Jump to content

Talk:Ron DeSantis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 209.128.15.129 (talk) at 14:55, 13 May 2021 (→‎"He is of Italian descent": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Please restore the "archive" buttons

There is no simple way to find archived discussions on this talk page. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Frodar (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: COVID-19 content

Should the COVID-19 section of the body include content on (1) DeSantis organizing and attending rallies with maskless attendees and interacting with the attendees (e.g. high-fiving them), (2) the controversy over Rebekah Jones (who has been in a dispute with the DeSantis administration over COVID-19 data), and (3) DeSantis threatening to withhold vaccines from counties that criticize the distribution? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for 1,[1][2][3][4][5][6] 2,[7][8][9][10][11] 3.[12][13][14][15]

References

  1. ^ "Florida governor high-fives at Trump rally". BBC News. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  2. ^ CNN, Jamiel Lynch, Danielle Hackett, Rosa Flores and Sara Weisfeldt. "Hotel that hosted a mostly maskless rally for Florida's governor is under investigation". CNN. Retrieved 2021-02-21. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  3. ^ Dusenbury, Wells. "Hotel slapped with warning for hosting maskless DeSantis crowd". sun-sentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  4. ^ Bowden, John (2020-10-13). "Florida governor doesn't wear mask to Trump rally". TheHill. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  5. ^ Reimann, Nicholas. "Report: DeSantis Planned To Publish Op-Ed Telling Floridians Wearing A Mask Is 'Moral Thing To Do,' But He Never Did". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  6. ^ Board, Orlando Sentinel Editorial. "Politics won the battle against public health in Florida with Ron DeSantis' high-fiving at Trump rally | Editorial". orlandosentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  7. ^ "The Ron DeSantis-Rebekah Jones controversy in Florida, explained". Tampa Bay Times. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  8. ^ Rohrer, Gray. "DeSantis says Rebekah Jones 'has issues,' blasts news media over state police raid". orlandosentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  9. ^ "Florida analyst who clashed with governor over Covid data faces arrest". the Guardian. 2021-01-17. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  10. ^ "Florida Agents Raid Home Of Rebekah Jones, Former State Data Scientist". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  11. ^ Rohrer, Gray. "DeSantis says Rebekah Jones 'has issues,' blasts news media over state police raid". orlandosentinel.com. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  12. ^ CNN, Konstantin Toropin. "DeSantis defends controversial vaccine deal with developer -- and threatens to pull vaccines if officials don't like it". CNN. Retrieved 2021-02-21. {{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  13. ^ Gstalter, Morgan (2021-02-17). "DeSantis threatens to divert vaccines from communities criticizing distribution". TheHill. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  14. ^ "Florida Governor Accused Of 'Playing Politics' With COVID-19 Vaccine". NPR.org. Retrieved 2021-02-21.
  15. ^ Mole, Beth (2021-02-18). ""Shameful and inhumane": DeSantis threatens to withhold vaccine amid criticism". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2021-02-21.

Survey

  • Yes. The content is amply and reliably sourced, and covers DeSantis's response to the public health crisis that has rocked the world and been the focus of his administration (2019–). Thus, content on the topic would meet both DUE and NPOV. The content is not only thoroughly sourced in news reporting (which includes international coverage: BBC News, The Guardian), but has also promoted editorials from the major newspapers in Florida. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No: At least for (1) and (3), per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. This article is a biography, not a news blog of his governorship. This is also a problem with other current-politician articles, where they're littered with news-of-the-day content that doesn't have long-term significance. I wouldn't be opposed to adding a sourced sentence saying that DeSantis had a habit of regularly violating coronavirus guidelines (if that's actually the case), or a sentence that his vaccine rollout was criticized for certain reasons, but it's UNDUE to get into the weeds with these specific daily-news incidents. Even without any of the info in question, the COVID-19 content still comprises a large portion of the article. --1990'sguy (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. (1) is UNDUE trivia that is hard to take seriously, the text removed earlier for (2) makes no mention of DeSantis, and (3) is content I would expect to see on a somewhat partisan news blog, not an encyclopedia. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. While I think many of us can agree that what DeSantis did was reckless, I do not think it is wise to add such an insignificant (but major) shortcoming to this article. All notable politicians have a fair amount of reliably sourced negative information, but I think including them all is incredibly WP:UNDUE. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I partially retract what I said. (2) may be worthy of inclusion in the article, but not the rest. That seems like a notable controversy. However, it may be WP:TOOSOON to tell. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:53, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on (2). There may be reasons to exclude this, but those reasons certainly do not include the idea that this "has nothing to do with DeSantis." The episode with Jones is an important and potentially explosive example of the Governor's policy in matters related to the pandemic. It is plain that the Governor was involved in the case, given his repeated, on the record comments on the matter, as well as comments from his press office, both on the dismissal, and on the law enforcement actions. Johnadams11 (talk) 22:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Important aspect of tenure; discussed in detail by various reliable sources. As for (1): if the failure to take COVID-19 precautions were a single incident, I would probably argue that it would be too "newsy" to include. Here, however, there are multiple sources about separate incidents involving DeSantis over a series of months, including one that spawned a county investigation. On (2) the Rebekah Jones saga has received local, national, and international converge over a series of at least three months, so that certainly belongs here. As for (3), the threat to withhold vaccines from counties on a political basis is of course highly significant and very well sourced (with in-depth coverage, see, e.g., this lengthy piece). Reasonable minds can differ on how much text should be devoted to these, or how exactly this content should be presented, but to omit this material at all would be entirely wrong. Some of the comments above do not make much sense to me. For example, I'm not seeing how this is "hard to take seriously" (whatever that means); this was treated very seriously indeed by the sources, which are what matters. Similarly, I don't understand the proposed content to be "criticism"; rather, I understand the proposal to be about describing a significant aspect of his career/tenure as governor—his handling of a pandemic in which 30,000 people in Florida died. And the contention that this content is akin to a "blog post" or "news of the day" doesn't hold much water, given the enduring, in-depth coverage over weeks and months. Neutralitytalk 23:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality, I have edited my comment. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft No on 1, Hard No on 2 and 3 - Maybe a sentence on his activity during the pandemic in terms of whether he followed local mask regulations or the like. Hard No on Jones, the story of which only includes Desantis tangentially with very big accusations but no evidence of direct involvement. DoesPolitics (talk) 14:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on all of them. Olivierbt96 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on all of them, for reasons above. Eccekevin (talk) 23:37, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Olivierbt96 (talk) 08:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. What he did was reckless per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUESea Ane (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1)Maybe. We can always say something like "at times during the COVID pandemic, DeSantis didn't seem to be observing widely followed social distancing and masking precautions". 2) No. Rebekah Jones is clearly a Florida woman. Mentioning her on the governor's page is undue. 3) No. Not really clear to me from what the sources say that DeSantis's comment was a "credible threat" more than it was just an off-hand remark. NickCT (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes (Summoned by bot) per in depth and well reasoned arguments of Neutrality above. In depth, widespread coverage of defining issues of his performance. Pincrete (talk) 07:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes – all three have significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the criteria for inclusion; the appropriate level of detail is a separate issue, per Neutrality. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 21:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, much of this seems to have WP:SUSTAINED national coverage (eg. [1][2].) These are significant events in the timeline of one of the most significant challenges he faced as governor, so it's hard to see how a sentence or two for each, deep in the body in the section devoted to that aspect, could reasonably be considered undue. For comparison (remember, due weight is relative to what's already in the article) we mention things like his being a member of a Little League team in his youth; we devote an entire paragraph to a bill he introduced that received comparatively little coverage and did not become law; we mention a random pledge he signed; we mention his decision not to collect his pension; and we mention his batting average (!). It is hard to see how a few sentences devoted to highly-covered aspects of a major part of his time as governor is WP:UNDUE in an article with its current focus. --Aquillion (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes Not including would be a case of fairly blatant whitewashing - the undue argument is nonsense. Significant events that received significant coverage - as Aquillion noted, we include a lot of information that is far less consequential. Bacondrum 06:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for 2 and 3, No for 1. While 1 has low importance and it depends on how the fact is written in the article. Point 2 and 3 defitely should be included partially agreeing PraiseVivec and DoesPolitics. Chirota (talk) 22:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on all of them. I do believe that any action that he took concerning Covid_19 pandemic will and should be mentioned since it will always reflect on his tenure as a governor. BristolTreeHouse (talk) 07:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. These are significant controversies of public interest widely reported on national media that would be important to somebody evaluating DeSantis's administration in the future; hence it passes the WP:10YEARTEST with flying colours, especially if the coverage of the three topics combined is limited to one or two paragraphs. --DaysonZhang (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No for 1, as per all the above reasons especially WP:NOTNEWS. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes for 2, we should not WP:CENSOR controversial material but write it a WP:NEUTRAL manner. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Yes, and Yes All are widely covered and should not be suppressed. Reywas92Talk 06:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes on (2). The second proposal is newsworthy, is notable and well documented. The other two proposals seems to suggest a bias and does not adhere to WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. Jurisdicta (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Covid-19

Hello! To provide a more complete understanding of the result of DeSantis' Covid-19 policies, I suggest including objective metrics. In particular it would be helpful to the reader to cite:

1. Deaths per capita in FL. By the CDC website, it is currently 143 per 100k, which is less than the US average of 154. [1]

2. The unemployment rate of FL. According to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, the unemployment rate was 6.1%, which, again, is less than the US average of 6.7%.[2]

Without such metrics, it is unfortunate that the reader currently comes away with the impression that Florida has done much worse than most states because of a disastrous response by DeSantis.

And, if I could offer one further suggestion, it seems there's no mention of how DeSantis handled school reopening. That would appear to be a major omission since it has occupied much space in the news and affects millions of children.

Assuming the editors are in agreement about these obvious omissions, I will gladly edit the article to include them. Thank you for your help in making Wikipedia more objective. 2600:1700:281:2700:6135:506A:F7EF:4BDE (talk) 06:34, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, who am I talking to here. A wikipedia staff member, or a member of the public? Second, the piece still has not been edited according to the (27) points that I have raised. Do I edit it myself? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.14.30 (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm just a member of the public like you with my own points :-) I think you can edit the article -- I did -- though you can count on someone making further changes after you. 2600:1700:281:2700:806E:8B77:85DA:4868 (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the COVID-19 coverage uses many negative adjectives to portray the situation. Have added some objectivity. I notice this page is closely watched and reverts of much that is not negative.Kmccook (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans are closely watching this page, and are deleting any facts that do not conform to their political agenda, including those that are tightly referenced to peer reviewed scientific studies; the references that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans cite are political hit pieces that they mischaracterize as "news" pieces. It was obvious from the start that no, Florida did not rely on the Governor's wife, sportscasters, and discredited "experts" in guiding its pandemic response, and for Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans to put this on Wikipedia as "referenced fact" is absurd.

Interestingly, I make substantial donations to Wikipedia each year, and got back a very nice letter from a real person when I called to their attention the (mis)behavior of Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans. They are guiding me as we attempt to undo the damage that Vizzinifezzikwomanchuck and Snooganssnoogans have done.

My concern, as a medical health professional, is that their misinformation will lead to a failure in the general public to understand the lessons of the COVID pandemic. Last March, none of us knew quite what to do by public policy. Now we do. For this virus, the curves are more or less the same regardless of whether you locked down or not, had a mask mandate or not, and so on. The only important thing is whether you protected elder care facilities. Florida's "outstanding" death rates compared to other jurisdictions came from Florida's learning this lesson early from the Italian experience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Snooganssnoogans has again deleted peer reviewed science providing accurate facts about the COVID--19 management in Florida. I have posted this on his/her talk page, and called his/her misbehavior to the attention of the Wikipedia administration:

"As a public health expert, as I talk to the Wikipedia administration and various other editors, we really want to know what motivates you?

Again and again, you have deleted peer reviewed science, with detailed citations to the literature, that show that in terms of outcome, Florida made more or less the correct decisions concerning pandemic management. Further, we have shown that the "news" pieces that you claim support your anti-science are in fact political hit pieces. In any case, they are old and proven wrong. No, Florida did not become "global epicenter of the coronavirus", no matter what the Sun Sentinel said in June.

Do you not understand peer reviewed science? Do you not understand that misrepresenting the pandemic in Florida causes disease and death? Or do you simply think that disease and death are acceptable outcomes, as long as you enforce your political ideology.

We try to appear to the better angels of your nature by imploring you to allow readers of Wikipedia to know the truth of the Florida pandemic. "

Here is the science that wikipedia readers might actually like to know about, but that Snooganssnoogans is censoring.

As the pandemic unfolded in 2020, public health scientists worldwide began a program of peer-reviewed research to assess the value of different public health measures taken to manage the pandemic. [3] The CoVID-19 virus behaved in many ways differently from previously seen coronaviruses, including the coronaviruses that caused SARS 2003 and MERS. [4] Especially important for its transmission was the ability of COVID-19 to create a wide range of symptoms, ranging from death to none at all. Further, infected individuals with few or no symptoms were able to pass on the infection to others, especially the elderly, who proved to have risk of severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. [5] Several states, including California, Michigan, and New York, and many international jurisdictions, notably the United Kingdom, undertook large scale lockdowns. [6] Other jurisdictions did not. For example, in Sweden, instead of widespread lockdowns, steps were taken to protect the elderly, with much of the rest of the economy remaining open. [7] What emerged was effectively a world-wide experiment in studies of how best to improve public health outcomes. [8] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns had substantial economic cost. [9] [10] Further, peer reviewed literature established that lockdowns created other medical problems, especially in mental health. [11] This required each jurisdiction to guess how to proceed, with those guesses becoming increasingly informed as the world-wide efforts could be comparatively evaluated. In Florida, after a brief "stay at home order" in early spring, Governor DeSantis chose a pandemic response similar to that of Sweden. Elderly living facilities were protected by restricting visitors, and ensuring that no individual hospitalized with COVID was released back to such a facility. Then, DeSantis chose to minimize lockdowns, stating that his goal was to balance economic damage, direct medical damage, and collateral medical damage. As of March 2021, Florida strategy can be evaluated, especially in comparison with medical and economic outcomes in states that chose alternative pandemic management strategies. First, Florida never became a "global epicenter of the coronavirus", as some had predicted. As of March 2021, the total number of cases per 100,000 in Florida was 8734, compared to California (8805) and New York (8337). [12] Further, the number of deaths per 100,000 in Florida was 144, compared to California (132), New York (163), and the US as a whole (154). As Florida ranks second (after Maine) in its proportion of elderly, and as elderly proved to be the most susceptible to severe disease and death, this performance is noteworthy. These data informed public debate, not only for the COVID-19 pandemic but for future pandemics. In particular, they suggested that lockdowns did not have material impact on public health outcomes. Florida's strategy can also now be evaluated based on economic, educational, and other non-medical facts. For example, as of December 2020, Florida's unemployment rate was 6.1%, compared to the national 6.7% rate. Florida presently ranks second in Advanced Placement test scores. [13]. Scientific analysis was also remarkable in the degree to which pandemic response policies were politicized. Most major news outlets in Florida did not endorse DeSantis in his election campaign, and many wrote "news" pieces criticizing his policy that made transparently false allegations. [14]. Noting that "politics is wrecking America's pandemic response", [15] thee Brookings Institute remarked on "partisan gaps" where politically motivated "news" pieces assumed that extreme lockdowns were the only "scientifically correct" response to the pandemic, "even though they reflected … distrust of the President, rather than proposals grounded in evidence". Brookings Institute noted that "[w]hatever the public health merits, we find that lockdown policies and business closures do real damage to the economy that goes beyond the actual effects predicted by infections or deaths at the county level." Brookings reported that as of September, unemployment in Republican states was 6.7%, while unemployment in Democrat states was 11.3%. Consistent with his policy disfavoring lockdowns, DeSantis was the target of much, sometimes harsh, criticism from sources that opposed him politically on other matters, including the Sun Sentinel and the Washington Post. In many of these, the science supporting the DeSantis policies were not mentioned, with the attacks claiming that DeSantis was not relying on science and data in guiding Florida's pandemic response, but rather claiming that DeStantis was relying on sportscasters, family members, and discredited experts for pandemic management advice. For example, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.189.139 (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page reads like a political hit piece more than an unbiased presentation of information. Shame on the editors who have high jacked pages like this to push an agenda rather than to inform — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.77.36 (talk) 14:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was his rank really Lieutenant Commander?

I think it should be either referenced or corrected. The article only mentions his promotion to Navy Lieutenant in 2006 and then his transfer to reserves at the same rank, his personal website has a picture of him wearing the Navy Lieutenant rank as well, but the infobox and wikidata list him with a higher rank - as LtCdr. Infobox contains no reference for this higher rank. The wikidata record is referenced only by italian wikipedia, which in turn has no reference for this claim at all either. KPX8 (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of RS content (racism, big tech)

The editor Mr Ernie removed the following content in bold[3]:

References

  1. ^ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_deathsper100k
  2. ^ http://lmsresources.labormarketinfo.com/charts/unemployment_rate.html
  3. ^ Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A., Persad, E., Klerings, I., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2020). Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID‐19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (9).
  4. ^ Park, Ji-Eun, Soyoung Jung, and Aeran Kim. "MERS transmission and risk factors: a systematic review." BMC Public Health 18.1 (2018): 574.
  5. ^ Sayampanathan, A. A., Heng, C. S., Pin, P. H., Pang, J., Leong, T. Y., & Lee, V. J. (2021). Infectivity of asymptomatic versus symptomatic COVID-19. The Lancet, 397(10269), 93-94.
  6. ^ Koh, D. (2020). COVID-19 lockdowns throughout the world. Occupational Medicine, 70(5), 322-322.
  7. ^ Born, B., Dietrich, A., & Müller, G. J. (2020). Do lockdowns work? A counterfactual for Sweden.
  8. ^ Kamerlin, S. C., & Kasson, P. M. (2020). Managing COVID-19 spread with voluntary public-health measures: Sweden as a case study for pandemic control. Clinical Infectious Diseases.
  9. ^ Mandel, A., & Veetil, V. (2020). The economic cost of COVID lockdowns: An out-of-equilibrium analysis. Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, 4(3), 431-451.
  10. ^ Coibion, O., Gorodnichenko, Y., & Weber, M. (2020). The cost of the Covid-19 crisis: Lockdowns, macroeconomic expectations, and consumer spending (No. w27141). National Bureau of Economic Research.
  11. ^ Killgore, W. D., Cloonan, S. A., Taylor, E. C., Lucas, D. A., & Dailey, N. S. (2020). Loneliness during the first half-year of COVID-19 Lockdowns. Psychiatry Research, 294, 113551.
  12. ^ https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days
  13. ^ http://lmsresources.labormarketinfo.com/charts/unemployment_rate.html
  14. ^ Abbas, A. H. (2020). Politicizing the pandemic: A schemata analysis of Covid-19 news in two selected newspapers. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 1-20.
  15. ^ https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2020/09/17/politics-is-wrecking-americas-pandemic-response/
  16. ^ Brewster, Jack. "Biden Says He Doesn't Think America Is Racist—But Slavery, Jim Crow 'Had A Cost'". Forbes. Retrieved 2021-04-30.
  17. ^ "In nod to Trump, Florida is set to ban 'deplatforming' on social media". NBC News. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  18. ^ Lee, Timothy B. (2021-04-30). "Disney gets special "theme park" exception to Florida's anti-tech bill". Ars Technica. Retrieved 2021-05-03.
  19. ^ "Florida plans to fine social media for banning politicians". BBC News. 2021-05-01. Retrieved 2021-05-03.

The editor claimed that it was "irrelevant editorializing" to clarify why Trump had been deplatformed (because he used social media to lie about election fraud and rile up his fans to storm the Capitol), expressed their incorrect personal view that Disney was not a tech company, and claimed that DeSantis's views on systemic racism are "UNDUE". The content in question is reliably sourced and DUE. Where a governor of a large state stands on racism seems like basic information to cover, as is context under which Republicans are going after technology companies. Snooganssnoogans (talk)

  • The first point is just UNDUE on it's own, but even if it wasn't then that isn't actually what DeSantis said. The source also states that Biden and Harris don't think America is a racist country. Regarding the second point, this article is an encyclopedic entry about Ron DeSantis. You can put the editorializing about Donald Trump and Disney in the more relevant articles. Mr Ernie (talk) 21:11, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"He is of Italian descent"

Karen Rogers doesn't sound very Italian. looks like OR--209.128.15.129 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_DeSantis&oldid=1022966562"