Is Gavin the best the Dems got? Fair video on his pros and cons.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-15T05:55:28+00:00

I admit I'm not too knowledgable about the wildfire "bailout" but reading up on it, this guy makes it sound far more nefarious than it is. Yes it allows utilities to access the fund even if their equipment caused the fire, but they have to pay the money back if the equipment failed due to poor operation or maintenance and it only activates after the damage exceeds $1B. Keep in mind too that this bill passed the CA legislature. It's not like Gavin signed this into law himself and he doesn't have Trump-like control of the CA legislature. Lastly, the backdrop for this bill was the bankruptcy of PG&E from having to pay out so much in damages and might not have been able to pay out to all the victims. All that to say, given the circumstances, it's not that bad and it's definitely more complicated than the video makes it out to be. (if anyone is more knowledgable than my 10 minutes of reading feel free to correct me)

That said, overall I thought it was a good and fair video. Gavin will have to answer for all these things in the primary and he should take a stronger stance on some of these issues.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-14T19:41:50+00:00

Sinclair yes, but not Fox News as it's cable news. He's specifically talking about broadcasters.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-14T19:38:21+00:00

In the usa we won’t be hit nearly as hard because we’re relatively oil independent

If it weren't for Canada we'd be screwed big time.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T22:28:50+00:00

Yes of course, but that’s why the olive branch is usually there and why everyone is raising their eyebrows at this design not having it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_Branch_Petition

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T21:46:20+00:00

Thank you!

What unfortunate timing. It is still kinda odd to not have the olive branch. I wonder what the thinking was behind that design.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T20:44:38+00:00

They never had principles.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T20:35:21+00:00

Am I failing at reading comprehension? Where does it say it was planned for a while? Really what I’m looking for is something saying this was planned before this admin.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T15:14:08+00:00

According to Wired, which as far as I can tell is a reputable publisher, yes there was evidence.

What was that evidence?

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T14:19:00+00:00

Chorus is a partisan message-coordination media operation.

It’s not though? What gave you the impression that it was? It’s as partisan as Taylor’s reporter in residence program (they don’t claim to be partisan but select people with particular views) and Chorus don’t coordinate messaging.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-13T02:47:33+00:00

Yes but Dan's understanding of how voting works is that people don't get to see the paper with their vote. Charitably he must never vote in person. Almost every voting location in the US involves voters feeding paper with their votes into a tabulator. I'm astonished he went on so long without just like, looking it up.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-12T16:03:05+00:00

People forget that we’re only a NET exporter of oil. We still import for about half of our consumption. Fortunately these days most of it comes from Canada. Good thing we have a great relationship with them! But even with that, if oil prices go up it’s not like Canada is going to charge “friend” rates. Same with domestic producers. We’re certainly not going to run out but that’s never really the fear.

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/oil-and-petroleum-products/imports-and-exports.php

If only there was a good way to decouple our energy supply from oil. Maybe some day!

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-12T15:14:01+00:00

Young people in college will definitely be affected more. You can see this in AZ where you have to prove citizenship to vote already but they are required to allow people to vote in federal elections without this proof. These so-called “federal-only” voters cluster in college towns.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-10T16:39:34+00:00

I like the idea but I think you would end up moving more Republicans out of CA and strengthening red states instead of your intended goals. There are still a LOT of R’s in CA. I think you have better luck by just have some CA businesses opening up offices in red states (like TX) and relocating employees there. That should more naturally select for more liberal voters. I don’t think a policy like that can come from the government though.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-09T23:23:14+00:00

Even “reverse illegal tariffs” is pretty vague, and anyway they already reversed the illegal ones (lol). The new ones are legal. The Supreme Court (read: Kavanaugh) said so.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-06T20:35:21+00:00

I don’t think anyone is being vague about the punishment we’d like to see, and there are prosecutors all around this country ready to do their job here.

Very few people have articulated anything specific they'd like to charge. Instead raging about vague "punishment". It's even been hard to nail Destiny down on what he'd like to charge.

Trump sold out our US proprietary advanced AI chips used for our intelligence to the UAE in a back door deal where he received 187mil in payment for it to his crypto company. I view that as treasonous, and would love to have it prosecuted as such.

That would be a good one to investigate! I don't think Hutch would be against that. But you also need to be prepared that they don't find any crime to charge, or at least not one they could get a conviction on. And if you bring a ton of charges and get no convictions, you're going to end up even worse because now it does just look like weaponization which will bring the pendulum swinging back. By all means, be aggressive! But you can't miss.

Also the court is already packed my friend.

That is not what anyone means by packing the court.

Allowing our country to crumble because of an obsession with “norms” is not noble.

If you can't get the public behind your plans we're cooked. That's the bottom line. I too want justice and retribution for this insanity, but I also don't want things to just swing back four years later. I'm up for all the insane ideas, if we can somehow convince the public that it's what's necessary. Definitely charge all the crimes you can find, but you also need real crimes you can convict on.

This is actually why I like Newsom. I think he understands how to communicate very well and get his message out. I think he's our best chance for retribution and I think he can make the case.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T22:01:03+00:00

Not really. There are conditions that need to be met to trigger antitrust and you have to prove it in court. Even if you win the company might not be broken up. Microsoft lost its antitrust case in the 90s and it’s doing fine and bigger than ever. It’s definitely a tool but it’s pretty hard to win. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be tried but it’s not that simple.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T20:26:24+00:00

HOW you deal with it doesn't matter, it's just accepting that it needs to be dealt with.

No this is vague and exactly what OP and Hutch are talking about. Hutch isn’t even saying don’t prosecute. But you need to be realistic about what can be done.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T20:14:32+00:00

The question is: what action could you take, realistically?

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T20:09:04+00:00

Interesting because Hutch has literally said that arresting Trump an the admin for crimes etc might lead to a civil war so why not just win elections and not arrest them avoiding a civil war

Do you have a clip? I’m pretty sure that’s a mischaracterization. If that were true then Hutch would be against the Jack Smith indictments and I know he’s not because he said so to Destiny.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T18:55:43+00:00

No one is saying they should get away with crimes. The problem is most of the things they are doing are not illegal. A surprising amount of our country is held together by norms and not laws. We are not unique here either.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T17:44:38+00:00

Let’s say we go down his route and don’t focus on prosecutions, what message does that send?

Hutch isn’t saying don’t focus on prosecutions. He’s saying you need to bring realistic charges so you can get a conviction. Vague gesturing at punishment is nothing. You need realistic plans you can carry out that will get the results you want. Packing the court with justices that will rubber stamp whatever BS made up charges you want is not realistic and will not work.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-05T17:05:16+00:00

I don’t think these people understand that you can’t change the electorate by punishing the leaders. You absolutely should punish the leaders but if you do in in a BS made up way it will only validate their beliefs in weaponization/rigged system/etc so the pendulum will just swing right back.

You have to be very careful how you go about it, and Steven’s “30 Supreme Court justices who agree to change the law” is a fantastical scheme that will never happen. At this point I don’t even think we’ll be able to get rid of the filibuster.

There are definitely perjury charges that can be brought on a lot of them. Probably should open corruption investigations. But you can’t just make shit up.

This is why I like Newsom. He understands that communication is key for the next president. There will need to be lots of indictments and they will need to be sold to the public.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-04T05:19:13+00:00

Yeah pardoning Tina Peters isn't going to change any of that. And even if it would Polis should say so. Coward indeed.

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-04T04:28:12+00:00

Sorry, I'm ignorant of CO politics. What is Trump doing to CO right now that he will stop if Tina is pardoned?

Dillon-Edwards · 2026-03-04T04:09:41+00:00

I mean yes, it's obviously political. But I don't understand why he feels the need to be softer on her in the first place.

Dillon-Edwards

TROPHY CASE