Jonathan Gardner

The goalie would have the best (non-assisted) timing

I don't know how you can claim Presidents have no political sway or ability to influence the House or Senate. Have you been living under a rock for a decade?

Like I said, Newsom isn't a great candidate. I hope a better one emerges. But he has, at the very least, passed pro-trans legislation. So the opportunity for that to happen again, SHOULD he be nominated, is greater than the odds that Vance suddenly has a change of heart. That's my logic.

So I'm confused. You're OK with a loss, which will undoubtedly lead to more of the same trans erasure from this current administration. And if given the opportunity to vote to prevent that, you will refuse to do so out of protest of the candidate. Help me understand the logic there.

I don't know where you got the idea that I believe you and your rights are sacrificial. I'm trying to prevent the erosion of those rights, that erosion we've already seen under this current administration, and will likely continue to see under Vance. And your response has been "Let Vance win."

Did you see the response from the Democratic leadership after that loss? They didn't learn anything. We can hold out hope that a better candidate emerges, but "old, white guy governor of the country's biggest states" is going to be hard to beat, especially with him calling out Trump as he has been.

I agree that was a factor. The Democrats attempted to play the middle, bringing in the likes of Cheney, and it alienated their base, causing those to opt out in protest. And I would hope that they've learned their lesson in this next election. But given how rudderless the current leadership looks...

Vance is a puppet of the Heritage Foundation, the same ones that have their mitts all over the current administration, who is actively trying to deny your rights and your existence. Why do you think I'm trying to convince people not to repeat the mistakes of 2024?

You are making my point for me. A big reason why the Democrats lost in 2024 is because voters opted out of voting in protest of Harris, which obviously led to Trump. IF Newsom wins the nomination, opting out of voting in protest of him will likely lead to Vance. Do you see where I am coming from?

I'm not locking in anything, nor am I saying he'd be a good candidate. But I am not ignoring the possibility that he wins the nomination. And voters voting 3rd party/opting out in protest was a factor in why Trump won the last election. I don't think either of us wants a continuation of that.

I have a cousin who is trans. I'm well aware of their existence and the struggles they face. I'm also aware of what this current administration is doing to them, a plan that would likely continue under Vance. So let me ask you a question: If your options were Newsom or Vance, who gets your vote?

If they find someone less Trumpish, obviously I'll support that candidate over Newsom. But if Newsom wins the nomination, and the choice is between him and The Heritage Foundation's puppet in Vance? I'll hold my nose and support the lesser of two evils.

Nope, I didn't say that at all. I do hope they pick a different candidate. However, I do think that the current Democratic party leaders are looking for a "safe" pick, and in their eyes, he's one of the options. And he's obviously establishing himself early to make such a run at that office.

I'm not angry at all. I'm concerned. When I see a lot of people say they're going to opt out of voting, I see the parallel between that and the last election. If you don't vote, you allow others to make the choice for you. Which, as it did last election, may end up poorly for those who opted out.

That's fair, and I do hope a better candidate emerges. But ultimately, you and I both know it's up the Democratic party leaders, and a "safe" pick like Newsom over someone like AOC (for example) seems like their MO. But like you said, there's still time to fight the good fight.

I hope you’re right and that the candidate you’re describing emerges. But given how rudderless the Democratic Party seems to be right now, expecting them to make a big splash and change up the status quo seems optimistic. The status quo benefits them as well, unfortunately.

That’s fair, and I certainly don’t blame anyone for feeling that way. But I also know that if they don’t vote, then they’ll have no say in how the system treats them, which often leads to the erosion of rights, as it has been recently.

I’d love for us to elect someone better. But I also recognize the odds of that happening are slim to none. Too much money involved and too many lobbyists to really shake up the status quo in that way. Why do you think the more progressive Democratic candidates are taking shots from both sides?

I absolutely agree. But unfortunately, the system we’re in has made it so that there’s only two parties that have much of a chance of winning. So often, you’re left with two bad options. So you’re basically forced to hold your nose and vote for who creates the least amount of harm to your cause.

Bad genes 😆

Right now, the “status quo” from the Trump administration is the erasure of trans people and the denial of their rights. Vance will continue that, considering he’s a Heritage Foundation puppet. Newsom will likely challenge that status quo, as he’s done already by passing pro-trans legislation.

Refusing to vote for someone who does a lot of GOOD for your side because they aren’t exactly what you want is how people who are ACTIVELY harmful for your side get elected. Look no further than the last election for the prime example.

I assume you’re referring to his comment about trans athletes. Does one statement make him a bigot in the face of all the pro-trans rights legislation that he’s passed? Senate Bill 107 and 132, AB 2218 (Transgender Wellness and Equity Fund) and 195 (Safety Act), etc. I feel like he’s done more good.

Biden doesn’t have a BlueSky account, but if you look at Clinton’s or Walz’ account, you’ll see the same messages you saw here. So again, race has nothing to do with asking Democratic leaders to speak up. Obviously, it played a factor in getting Trump elected, but no one said otherwise.

Why are you trying to make it a race thing? They're calling on Obama to do something because he's a former president, a current leader of the Democratic party, and is easily accessible through social media. His skin tone (nor the skin tone of those asking for help) shouldn't come into play

Pretty sure that chance has come and gone.

Isn't mid-October like 4-5 games? That seems very premature

Sounds like the team is planning on running either Jarvis or Stankoven in that 2C spot to start the season, then when teams start to fall out of playoff contention during the regular season, see if there's a 2C available there. Pipe dream pick that Rod has chased for a while? Dylan Larkin.

It’s understandable if he didn’t want to sign a longterm deal with the Canes. That’s fine, it’s not like he asked to be traded there. But for those 14 or so games, he WAS a member the team and should have played like one. Instead, he played like he had his foot out the door. That’s not a great look.