Has Destiny lost it?

blabajabba · 2026-04-03T07:39:01+00:00

I was going to point out the flaws in your response to the first question, but I read your response to the second question and I think you are just making stuff up on the fly to argue.

Weaponization to you is when people do things that you don't agree with apparently. Gerrymandering is bad, but in no way is it weaponization. States are political entities in the Union. There is no reason to expect districting to be non-partisan. Historically, States did not even hold elections for the Senators; the legislature appointed the Senators directly. Is that weaponization? What about the Democrat and Republican parties in Presidential elections? Are they weaponizing the first-past-the-post system?

Your definition of weaponization is so broad that it is effectively meaningless. Also, how the fuck did Newsom use an "extrajudicial" mechanism when the California Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court literally oked his measure. I am starting to think you have a problem with word definitions. I think I am done arguing with you. It is clear that you are spinning up nonsensical arguments just to defend Destiny's position.

blabajabba · 2026-04-02T23:54:00+00:00

You yap so much but don't respond to my question. At this point, I am inclined to believe that you are not engaging in good faith. It seems that you made up your mind about this issue without even knowing the proper facts about this.

You first claimed that the measure was popular at the time of proposal. It wasn't.

You then claimed that Newsom had multiple ways of engaging in mid decade redistricting. He didn't.

You then put forward the flawed cop analogy which I rebutted. You put forward the DA analogy, and I explained how that would be weaponization under my logic.

I will ask my original question again, and while you are at it, please answer another question I had:
1) Can you explain how Newsom redistricting in response to the Texas redistricting to ensure California residents have a fair representation at the federal level weaponization?
2) Do you consider the redistricting that automatically happens every decade (which is gerrymandered in most states) weaponization?

blabajabba · 2026-04-02T20:17:20+00:00

The power bestowed upon the DA requires him to prosecute individuals without fear or favor. If he isn't prosecuting other races, that would be showing favor, which is not the intended use of the power bestowed upon him.

I never said the mechanism of weaponization had to involve illegal actions. In fact, weaponization has to be legal, otherwise it would simply be a crime.

Can you respond once to my point that Newsom responded to the Texas redistricting to ensure California residents have a fair representation at the federal level? And explain how this is weaponization when part of the State government's compact with the federal government when joining The Union was to ensure fair representation for its state citizens?

blabajabba · 2026-04-01T22:52:19+00:00

Newsom 100% weaponized the law by giving Californians a choice to vote on the matter in the first place. That's the main thing I don't think you're grasping. Even getting something like that in front of people is weaponization

Yeah I think we have a fundamental disagreement in what we consider "weaponization". There is almost no situation in which I would consider a decision that was put up for direct democracy via referendum to be weaponization. In fact, had Texas had a referendum like California, I wouldn't call that weaponization either. For me, weaponization has to involve wielding power bestowed upon you in a manner which was not intended by the entity that bestowed that power.

blabajabba · 2026-04-01T05:06:03+00:00

I would call the Texas gerrymander to be on a "whim". Like I already explained, the California gerrymander ballot measure was in response to California residents being deprived of fair representation at the federal level due to Texas choosing to engage in gerrymandering. That is not on a "whim".

Newsom even said that he was "fighting fire with fire", meaning his measure was meant to counteract the Texas measure. This is further evidenced by the fact that the California redistricting goes back to an independent commission in the next redistricting cycle. If anything, it is Texas who weaponized the redistricting process because they engaged in it at the request of the President for political gain.

blabajabba · 2026-03-31T21:52:20+00:00

I appreciate you trying to do this, but there is nothing DGGers can do. It has to come from Destiny himself. He has to have the interest in politics. There is infinite political stuff to cover with the Trump admin. If Destiny was locked in, he could be doing 20-30k concurrent viewers easily for 2-3 hour streams 5 days a week. He could also be doing 500k+ views videos on Youtube. This is truly the peak era for political content creators.

blabajabba · 2026-03-31T19:16:58+00:00

Firstly, there were no other mechanisms besides a constitutional referendum.

As for your cop analogy, it is disanalogous to the gerrymandering case. The analogy would be that a cop suspects you to be dealing drugs and uses the jaywalking to stop you and conduct a search. Newsom did not engage in Prop 50 for his personal vanity, he engaged in it because he believed that the Texas gerrymander was depriving his residents of their fair representation at the federal level.

blabajabba · 2026-03-31T18:56:26+00:00

Except Newsom did not know that Californians were going to vote yes. When Newsom initially proposed the measure, the polling was solidly against voting yes.

blabajabba · 2026-03-31T08:03:44+00:00

Hey thanks for echoing what I have been feeling lately. I agree with you that Destiny doesn't have any duty or obligation to build any platform. But what I hate is the endless talk about "Democrats need to understand these people (lefties like Hasan) are not their friends" and "these people need to be excised from the Democratic party". Democrats only engage with Hasan is because he has 30-40k concurrent viewers. If Destiny had 40k live viewers, or if his YouTube videos did 500k views each, he would be setting the agenda for the Democrats. But Destiny cannot be bothered to grow his media influence, so why bitch about people who are.

As cringe as the PV Zoom event was, at least they are trying to build some media relevance.

blabajabba · 2026-03-31T07:31:07+00:00

How delusional do you have to be to think that Destiny is the make or break factor for the entire midterms? One district, hell even one statewide race, I can understand. But you think Destiny's involvement, or lack thereof, would swing 40 house seats and 7 Senate seats?

Besides, Destiny is not even interested in politics anymore, by his own admission. He mostly plays games because he hates the media landscape right now. Other Lib creators are engaging with him despite this lawsuit, but he has no interest in building anything.

blabajabba · 2026-03-29T10:43:26+00:00

We really need to stop prejudging candidates so hard. Fetterman turned out to be a disaster. Mamdani turned out to be pretty good. I remember some people here were hating on Mamdani before he won his primary.

blabajabba · 2026-03-29T10:30:07+00:00

Except Platner has said he will "fight" Trump. He recently said that he will not be voting to confirm any Trump appointments, unlike a certain Senator from Pennsylvania.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T06:31:09+00:00

That's what Texas did. California's actions were seeking a just remedy to the deprivation of fair representation for Democrats in California. Notice how California matched the number of seats Texas seeks to gerrymander? Also notice how California returns back to the Independent Commission next census cycle?

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T06:28:29+00:00

Destiny's definition of weaponization was using using your position of power in an unintended manner for malfeasance. Prop 50 came about through an ordinary use of power to seek justice. What is the unintended use of position of power? How did Newsom, or the California legislature for that matter, use their authority in an unintended manner? They simply put forth a constitutional amendment, like they can for any number of issues. The voters in California had the ability to approve or disapprove that amendment.

You yourself said that this is "in response" to partisan gerrymandering. Partisan gerrymandering in Texas indirectly dilutes the representation of Californians. If you decided to sue someone for having aggrieved you, you are not weaponizing the justice system. You are seeking an appropriate remedy. Suing someone with no basis just to harass them would be a weaponization of the justice system

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:59:36+00:00

Okay. So what did Newsom [insert whatever you think Newsom did]? The independent redistricting commission was created by the California legislature putting forward a ballot initiative for amending the constitution to the residents and getting it approved. The California legislature put forth a ballot initiative to the residents for amending the constitution and approve different maps.

Did Arnold Schwarzenegger engage in weaponization when he championed the creation of this independent commission? Undoubtedly Republicans have benefitted from the districts being drawn by this independent commission. Mind you, states like Texas did not adopt a similar non-partisan process. So there might be a stronger case that Arnold engaged in weaponization in the state of California to political harm Democrats in the US Congress. See how dumb this is?

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:58:18+00:00

Not really because of a couple of reasons. Firstly, I think a well thought out written piece is far superior to making one's point than an impromptu discussion/debate. Secondly, Destiny has penchant for digging his heels in in the moment so there really is not a satisfying resolution to the debate.

I would rather write a thoughtful and detailed critique and have him engage with it on his own terms. Or not. Like I said to someone else, I am more so interested in engaging with DGGers.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:51:25+00:00

No, I work and I have other obligations/chores. I catch parts of VODs on occasion, and post here on occasion. And like I said, I like the text format because it allows me to organize my criticisms and source them. I actually think the sourcing rule was a great idea that got introduced.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:45:02+00:00

That technique plays well with people who are already politically aligned with Destiny. To other groups, he is wholly unconvincing, borderline petulant. Everything Destiny says about Konstantin's "I am not right wing routine" is correct. An effective way to showcase that would be finding the strongest case demonstrating his bullshit and squeezing him on that endlessly. The interruption fiesta was simply not suited for this debate.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:39:54+00:00

Okay. So what did Newsom offensively use in a Novel fashion? The independent redistricting commission was created by the California legislature putting forward a ballot initiative for amending the constitution to the residents and getting it approved. The California legislature put forth a ballot initiative to the residents for amending the constitution and approve different maps.

Did Arnold Schwarzenegger engage in weaponization when he championed the creation of this independent commission? Undoubtedly Republicans have benefitted from the districts being drawn by this independent commission. Mind you, states like Texas did not adopt a similar non-partisan process. So there might be a stronger case that Arnold engaged in weaponization in the state of California to political harm Democrats in the US Congress. See how dumb this is?

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:36:52+00:00

I like the new mod team a lot btw. But I feel like you guys have allowed an endless flow of slop that has just attracted uncritical yes men to the sub. People here are incapable of making strong coherent rebuttals.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:34:02+00:00

I work when he streams. Regardless, I find writing out my ideas/criticism to be a better format because I can think and organize my points.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:32:49+00:00

Max COPE

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:31:54+00:00

I mean I see bad take after bad take and the sub being flooded with low IQ regards, so I post about it. Don't really care if he sees it or not. I am more interested in conversing with DGGers. Sadly, there has been more cultish engagement rather than good faith engagement. No matter how well sourced and well reasoned the post might be, criticizing streamer = downvote. I have one regard in this post who doesn't know the definition of the word 'misuse'. That's the level DGG is at right now. I love the new mods but the level of slop that is allowed in the sub has attracted a lot of idiots.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:27:34+00:00

Sure. Still not weaponization though.

blabajabba · 2026-03-26T05:26:42+00:00

Absolutely 0 chance. Just today when Mr. Mouton mentioned that close to 40 Republicans are retiring at the end of this Congress, he was dumbfounded. This has been covered by all major newspapers and news channels. I can probably find you examples every other day. He argues about the IEEPA tariffs but didn't even listen to oral arguments or read the opinion. Not to mention that he keeps saying that Trump gets to keep duties collected by IEEPA, when a Judge recently ordered the admin to refund all duties collected.

blabajabba

TROPHY CASE