential politics? In 2000, John McCain was the media darling challenging the frontrunner only to graduate to Hitler by 2008; in 2008 Mitt Romney was the media darling challenging the frontrunner only to graduate to Hitler in 2012; In 2015 Trump was the media darling prior to the primaries only to graduate to Hitler after securing the nomination. This kind of manipulation get's old after awhile.

The main problem with it is, it attacks DeSantis supporters, and not DeSantis directly himself. It is intended to sow division within the GOP, which will survive the 2024 primaries, and ignores all the organic events to play out over the next 15 months or so. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 17:18, February 11, 2023 (EST)

And the label itself sounds like a disease, like hepatitis. From a Propaganda 101 perspective, probably no accident. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 17:22, February 11, 2023 (EST)

Hello, I apologize for not seeing this sooner. Let me address a few points concerning both the comments here as well as the recent edits made to the page itself.

First, I agree with LT that Mastriano probably would've lost even without the GOP-E sabotage of MAGA candidates. However, it still should be noted that his campaign didn't receive the money that it needed, while DeSantis' campaign didn't receive money it didn't need.

Second, DeSantis' targeting of businesses which refuse to do business with Israel is both based on a false premise and unconstitutional. Criticism of Israel is not antisemitism per se, and targeting businesses who refuse to contract with a foreign country on the basis that alone is a violation of the First Amendment.

Third, I created the article because I see strong parallels between DeSantis 2024 and Cruz 2016, and as you may recall Andy created the Cruzites article in response to the latter campaign's tactics. Thus, I believe it is appropriate for CP to respond to DeSantis 2024 in a similar manner.

Fourth, I take back what I said about DeSantis not supporting E-Verify. Upon further research it turns out that the source I used was using exaggerated language to describe his then-limited support. And since that source was published he has taken further action. So again, I take back what I said there.

Fifth, when I wrote that DeSantis was being silent on January 6, I meant that he was being silent on the prisoners who are being held without trial because they were entrapped by federal agents. The source I cited was very clear on what it was referring to, but I had a lapse of judgment and thought the more broad language I used would be understood that way. For that I apologize. I'll reinsert the bullet point with more clear language.

Sixth, regarding RobS' edits of the second paragraph, Trump's bad hires cannot be blamed entirely on security clearance issues. In some cases, it was clearly due to him listening to bad advice. For example, if Rex Tillerson and H.R. McMaster could get security clearance, then Trump would've had no problem replacing them with like-minded individuals. But instead, he hired bottom-of-the-barrel people like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton. That doesn't happen due to a forced hand, no way. On a related note, the same advisers who recommended Bolton and Pompeo very likely were involved in Tillerson and McMaster being pushed out in the first place.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:29, February 14, 2023 (EST)

The only reason Tillerson, McMaster, Pompeo, Bolton, Grenell, Radcliffe, Nikki Haley, Mark Meadows, Elaine Chou, Esper et al were appointed is because they had security clearances; Flynn, Sheriff Derek Clarke, Scarramucci, Michael Cohen, Hope Hicks, Omarosa, Sydney Powell, Schindler et al were driven out or denied because the FBI holds the power over who does and who does not get a security clearance.

Theoretically, a person can get a White House or administration job but denied a security clearance, like Jarad Kushner. Being useless in the job they are appointed then opens the president up to the charge of cronyism and nepotism.

This issue is central to Trump's feud with the Deep State. He wanted to appoint people outside the DC and globalist club, and they want to show him who really is in control and makes the decisions. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 18:48, February 14, 2023 (EST)

Mind you, the present system is very much the legacy of the McCarthy hearings, J. Edgar Hoover, and the Alger Hiss scandal. After the Hiss scandal and others, all security clearances for government hiring were given over to J. Edgar and the FBI. Prior to that, each Department did it's own security screening. J. Edgar tried to warn the State Dept, the Treasury Dept. and the White House that they were hiring and had KGB agents on staff, but was ignored. Eventually all hiring (i.e. security clearances) were centralized in the FBI. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 18:54, February 14, 2023 (EST)

The appointment of the DNI after Dan Coats resignation highlights this problem (as well as almost all instances cited above); Coats was a Pence guy, that's how he got the job. When he quit, Trump wanted to hire Radcliffe who had the necessary qualifications and clearances, but SSCI (not FBI) held it up. Some Acting non-political deputy testified during the Impeachment 1.0 hearings. Eventually Grenell took over with the necessary clearances as Acting DNI. After the failed impeachment, the SSCI acquiesced to Radcliffe.

Trump's appointment of Grenell as Acting DNI, later Radcliffe with Senate approval, was Trump's effort to penetrate the Deep State intelligence community. It came too late, Trump was learning on the job. He is a bit better prepared now. But one person (as Nixon and JFK learned) can't take on the Deep State themself. The Deep State has six ways from Sunday of making your life miserable.

Let's drill down. Both Radcliffe and Grenell had the clearances, but the Senate Intel Cmte initially refused to sign off on either for Senate approval. Grenell was appointed Acting DNI, so the Senators saw that Trump was learning how to play the game. Trump held firm, and with the limited time remaining, the SSCI acquiesced in Radcliffe and Senate approval. Even then, the SSCI must have known Trump's days were numbered and figured Radcliffe didn't have enough time to expose all the corruption related to Russiagate. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 19:08, February 14, 2023 (EST)

If Trump's goal was to use Grenell and Ratcliffe to penetrate the Deep State, that goal was unattainable on the premise alone. Because both of those appointees are Deep Staters themselves.--Geopolitician (talk) 21:57, February 15, 2023 (EST)

Nah, you're letting your bias get the better of you. Just cause somebody holds the necessary clearances (i.e. is a member of the Executive Civil Service) doesn't mean they're a conspirator. Trump was limited for all high-level Executive Branch appointments to persons pre-qualifed by holding the necessary security clearances, which by your definition is exclusively deep staters. That may be true, but we've discussed before factions within the deep state. Simply put, unless you are a member of a subset commonly called "the deep state", you are excluded from consideration. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:12, February 15, 2023 (EST)

Sheriff Clarke, for example, despite a law enforcement and civil service background below the state level, couldn't come along and try to join the federal Executive Civil Service days before a Senate confirmation hearing (maybe a Democrat might be able to pull that off, but I can't cite an instance). RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:21, February 15, 2023 (EST)

Let's look at the issues around Kushner and Hunter Biden momentarily. Senior Presidential Advisor Kushner, without a security clearance, could read classified material handed to him by someone with a clearance, like Trump or somebody else on staff. But Kushner then is limited in being able to communicate directly with the originators of the classified material, or they with him. This creates a massive inefficiency, which everyone in the Washington bureaucracy is aware of and laughs about. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 19:39, February 14, 2023 (EST)

So in other words, Kushner could've caused even more damage than he did. But the Deep Staters who were in charge of security clearances were too afflicted by TDS to even consider the idea that they could (indirectly) benefit from Kushner's agenda. Wow, talk about self-ownage.--Geopolitician (talk) 22:04, February 15, 2023 (EST)

In Kushner's case, he read classified material that he ordinarily would not be entitled to, containing the names of contact people in the Israeli and Bahrain governments (with bio sketches, relevant information on issues, etc.), then had to contact them personally and direct with the authority of the president. He had to use his own staff (and maybe some of Trump's) outside the regular bureaucracy (CIA, State Dept, White House, National Security Council, etc) to negotiate and arrange the Abraham Accords. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:28, February 15, 2023 (EST)

The Abraham Accords are exclusively the work of Trump, Kushner, and their staffs. The entities mentioned, like the State Dept, NSC, etc., played no part whatsoever. While they likely knew of the negotiations, which is ordinarily their turf, to their credit they did not interfere or try to upset negotiations. They probably figured it could always be undone anyway in a couple of years. They let Trump have one big win. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 23:37, February 15, 2023 (EST)

Actually, no. The real reason the Deep State didn't interfere is because Trump was playing right into its hands. By brokering peace between Israel and the Gulf states, Trump was paving the way for a future anti-Iranian coalition. And since the Deep State wants to dismantle Iran (like it wants to dismantle Russia and China), it had no reason to oppose the Abraham Accords.--Geopolitician (talk) 14:58, February 16, 2023 (EST)

That's what I said, but they had no hand in shaping it. Biden's trying to move embassy out of Jerusalem. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:10, February 16, 2023 (EST)

Let's get back to Hunter. He took the classified material, which gave him the names of contact people and the issues involved, and did the same thing as Kushner did - only for personal gain. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 15:14, February 16, 2023 (EST)

Conservatives need to wise up. As noted, the present system, as reformed, is the legacy of J. Edgar Hoover and Joe McCarthy. While Sydney Powell, Sheriff Clarke, Hope Hicks, et al can't get clearances to serve the President, Sam Brinton, the petty thief and Deputy Secretary in charge of nuclear waste and dirty bombs can get a clearance. If I were a Democrat, I'd be laughing too, while Republicans demonize conservatives with the necessary security clearances in a circular firing squad. RobS^{Give Peace a chance} 19:59, February 14, 2023 (EST)

Alright, fair points. —LT ^{(Matthew 26:52)} Tuesday, 16:26, February 14, 2023 (EST)