TrippyFocus

Just realized that even though they weren’t involved in the trade Denver is a huge winner here. Felt like having 3 bigs they could put on Jokic was huge and no other team really has that.

Damn way too young, one of the funnest players to watch highlights of. Wish his family the best.

Per The Athletic's Shams Charania, the T-Wolves are trading the three-time All-Star to the New York Knicks in exchange for Julius Randle, Donte DiVincenzo and a first-round draft pick via the Detroit Pistons.

Charania added that Charlotte Hornets are also included in the trade as part of a three-team deal. The Knicks are sending salary, including DaQuan Jeffries, and draft compensation to the Hornets in the exchange.

The draft pick is a 2025 top-13 protected pick, per ESPN's Bobby Marks.

Deal makes sense for Knicks for sure since they need center depth and I kinda see what the wolves are going for but feels a little light on the return but maybe I’m not valuing Randle right.

I agree Minnesota is the best option, they usually have one of highest travel miles in the leagues each season and it’ll make the division rivalries match other sports more.

As a Nuggets/Bucks fan it’s really weird they play the Nuggets more than the Bucks given their locations.

Edit: I do wonder if they’ll go to 4 divisions of 4 in each conference and how that’ll affect the schedule. Can’t really go any other way and have even divisions though unless it’s 8 team divisions.

Shams typically got the breaking news about as often as Woj so he’ll be the one to follow I’d say.

Shams seemed to have more contacts with players/agents and Woj had it in with front offices so it’ll be interesting to see if 1 person fills the front office void or if it’ll be a couple people but I’m leaning towards the latter.

Oh I agree, but that’s was a whole other can of worms I wasn’t trying to get into at the moment since I’ve got a busy and long work day that’s still not over unfortunately lol

I didn't ignore what you said. My retort to

No. If 5% of my voting base sits out over a single issue, I’m going to lose my interest in trying to triangulate their support and move in another direction to identify a more persuadable bloc of voters. That goes more if the abandonment is repetitive, and if the issues constantly change, or if the issue is something I can’t bend on for electoral reasons. If one bloc of voters is easier to please than another, then I’m moving in their direction, even if it’s rightward. Unfortunately it’s winner-take-all, and you’re either in power or you’re not. There are no half-wins.

Was that if it's a clear issue like the genocide Israel is carrying out that has a lot of strong opposition to the Democrats current position it really isn't all that hard to triangulate what the cause is.

It's been known it's THE issue the democrats are losing support for given the coverage of the non committed movement. As for how tough it is to It's literally not support a genocide that's how you please that group. It's literally following our current laws to not supply and fund a country committing a genocide.

the importance of Gaza

Literally from your own link "though some questioned whether it would push them not to vote at all." In a thread where people are complaining about a small amount of people voting third party could lose the election for democrats in swing states I guess it is an important issue if it's driving even some people in swing states to not vote.

Also when the non committed movement has more support in some states than the margin of victory in 2020 I would say it's pretty important.

the “ease” of withdrawing support

So genocide is alright as long as they're an enemy of Iran, that's your argument? Israel is literally the one escalating the situation in the area, pulling their support or at least threatening to do so until the genocide is stopped would actually deescalate the situation in the region.

how much Democrats have moved rightward

I don't disagree they've moved left on most social issues when looking at at that long of a time span that's in the article you linked. I'm talking this election cycle Kamala has clearly shifted right from the policies she ran on in 2016.

how many centrist Republicans vote for Democrats.

In 1 election, that's the sample size. That's not a trend and it's against Trump who is an historically awful candidate for moderates to try and stomach. They'll be back voting R once he's gone so it's not a good long term strategy when you're alienating what should be your base to the point their considering not voting or voting third party.

Moreover, you seem to be valuing the strongly-held opinions of voters in non-swing states (what you’re calling “deep blue states” or “areas that effectively don’t matter”) more highly than the maybe-less-strongly held opinions of voters in swing states. If 5% of Democratic voters in California want sushi, and 5% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania want steak, I’m picking steak and telling the California voters to take a hike. Their opinion doesn’t even register on my radar thanks to the electoral consequences of pissing off the Pennsylvanians who wanted steak.

You completely misunderstood what my example was trying to get across. I'm not valuing non swing state voters opinions more than swing state voters.

I understand that the swing state voters are going to have an outsized role in what each party pushes. Tactically I would be saying the voters in swing states especially should be witholding their vote unless the democrats stop supporting Israel's genocide since it would be more leverage but obviously trump getting elected isn't a great alternative which is why I didn't mention that since that's a risk.

What I was saying is that given that non swing states you can safely vote third party to show your displeasure in the genocide we're supporting and possibly shed light that it's got a large amount of importance to voters.

Edit: formatting since I’m on mobile and at work.

Not funding and supplying a genocide seems to be a pretty clear and easy issue to change especially when 60%+ of democrats are in favor of it. We’re already violating our own laws by continuing to do so.

The democrats are already moving to the right even with the left continuing to vote for them. They think they can win over some centrists republicans (even though they can’t in a meaningful number) by adopting right wing policies while not losing the left because at the moment they know votes are guaranteed because “republicans worse”.

Having voters in areas that effectively don’t matter this cycle show there displeasure in the genocide we’re enabling is the least we can do to counter it.

You’re looking at things through there lens of 1 election cycle.

If a third party that’s against the genocide Israel is carrying out gets say 5% of voters in deep blue or deep red states would that not be a signal to the democrats that they should change their stance before the next election?

It definitely isn’t the only time I care about third parties. Continued direct action in the community is the most important way to affect change. The election is just a useful event for publicity and gaining support for groups.

There’s 0% chance my comment is going to convince enough people this election cycle that it effects a non swing states election. It’s about slowly building support for groups.