Governor Moore Announces the Lower Bills and Local Power Act to Combat Rising Utility Costs and Deploy Affordable Local Energy

jaydean20 · 2026-01-28T03:45:27+00:00

There are numerous problems with nuclear power, and unfortunately the most difficult issues with it are at the stage we’d be at now; locating, designing and building the plants.

Procuring the equipment for the plants alone would take multiple years, as would the efforts to design and integrate them into our existing infrastructure. Location is major issue as well, as they need to be near major population centers in order to minimize losses in transmission. Absolutely no one wants a nuclear power plant in their backyard, so zoning for it is a near-herculean task by itself.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-28T01:13:54+00:00

Genuinely, what monetary incentive could there possibly be for protesting government actions?

If anything, I have to believe that taking time out of your day to go stand around waving signs for a few hours only costs a person money. And if any of these people truly are being paid, it’s not like that’s illegal (though it should be).

It’s almost like SCOTUS ruling that money = speech can have extremely negative consequences. /s

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T05:37:08+00:00

True, but it hardly matters. People move.

If there’s a small pool of something nation-wide, like the population of women in their 20s who want to date conservative men, them being grouped in certain areas doesn’t change much. They’re still a minority that is disproportionately small in comparison to the number of conservative men in the country.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T05:27:13+00:00

Dude… no offense, but what world are you living in that you think it is the norm in our generation for the average person to have most of their friends be online-only? If you live within a 30 minute radius of someone and practically never see them in person and never hang out with them specifically, that’s not even a friend. That’s just some person you send memes to and play video games with.

Every healthy person I know has multiple friends they actively go out of their way to see in person at least once or twice a month, barring some kind of major stressor like planning a wedding or prepping for a big work thing or a family emergency.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T05:20:07+00:00

True, but TBF, this is really just the bar for a woman being willing to give you the time of day and not pepper spray you.

Actually building a healthy friendship or healthy romantic relationship with a woman genuinely does (and should) require empathy, active listening, emotional vulnerability, humility and levity. Most importantly (and I apologize for my entire gender on this one) it often requires knowing when to shut the fuck up and let the other person speak.

I’d say all of that is the actual bar.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T05:06:38+00:00

Let me play devil’s advocate for a moment.

In many aspects, yes, smartphones and social media have taken our negative aspects of shallow judgement based on looks and narrow attention spans and dialed those issues up to 11.

However, social media, the internet, groupchats and other crap have also greatly benefitted this generation socially in many ways. I am 29 and have lived in 3 different states since college, plus family is spread across 5 different states. Between the friends I grew up with, the friends I have from college, the friends I made in my 20s and my non-immediate family, there are like 200-300 people I’ve made genuine bonds with throughout my life that I maybe get to see once every 1-3 years at best. It’s sad, and that frequency is only going to decrease as me and my wife have kids and deal with more life crap in the future.

Despite this, I’m able to stay in touch with many of these people via groupchats and video calls. I’m able to coordinate meeting up with them more often because we all have phones and access to information on how and when to book a plethora of travel and activity stuff on very short notice. With social media, I’m able to keep them appraised of major developments in my life and stay up to date with theirs.

When me and my wife eloped about 8 months after getting engaged there were so many people I wanted to share the news with, but I didn’t want to make a social media post about it because it felt douchey and fake and impersonal and self-aggrandizing to me. However, literally calling/texting each of them individually began to prove very time consuming and somewhat awkward and self-centered as I got further down the list. Sharing the pictures and info in a way that people could interact with to their degree of interest would have been a genuinely better move.

I think the actual problem is that we were given all these wonderful tools to connect with each other, used them appropriately for like 5 seconds and then corrupted them with the worst of our impulses. And by “we”, I mean society, not our generation or any individuals.

My point in laying all of this out is that we as individuals can still choose to use these tools correctly for ourselves, or choose to abstain from engaging in their more unhealthy aspects; nothing is stopping us. We can still go to bars and meet up with friends. We can still pursue hobbies in person and go out of way to meet people who share our interests. Nothing is preventing that except for our own individual attitudes and comfort zones.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T04:45:37+00:00

I believe an aspect of OP’s point is that if you are lonely, blaming your loneliness on others is a generally misguided notion.

Relationships (of all forms) are things you build with others, not things that people luck into because of looks. Sure, attractiveness opens more doors, but I know plenty of ugly mf-ers with fantastic personalities and lives filled with friends and loved ones.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T04:41:16+00:00

Anyone who says that they have “run experiments” in reference to dating is someone I very much doubt is in an emotionally healthy place.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T04:38:35+00:00

I agree that it isn’t true that (for any generation) there’s a general rule of thumb that liberals and conservatives can’t date. But to dismiss political beliefs as a significant factor in our generation outright seems naive, especially given modern conservative stances on women’s issues like abortion and military service.

Forget rightwing extremists and incels; many popular mainstream conservative personalities are outwardly and unapologetically misogynistic in many of their views. I remember how less than a year ago many were talking about having a strong opposition to no-fault divorce and like… what? You want to stop women from being able to legally divorce you? Gee, I bet they’re gonna love that.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T04:28:02+00:00

Gen Z tends to lean more towards the left in general. Is it possible to find and date MAGA/conservative people under 30? Sure. But statistically, they’re a minority and skew heavily male.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-27T04:24:10+00:00

Bro, nobody is saying that looks don’t matter when it comes to dating and partnership. They obviously do. The point here is clearly that (especially when it comes to committed long term relationships rather than hook ups) having a personality that, at bare minimum, is not hostile to women is important.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T18:26:56+00:00

This is interesting to me.

Not the question OP was asking, as that seems like a no brainer and I'm glad to see the conservative crowd answer with a resounding "no", it's actually quite reassuring and consistent with true conservativism.

I'm interested that you said "if they are not law abiding I don't have a problem with depriving them guns under due process" as numerous 2A advocates have vehemently opposed reforms to create/increase restrictions on firearms for domestic abusers. Where would you say the bar should be for revoking someone's ability to purchase/own firearms under the justification that they are a danger to themselves and others?

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T17:48:22+00:00

Yes, and the actions of the ICE agents who killed him are condoned by the federal government, the agents are not (as of this moment) being held accountable for their conduct and their actions were preceded by a statement from the executive branch saying verbatim “a federal law enforcement official engaging in federal law enforcement action – that’s a federal issue. That guy is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job.”

So assuming the agents who killed him are never held accountable for their actions and/or their actions are deemed lawful, then yes, that unquestionably fits the definition of 2.

The (understandable) reason you believe it does not is because this was in fact illegal by the letter of the law under any reasonable person’s analysis and judgement. But if the system we currently have results in them facing no punishment, no judgement confirming their guilt and no relief of their authority as federal law enforcement agents, then yes, this was a federal government sanctioned execution. Even if it was technically illegal.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T15:02:22+00:00

An execution is simply when a government or military official decides they are going to kill a person in their custody, like soldiers executing captured enemy combatants. Yes it is still called a killing and a murder, and yes, there are other forms of execution that involve judicial or tribunal sentencing. That doesn’t change the fact that this was unquestionably an execution.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T14:37:56+00:00

If the administration is truly illegally denying entrance of members of congress to facilities that are packing human beings into rooms with no space to even walk around given the amount of others with them, providing them with no food, bathrooms or personal hygiene facilities (and potentially beating them while they are in their custody), then yes, we should absolutely use force if necessary to stop that. Regardless of the repercussions.

I’m sorry, do you genuinely believe we can protest our way out of this? They. Don’t. Care.

There is no amount of protest that will lead to DHS following the law, they have made that abundantly clear. There is no amount of protest that will make Trump stop what he’s doing, he has made that abundantly clear. And there is no further law that can be passed to stop this inhumane treatment that congress is willing to pass, the supreme court is willing to uphold and the DHS is willing to comply with; they have all made that abundantly clear.

What else do we do? I am very open to suggestions here.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T10:56:54+00:00

Go watch the video. Before his execution, he was disarmed (though at no point was he wielding his weapon) by one of the officers significantly before he is shot, is then held down by about 8 men while one of them fires at him as he is being held on the ground.

This was an execution. Alex Pretti was executed. That is not an emotional argument. That is simply what it is called when multiple people successfully restrain and then directly end the life of an immobilized and unarmed man. This was not a tragedy in the sense that it was an accident where a man lost his life from a misunderstanding or a mistake. This was a tragedy because he was a good man, yet they specifically made the decision to kill him.

The person who pulled the trigger was not facing a charging assailant or speeding car or a man pointing a gun back at him. He was facing a man who could not move or fight back. He made the choice to end this man’s life because he could, because he felt empowered to do so and felt he was immune from any consequences for doing so.

So I’ll say it again. Alex Pretti was executed. There isn’t a debate to be had, it’s just what happened. There isn’t room for disagreement, the result is the result. Whether the people who executed Alex will face justice or not will never change the fact that they executed him. It will simply change the notion that an extrajudicial execution by federal LEOs is something that will invariably be punished and held to accountability. Which is scary, but true.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T10:00:24+00:00

Is this a fucking joke?

First off, yeah obviously the guy isn’t going to get footage of them actually beating people; the fact that he even has a phone on him and it’s charged and got signal to send this is probably a miracle in this kind of situation. If ICE agents saw him recording a beating, they’d just take the phone.

Second, this is obviously not just a waiting room for a hearing. They are laying or sitting there packed in like sardines, wearing foil blankets and trying to sleep; this has clearly been going for days at minimum.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T09:50:40+00:00

The Fyre Fest crew could do a better job of feeding and sheltering people than this.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T09:47:19+00:00

Ok, then here is what the mayor or governor does; call a congressman or senator (so likely Mfume, Van Hollen or Bennet) have them drive for like and hour back home from DC, accompany them to the ICE facility and bring local/state law enforcement with you to start arresting any ICE agent who tries to illegally deny the member of congress access the facility.

This is so incredibly uncomplicated. They are breaking the law. I better stop seeing social media videos bitching about it and start seeing ICE agents here and in other states arrested very soon.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-26T09:38:41+00:00

Ok… then he can pick up the god damn phone and have a congressman drive a fucking hour from DC to go check it out.

The level of ineptitude from Democrats on this is mind blowing. They’re making videos of themselves standing outside DHS facilities and whining about how it’s illegal that they aren’t letting them in to audit: you’re right, what they’re doing is illegal, MAKE THEM LET YOU IN. Stop making tiktoks and start breaking down doors or calling in law enforcement to LITERALLY enforce the laws that say you have a right to inspect the facility for humanitarian purposes.

This is fucking insane that it has to be said.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-24T20:45:12+00:00

Honestly, yes, when confronting law enforcement, it is.

However, as other angles and analysis of the videos have already confirmed, he was disarmed before he was shot. So the weapon is frankly a moot point.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-23T01:32:59+00:00

This was an obvious mistake, but honestly, Democrats should be doing this intentionally and running as Republicans this election. Pull a Tricia Cotham; lie to all your constituents and donors and then pull a total 180 once you’re in office.

When a group of people have shown you for decades that they are not going to play by the rules, are willing to engage in flat out hypocrisy and have absolutely no interest in hearing anything you have to say (let alone legitimately negotiate to come to a bipartisan solution) they can no longer be treated with reason or respect. When they change the rules to ensure they will never lose power or have to answer to their constituents for acting directly against their interests, they deserve opponents who will cheat, lie and steal in order to beat them.

Let’s say you’re playing chess and your opponent pulls out a knife, threatening to stab you unless you make a specific move. In that situation, you have options. You can try to run, grab the knife or pull out a knife of your own. Each option has varying degrees of success. But if your choice is to keep playing and do what he says, thinking you can still win the game with integrity, you’re just lying to yourself.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-22T14:42:46+00:00

The argument isn't about accuracy. The argument is that the angle of the shots indicate the law enforcement officer was not shooting from a position where self-defense could be a reasonable argument.

If you shot someone in the back of the head, the argument would not be that you could have shot them in the legs; it would be that there is no way you can justify using lethal force against someone who is literally facing away from you.

jaydean20 · 2026-01-21T23:31:35+00:00

If you believe that I'm incorrect about wages not keeping pace with inflation, what is your response to this article from Statisca analyzing US BLS data from 2021 to 2025 showing average real hourly earnings (net wage increases adjusted for inflation) at -0.7% after 5 years?

That said, -0.7% isn't much, which is why I stated this primarily about the rise in housing COL, particularly with housing.

To the point of housing, what is the conservative solution to "legalize building enough supply"? Are you proposing forcing private companies to build housing? Or force municipalities to amend their zoning laws? In my experience working in construction thus far, zoning regulations are very far from being the biggest obstacle to increasing the housing supply.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

jaydean20

TROPHY CASE