When the other option is Trump (and Project 2025), anyone "uncommitted" at this point is just trying to hold the rest of us (and the world) hostage. Sorry not sorry.
I cannot respect people who refuse to see the bigger picture. Maybe if/when we ever get rid of the electoral college and elect based on the popular vote then they can indulge their moral purity. Until then, I ask that they join the rest of us in the current reality, join us in compromise to solve the immediate crisis at home, and then present their wish list. Because only one option on the ballot is going to make that wish list even possible.
"Oh, well, the Democrats need to work for my vote". In an ideal world, yes. But the reality is the house is on fire and they're asking the fire department to tap dance before they let them bring out the hoses.
I'm sympathetic to what's happening in Palestine, but I am beyond livid that it's being constantly used as a wedge issue and bargaining chip.
Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.
One of the points this speech makes is that the actual Uncommited Movement supports Harris. Palestinians in this movement do not see Israel's genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza strip as a wedge issue to make Democrats lose the election.
Anyone who is using the genocide as such a wedge issue against the Democrats is not acting in the interest of the Palestinian people. As Trump has publicly stated his intention to allow Israel's government to complete their genocide of the Gaza strip. Where as Democrats are actively negotiating for a ceasefire.
The electoral college is exactly why this is such an important issue. There are a lot of Uncommitted voters in the battleground states. If you're really that dedicated to winning and stopping Project 2025, appealing to those voters is critical.
Whatever you wish they'd do, it's their vote, they can see bigger pictures or "smaller pictures" (a.k.a., their family being murdered with US bombs). If this is a crisis, you should be trying to help resolve the smaller pictures of your fellow Democrats so we can all move together on the "bigger picture". Instead you just want to berate them to act how you'd like and say "we'll deal with your family later" (if they're still alive). It's not a "wish list", it's actual people dying. Your priorities are scary but hypothetical. Theirs are happening right now.
Alternately, if you just want to bitch on message boards, then stop pretending like you really care about the crisis of the election, because actually caring is not compatible with "sorry not sorry" (about your dead family).
What pisses me off the most about that is the game of make-believe about Palestine that the wedgies (I think I'll call them that from now on) try to play.
It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel's treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.
The fact of the matter is that the whole situation is an atrocious mess with horrid, horrific behavior by absolute monsters on all sides. To downplay any of it, whether the horrific response by Israel to being attacked, or the horrific attack itself, is to do any serious attempt to address it and cut through the Gordian knot of Middle East problems a disservice.
I've maintained, and continue to maintain, that there's currently no right answer. If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven't seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison, so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.
See that? Both statements are defensible. Both statements have at least an element of truth. It's fucking complicated. And I don't have the answer.
But you know what I'm 100% certain we shouldn't do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.
It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel’s treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.
Almost nothing happens without reason. That doesn't make the reason an excuse or justify the response. Nothing Hamas did justifies the war Israel has waged. This is like making sure no one forgets that an abuse victim hit their abuser first.
I’ve maintained, and continue to maintain, that there’s currently no right answer. If Israel collapses...
This isn't something that's a possible consequence of stopping their war, so why bring it up unless to try to introduce a false dilemma? This isn't a Gordian knot and we don't need to solve the Middle East. We simply need to stop a genocide being perpetrated with our support and weapons, with the solution you've already acknowledged: "stop supplying them with weapons".
But you know what I’m 100% certain we shouldn’t do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.
I 100% agree. Anyone at this stage not committed to electing Kamala Harris and defeating Donald Trump is not acting in the interest of anyone except the fascists, that includes Donald Trump, in the short term. In the long term, everyone being dead to genocide and climate change benefits no one.
It’s fucking complicated. And I don’t have the answer.
In the short term, when it comes to the Gaza war, a ceasefire is the solution. The long term solution is the US recognizing Palestine as a nation state and not allowing Israel to be an exception to international law. Achieving this is easier said than done, but it is straightforward.
If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven’t seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison
Israel's current government can collapse in the next election after a ceasefire. This would allow Israel to change course without needing it to be destroyed like Nazi Germany. That assumes of course that the far right coalition that is currently in power doesn't go completely mask off fascist to their own population and seize power by force.
so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.
Yes.
edit: typo
While I feel strongly that the Palestine people are being systematically erased from the earth I also recognize that there is a real possibility of another trump presidency.
I want to do something for those that are suffering down the street but there's crazy person loose in my own house right now and they're threatening to burn it to the ground.
An important take away from this speech is that those two points are not in conflict with each other according to the Uncommitted Movement. Anyone trying to make it seems like supporting Palestinians and supporting Democrats are mutually exclusive does not have the interest of either group at heart.
So this another group like Defund the Police who don't actually advocate what their own name says?
The Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement referred to marking the uncommitted option on Democratic Party primary ballots in certain states. The Uncommitted Movement did this. It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.
Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.
ie we get genocide either way
yeah I'm so excited to vote this November............
With Trump the genocide will continue until all Palestinians in the Gaza strip are dead and the West Bank is annexed. With Harris we get a ceasefire.
I could not be more excited with the option to the stop the genocide.
With Harris we get a ceasefire
What makes you think that will happen lol? I think someone here even counted the days it took from Biden dropping out to Harris answering the question over Gaza which was "We will continue to support Israel against foreign threats", ie the same policy as Biden.
She also ignored pretty much all of the protests that occurred at some of her campaign rallies, so I think it's safe to assume nothing will improve.
Trump wants to deport protesters and arrest people who burn the American flag. Harris seems content with keeping the 1st amendment rights of America's roughly where it is right now.
Frankly I'd rather organize and mobilize under Harris than trump
Harris met with the Uncommitted Movement. The Uncommitted Movement endorsed Harris in the speech they released to Mother Jones. Harris isn't a life long zionist like Biden. Harris picked Tim Walz over a zionist like Josh Shapiro for VP.
Supporting Israel against Iran doesn't mean allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.
She already commented on the scale of the suffering in Gaza saying it was heartbreaking during the DNC.
It's safe to assume things will improve.
Harris met with the Uncommitted Movement. The Uncommitted Movement endorsed Harris in the speech they released to Mother Jones.
Yeah, and then she denied them from making said speech at the DNC rally.
An endorsement in a speech that never happened is practically moot, even the Mother Jones article makes this abundantly clear. If anything, this could easily backfire and keep the uncommitted movement from voting.
Supporting Israel against Iran doesn’t mean allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.
Unconditionally sending weapons and continuing to give Israel a free pass, even with the antics they play with Iran, is not going to prevent the genocide.
She already commented on the scale of the suffering in Gaza saying it was heartbreaking during the DNC.
Any indication of the past 10 moths, if not the past several decades of relations with Israel, should show you this comment means jack shit. Biden said the same thing multiple times, and it took him 5 months until he quietly admitted Israel might have just possibly used weapons incorrectly and caused innocent deaths by mistake.
Playing up Gaza as a two sided humanitarian crisis, and then blocking anyone on the Palestinian side from talking about it, and then allowing some Israelis to talk about Hamas, is very clear message on her policy. She doesn't care, she never will.
Even pretending to make it seem like her campaign was interested was just a farce to gain voters and support. This was a massive "fuck you" from the campaign to the uncommitted movement and anyone involved who thought she would change her policy on Israel.
If SE Michigan was smart enough to figure out Hillary was a scumbag, they sure as hell aren't going to fall for a liar pretending to care about stopping an active genocide. That state is going to end up red this year.
We do not know why the Uncommitted Movement was denied a speaking slot or who the decision maker was. All we know is that the Uncommitted Movement got a no. Regardless of who made the decision or why, it was an unforced error from the Democrats.
An endorsement in a speech that never happened is practically moot, even the Mother Jones article makes this abundantly clear.
No where in the article does it say or imply anything to that effect. The Uncommitted Movement released the endorsement to the public. It counts. Especially since their goal was to contest Biden during the Democratic Party's primary election and not the general election. It's in their name. Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement refers to marking the uncommitted option on certain states' primary ballots. So it doesn't matter that the DNC made a mistake in not airing the speech. The Uncommitted Movement has made their position known. They support Kamala Harris.
Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.
Defending Israel from Iran doesn't have to be giving Israel more offensive weapons. It can just be restocking the iron dome and shooting down Iran's missiles and drones. Democrats are working to negotiate a ceasefire which is essential to stopping the genocide.
What the group, or any people who continue to protest, will see is a president “who is committed to ending the violence, … making sure that we resolve this conflict with a permanent cease-fire that allows Israel to fully secure itself, that fully continues and make sure that we have a full humanitarian aid, but also make sure that Gazans are able to peacefully live and prosper in Gaza,” he said.
A commitment to defend Israel doesn't have to be an endorsement of genocide. The campaign is onboard with supporting Gaza. This is already a huge departure from Biden's rhetoric who would barely mention the Palestinians at all. Actual indications are that the next Democratic administration will be better on this issue and certainly better than the Republicans.
The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris because the Democrats are the best option for the Palestinian people. Kamala has made it clear she wants a ceasefire. Trump stated he's going to let Israel finish the job, ie finish the genocide. Anyone voting for Republicans or refusing to vote for Democrats either wants the genocide to continue or has been misled by people who do.
::: spoiler Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for Mother Jones:
I can't imagine a competent campaign manager or DNC staffer who would let this happen.
Sure, the speech as presented isn't bad (though doesn't really help Harris) the nightmare scenario is the speaker deviates (in the name of Palestine/"I thought it was too important to be quiet" etc) and the DNC has to play them off. Imagine how bad that coverage and fallout would be.
Edit: a word
The Uncommited Movement endorses Harris in the speech. So it would actually be good for Harris. In fact going off script would be bad for the Uncommitted Movement and Palestinians by the logic provided in their speech.
But in this pain, I’ve also witnessed something profound—a beautiful, multifaith, multiracial, and multigenerational coalition rising from despair within our Democratic Party. For 320 days, we’ve stood together, demanding to enforce our laws on friend and foe alike to reach a ceasefire, end the killing of Palestinians, free all the Israeli and Palestinian hostages, and to begin the difficult work of building a path to collective peace and safety. That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.
The actual Uncommitted Movement sees themselves as an integral part of the Democratic Party. They correctly assert that the Democratic Party is fighting for everyone and that everyone includes the Palestinians. Anyone who can write this speech should know that it is of the utmost importance to stay on script.
By not airing the speech the DNC is leaving Israel's genocide in the Gaza strip to be a wedge issue for bad actors. It falls to the rest of us to assert that this is not the case. There is no other secret speech that needs to be said. Free Palestine and Vote Blue No Matter Who are not statements that are at odds in the general election.
Yes, the speech as given is fine (again, not super helpful but not awful) but the risk is the speaker deviates from a speech submitted for DNC approval etc.
Given the protestors outside have signs accusing Democrats of funding genocide it just seems like an unnecessary risk.
As for giving a wedge issue for bad actors, that'll happen regardless of whether one speaker says nice things at the DNC.
In sum, negligible upside with a significant risk this is not a move I, or any rational campaign staffer, would make.
There is no serious risk of a deviation in giving the speech. This is isn't a speech by protesters holding 'Killer Kamala' signs. This is the speech from the Uncommitted Movement. The speaker is a Democrat state representative herself. The Uncommitted Movement made their point in the Democratic Party's primary election and now are supporting the Democratic ticket in the general election.
An endorsement by a major pro-Palestinian movement in the US would be a huge upside to Kamala Harris' campaign. Again, not just any speaker saying nice things. A Palestinian woman who is a Democrat and state representative. Who, on behalf of a large pro-Palestinian movement, says things that would turn this issue around for the Democrats.
The real downside by not airing the speech is giving more ammo to bad actors and psyops on social media platforms. Who try to make supporting Palestinians and Democrats mutually exclusive. That kind of misinformation dominating the discourse and depressing voter turnout would negatively impact the Democratic ticket.
The rational analysis is in favor of letting this speech air. I am not privy to the DNC's thought process. What could be happening is self-sabotage based on unfounded fear. Fear that is motivated by a misunderstanding of who the Uncommitted Movement is. Anyone protesting to prevent Kamala from winning the general election is either a bad actor or part of a psyop, not the Uncommitted Movement.
This is is a missed opportunity for the Democrats. However, it need not be a missed opportunity for us. Whenever someone tries to hit Kamala with this topic as a wedge issue, show them this speech. The Uncommitted Movement is with Kamala Harris.
As far as I can tell, the uncommitted movement hasn't made any official statements supporting Harris or anything to that effect on their website.
So the DNC has to trust this group's policy is going to be announced by this speaker at the DNC with zero mechanisms to make sure things go as planned.
Outside of a few goofs, most voters understand the Dems will be better for Palestine than trump. Even if the uncommitted movement made a serious pledge, a lot of the genocide Joe crowd would just call them party hacks or whatever. At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.
Again, negligible possible gains, huge risk, avoiding this is a no brainer.
(Unsure how old you are but you might remember the kerfuffle over Bernie in 2016 or the ridicule after Eastwood's bizzare empty chair speech. A successful convention is one that avoids those embarrassing moments at all costs.)
I don't imagine we're going to agree on this but I appreciate your input.
Outside groups somehow universally guaranteeing support support and only then being allowed to join the political process is just not how things work. And they're not putting a random person or even the group as a whole on stage. It's a particular person with a reputation and incentives to not make an enemy of the Democratic party and future president.
This fear that they're likely to go rogue, or that such a risk would always outweigh the benefits is not realistic, and massively downplaying how important it is to heal this rift. This is the single serious issue weighing on both youth support and the support of critical populations in swing states. Pretending like nothing needs to be done to resolve that is a foolish strategy.
At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.
This "old people are the only people who vote" meme is just completely disconnected from reality. Old people vote at higher rates, but they were only around 25% of the total number of votes cast in 2020. Around the same number as 18-34 (40M vs. 38M). And they tend to be biased toward Republicans, while 18-34 is strongly Democratic. Chasing voters who aren't likely to support you while alienating those who are is something with "negligible possible gains" and "huge risk". Avoiding it is a "no brainer".
As far as I can tell, the uncommitted movement hasn’t made any official statements supporting Harris or anything to that effect on their website.
The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website. They requested to speak at the DNC and eventually got a no. If the DNC wanted additional assurances they could have just asked. The DNC didn't even want to look at the speech. They analyzed fewer facts than we are now.
So the DNC has to trust this group’s policy is going to be announced by this speaker at the DNC with zero mechanisms to make sure things go as planned.
The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with. Again, the speaker is a Democrat. Specifically a Democrat state representative in Georgia. The DNC should be able to trust this person.
Outside of a few goofs, most voters understand the Dems will be better for Palestine than trump.
Those goofs are people whose votes the Democrats will need to win the election in November. This speech was an easy way to win them over.
Even if the uncommitted movement made a serious pledge, a lot of the genocide Joe crowd would just call them party hacks or whatever.
Which the Uncommitted Movement did. They released the speech to Mother Jones. We need to tell people that the Uncommited Movement has done this.
At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.
The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party's ticket is in the interest of Palestine.
(Unsure how old you are but you might remember the kerfuffle over Bernie in 2016 or the ridicule after Eastwood’s bizzare empty chair speech. A successful convention is one that avoids those embarrassing moments at all costs.)
Those were 8 and 12 years ago respectively. So recent. The kerfuffle you are referring to is a major source of grievance for the kind of people who would otherwise support the current Democratic Party's ticket.
Your argument misses that these examples are in fact the opposite problems. The DNC went out of their way to put down Bernie's campaign. Where as the RNC were completely blindsided by Clint Eastwood's improv performance. The RNC couldn't be bothered to get Clint Eastwood to commit to an agreed on speech.
The DNC again went out of their way to block a speech that could have benefited them and is yet another unforced error from Democrats. Rather than allowing the DNC mistake cost the Democrats another election we should inform people what an actual pro-Palestinian movement thinks.
Again, negligible possible gains, huge risk, avoiding this is a no brainer.
It is a no brainer, but not in the way your argument is describing it. No matter how many times your argument minimizes the benefits of and invents risks for this speech for Democrats doesn't make it true. The DNC's analysis is a moot point anyway. We can see that this speech is a useful tool against people wrongly using the topic as a wedge issue. We should use the speech.
I don’t imagine we’re going to agree on this but I appreciate your input.
Your argument's analysis isn't based on the available facts. Your argument invents a 'reasonable' DNC response when we are in the dark about the actual reasoning. Why imagine a world where the DNC did the right thing when we can simply do the right thing for them. Show people the speech.
It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can't just say "there's no risk of deviating from the speech." That's a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!
The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website.
Yes, they kind of do. That's the thing. It is very strange to have a "movement" say they are going to make a significant strategic decision but only if they are able to do it live and on primetime. That works for WWE and reality television but not politics. And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.
The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with.
Yes, except those speakers have all been part of groups that are enthusiastically and vocally for Harris.
Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.
The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party’s ticket is in the interest of Palestine.
In both, you can see that Harris leads or is close with 65+ (a group that is twice the size of the younger voters and votes reliably.)
Nate Silver also broke down the math pretty well in an aptly titled post "Your friends are not a representative sample of public opinion"
Let’s do some math here. About 51 percent of the country voted for Biden in 2020. Of that 51 percent, 14 percent say they don’t plan to vote for Biden this time in the head-to-head matchup against Trump. Of those, 13 percent list Gaza or something related as their top issue. And of that 13 percent, 49 percent4 are more sympathetic to Palestine than to Israel (and only 17 percent are more sympathetic to Israel; the rest are in the both/neither camp). So we get:
.51 * .14 * .13 * .49 = .005
That is, 0.5 percent of the American electorate are 2020 Biden voters who say they’ll withdraw their vote from Biden because he’s too far to their right on Israel.
Like I said, huge risk with marginal upside. Even if the odds are against it, the outcome could be disastrous. Think about Russian Roulette with a 1/100 chance, sure the odds are in your favour but would you play that game for a nickel?
It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can’t just say “there’s no risk of deviating from the speech.” That’s a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!
No, it's not. Again, she is an elected Democrat. If the DNC can't trust their own elected officials then they can't trust anyone. Your argument is trying to make it sound like a random protester would be giving the speech.
And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.
Their website is for general information and donations. Not for sending smoke signals to the DNC. They can communicate over the phone or by email. The Uncommitted Movement do not have to signal anything publicly on their donation page for the DNC to take them seriously.
Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.
The Uncommited part in Uncommitted Movement referrers to the uncommitted option on certain state's primary ballots for the Democratic Party. The intention of the movement was always to contest Biden during the primary election and not the general election. There is no switching gears, that was always the plan.
All of the above is a moot point anyway. The DNC is over. They did not allow the speech to be given by anyone.
Those likely voters are voting. It will come down to unlikely voters. This the margin of victory in 2020.
Many of the races in battle ground states came down to less than a million votes. .5% of 340 million people is 1.7 million people. In other words, enough people to make the Democrats lose critical swing states.
Rather than misleading people about reality and blowing off voters in an election where every vote counts, consider telling them the truth instead. The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris. The speech is evidence of that. Arguments trying to make this a wedge issue against the Democrats are demonstrably false. The Democratic Party's ticket is good for the Palestinian people, don't let any misinformation about that go unchallenged.
I'm talking about arguments like this one in this comment section:
Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.
ie we get genocide either way
yeah I’m so excited to vote this November…
Trump is going to let all of the Palestinians be killed. Arguments in support of the Palestinian people should be trying to energize people to vote for Kamala and to defeat Trump this November. However the rhetoric in the above argument is designed to de-energize voters. We can argue against that rhetoric with facts like this speech.
It just seems wild to put your entire argument as "there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important." Especially to heartily endorse Kamala, a position which the uncommitted movement has (as far as I can tell) kept fairly quiet, not even bothering to publish on their website. (Yes, we have this super important message about the election but it's not on us to present that message anywhere if we don't get our way with a speaker!"
Even if I think the odds are the script would go fine, it's a silly risk and would be an insane unforced error.
Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.
“there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important."
Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage. This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.
They released the speech to Mother Jones where people saw it. In that speech they endorsed Kamala.
Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.
That's exactly it. Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to. But the speech they released is the speech. There is no conspiracy. There is no evidence there was any plot to use the time for anything besides reading the two minute speech they released to Mother Jones. There was no indication there was any risk whatsoever. They had a list of speakers. They were open to edits and vetting for the speech.
Below, you can find the speech Romman wants to give. Uncommitted says it was open to multiple speakers. Rep. Romman and Uncommitted organizers both confirmed that this was the speech she was planning to give if allowed for a potential 2-minute speaking slot. Uncommitted said they were open to the speech being edited and vetted. They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.
Wanting there to be another speech won't make it true. Wanting the Democrats be the reasonable people who don't make obvious mistakes won't make it true. Wanting this issue to go away won't make it go away.
In this comment section, I've been arguing with a user who is arguing that Kamala is no different than Trump on this issue. I think we can both agree that isn't true. People with these views are not uncommon. I have been arguing with people for months about Israel's genocide in Gaza and related topics. We don't know how close the election is going to be, but pretending no one cares about these issues is not an effective strategy. This issue is not a wedge issue for the Democrats, so don't let anyone make it out to be one. This speech is a useful tool, if we choose to use it.
Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage.
Except she's had a long career, probably making a better living, working for Deloitte. Seriously, 2 years is nothing in politics. She has many back ups and promoting this cause may be important to her. You are making a wildly large assumption in deciding that a life in Congressional politics is going to be this woman's lifelong career. And frankly, using a giant national event to grab headlines in the name of a cause isn't a terrible way to make a name for yourself. (Consider how much of the republican party leadership actually got their start in the tea party, which was at the time a similarly anti-establishment group.)
That's the thing. This person is a relatively unknown, there are potential benefits (or someone could see plausible benefits) to going off script and that's inherently risky.
Consider that State legislators occasionally straight up switch parties during legislative sessions.
This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.
I am not claiming that she was plotting to do this, I am saying there was a risk that she could have.
Another way to think about it, they had metal detectors at the DNC. Now, if I were to claim that someone was planning to shoot up the DNC, that would be an extraordinary claim and would require evidence. But, like me, the DNC understands the difference between a potential risk and a known danger. The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.
Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to.
No, you are misunderstanding. My argument is that there is a **risk **of such and that's an unforced error. It's the same risk averse strategic approach that Harris has adopted to great success thus far.
They said the DNC did not ask to see the speech.
Yeah, because the thing someone promises to say is not what they were concerned about. Pretty simple.
I really don't know how to break this down any more clearly for you. But I will say it's very strange to be like "it's important to nominate Harris, so we're going to tell people in this one leaked speech rather than say, using any of our social media or web presence which, y'know, are how we generally try to disseminate information directly to people."
This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument. This version of her is not real. It is based on bias, not evidence. People do not normally engage in the behavior that you are describing. She is not any more risky than any other speaker who got a speaking slot at the DNC.
She has every reason to take advantage off the slot by giving the intended speech and nothing to be gained by deviating. The Uncommitted Movement explains in the speech their cause is a part of the Democratic Party and is best served by being part of the Democratic Party. Going against the Democratic Party and trying to sink Kamala Harris' campaign would be detrimental to the Palestinian people. Where as sticking with the Democrats is beneficial for the Palestinian people.
That’s why we are here—members of this Democratic Party committed to equal rights and dignity for all. What we do here echoes around the world.
They know what Trump thinks about Palestinians. Again this is the endorsement line.
Let’s commit to each other, to electing Vice President Harris and defeating Donald Trump who uses my identity as a Palestinian as a slur.
The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.
Your argument again relies on bias instead of evidence. Here you equate the risk of a Palestinian woman speaking to concealed weapons. Your argument's application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not. This is commonly referred to as racial profiling. Where instead of using actual evidence to exclude a person, your argument relies on culturally inherited biases to invent risk where there is none. Your argument is attempting to use racism, unsuccessfully, to make an obvious mistake seem like a reasonable decision, when it's not. We can only hope this was not the reason the DNC gave the Uncommitted Movement a no.
Also, the speech wasn't leaked. It was given freely by the Uncommitted Movement so people could see it. Mother Jones interviewed the speaker. A news site like Mother Jones is a legitimate way to communicate with the public in the year 2024.
"Those protesters out in the street, they have a point. A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."
There's lots to criticize about Biden on this issue and his words mean little to nothing when he's the one in a position of power to act. But thank god he's not our nominee anymore. Harris can turn a new page.
She is off to a great start. Harris already took a stab at it tonight. The fact neither Harris nor Walz are zionists is a relief.
The vice-president said she would “always stand up for Israel’s right to defend itself”, but also spoke of Gaza, saying “the scale of suffering is heartbreaking”.
Hollow meaningless words when they have the ability to get no one killed.
Again, there is plenty to criticize, but it is an acknowledgement. The suffering of the Palestinians has as least been allowed into the Democratic Party's organizational knowledge.
When it's mostly the Palestinians being killed, over 40000 currently which is an underestimate, it is inaccurate to assert the magnitude of the deaths are equivalent. The magnitude of the suffering of the Palestinians and the one-sidedness of the Gaza war against the Palestinians is the Democrats' organizational ignorance that needs to be corrected for everyone's sake, especially the Palestinians.
When the other option is Trump (and Project 2025), anyone "uncommitted" at this point is just trying to hold the rest of us (and the world) hostage. Sorry not sorry.
I cannot respect people who refuse to see the bigger picture. Maybe if/when we ever get rid of the electoral college and elect based on the popular vote then they can indulge their moral purity. Until then, I ask that they join the rest of us in the current reality, join us in compromise to solve the immediate crisis at home, and then present their wish list. Because only one option on the ballot is going to make that wish list even possible.
"Oh, well, the Democrats need to work for my vote". In an ideal world, yes. But the reality is the house is on fire and they're asking the fire department to tap dance before they let them bring out the hoses.
I'm sympathetic to what's happening in Palestine, but I am beyond livid that it's being constantly used as a wedge issue and bargaining chip.
One of the points this speech makes is that the actual Uncommited Movement supports Harris. Palestinians in this movement do not see Israel's genocide of Palestinians in the Gaza strip as a wedge issue to make Democrats lose the election.
Anyone who is using the genocide as such a wedge issue against the Democrats is not acting in the interest of the Palestinian people. As Trump has publicly stated his intention to allow Israel's government to complete their genocide of the Gaza strip. Where as Democrats are actively negotiating for a ceasefire.
The electoral college is exactly why this is such an important issue. There are a lot of Uncommitted voters in the battleground states. If you're really that dedicated to winning and stopping Project 2025, appealing to those voters is critical.
Whatever you wish they'd do, it's their vote, they can see bigger pictures or "smaller pictures" (a.k.a., their family being murdered with US bombs). If this is a crisis, you should be trying to help resolve the smaller pictures of your fellow Democrats so we can all move together on the "bigger picture". Instead you just want to berate them to act how you'd like and say "we'll deal with your family later" (if they're still alive). It's not a "wish list", it's actual people dying. Your priorities are scary but hypothetical. Theirs are happening right now.
Alternately, if you just want to bitch on message boards, then stop pretending like you really care about the crisis of the election, because actually caring is not compatible with "sorry not sorry" (about your dead family).
What pisses me off the most about that is the game of make-believe about Palestine that the wedgies (I think I'll call them that from now on) try to play.
It is 100% understandable and reasonable to be pissed about Israel's treatment of Palestine. It is not OK to pretend it happened for no reason.
The fact of the matter is that the whole situation is an atrocious mess with horrid, horrific behavior by absolute monsters on all sides. To downplay any of it, whether the horrific response by Israel to being attacked, or the horrific attack itself, is to do any serious attempt to address it and cut through the Gordian knot of Middle East problems a disservice.
I've maintained, and continue to maintain, that there's currently no right answer. If Israel collapses, that will be a nightmare the likes of which we haven't seen in a century, so we have to ensure it can defend itself by supplying it weapons. Netanyahu is a madman who wants to commit genocide against the Palestinians and is desperate to hold onto power to avoid prison, so we have to stop supplying Israel with weapons.
See that? Both statements are defensible. Both statements have at least an element of truth. It's fucking complicated. And I don't have the answer.
But you know what I'm 100% certain we shouldn't do? Let Donald fucking Trump get into office to truly fuck things up even more.
Almost nothing happens without reason. That doesn't make the reason an excuse or justify the response. Nothing Hamas did justifies the war Israel has waged. This is like making sure no one forgets that an abuse victim hit their abuser first.
This isn't something that's a possible consequence of stopping their war, so why bring it up unless to try to introduce a false dilemma? This isn't a Gordian knot and we don't need to solve the Middle East. We simply need to stop a genocide being perpetrated with our support and weapons, with the solution you've already acknowledged: "stop supplying them with weapons".
I 100% agree. Anyone at this stage not committed to electing Kamala Harris and defeating Donald Trump is not acting in the interest of anyone except the fascists, that includes Donald Trump, in the short term. In the long term, everyone being dead to genocide and climate change benefits no one.
In the short term, when it comes to the Gaza war, a ceasefire is the solution. The long term solution is the US recognizing Palestine as a nation state and not allowing Israel to be an exception to international law. Achieving this is easier said than done, but it is straightforward.
Israel's current government can collapse in the next election after a ceasefire. This would allow Israel to change course without needing it to be destroyed like Nazi Germany. That assumes of course that the far right coalition that is currently in power doesn't go completely mask off fascist to their own population and seize power by force.
Yes.
edit: typo
While I feel strongly that the Palestine people are being systematically erased from the earth I also recognize that there is a real possibility of another trump presidency.
I want to do something for those that are suffering down the street but there's crazy person loose in my own house right now and they're threatening to burn it to the ground.
An important take away from this speech is that those two points are not in conflict with each other according to the Uncommitted Movement. Anyone trying to make it seems like supporting Palestinians and supporting Democrats are mutually exclusive does not have the interest of either group at heart.
So this another group like Defund the Police who don't actually advocate what their own name says?
The Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement referred to marking the uncommitted option on Democratic Party primary ballots in certain states. The Uncommitted Movement did this. It was never their intention to contest the DNC ticket in the general election.
Really like the implication people are making here that the DNC clearly does not care about the amount of constituents in the uncommitted group because they think enough voters will vote against Trump.
ie we get genocide either way
yeah I'm so excited to vote this November............
With Trump the genocide will continue until all Palestinians in the Gaza strip are dead and the West Bank is annexed. With Harris we get a ceasefire.
I could not be more excited with the option to the stop the genocide.
What makes you think that will happen lol? I think someone here even counted the days it took from Biden dropping out to Harris answering the question over Gaza which was "We will continue to support Israel against foreign threats", ie the same policy as Biden.
She also ignored pretty much all of the protests that occurred at some of her campaign rallies, so I think it's safe to assume nothing will improve.
Trump wants to deport protesters and arrest people who burn the American flag. Harris seems content with keeping the 1st amendment rights of America's roughly where it is right now.
Frankly I'd rather organize and mobilize under Harris than trump
Harris met with the Uncommitted Movement. The Uncommitted Movement endorsed Harris in the speech they released to Mother Jones. Harris isn't a life long zionist like Biden. Harris picked Tim Walz over a zionist like Josh Shapiro for VP.
Supporting Israel against Iran doesn't mean allowing Israel to commit genocide in Gaza.
She already commented on the scale of the suffering in Gaza saying it was heartbreaking during the DNC.
It's safe to assume things will improve.
Yeah, and then she denied them from making said speech at the DNC rally.
An endorsement in a speech that never happened is practically moot, even the Mother Jones article makes this abundantly clear. If anything, this could easily backfire and keep the uncommitted movement from voting.
Unconditionally sending weapons and continuing to give Israel a free pass, even with the antics they play with Iran, is not going to prevent the genocide.
Any indication of the past 10 moths, if not the past several decades of relations with Israel, should show you this comment means jack shit. Biden said the same thing multiple times, and it took him 5 months until he quietly admitted Israel might have just possibly used weapons incorrectly and caused innocent deaths by mistake.
Playing up Gaza as a two sided humanitarian crisis, and then blocking anyone on the Palestinian side from talking about it, and then allowing some Israelis to talk about Hamas, is very clear message on her policy. She doesn't care, she never will.
Even pretending to make it seem like her campaign was interested was just a farce to gain voters and support. This was a massive "fuck you" from the campaign to the uncommitted movement and anyone involved who thought she would change her policy on Israel.
If SE Michigan was smart enough to figure out Hillary was a scumbag, they sure as hell aren't going to fall for a liar pretending to care about stopping an active genocide. That state is going to end up red this year.
We do not know why the Uncommitted Movement was denied a speaking slot or who the decision maker was. All we know is that the Uncommitted Movement got a no. Regardless of who made the decision or why, it was an unforced error from the Democrats.
No where in the article does it say or imply anything to that effect. The Uncommitted Movement released the endorsement to the public. It counts. Especially since their goal was to contest Biden during the Democratic Party's primary election and not the general election. It's in their name. Uncommitted in Uncommitted Movement refers to marking the uncommitted option on certain states' primary ballots. So it doesn't matter that the DNC made a mistake in not airing the speech. The Uncommitted Movement has made their position known. They support Kamala Harris.
Defending Israel from Iran doesn't have to be giving Israel more offensive weapons. It can just be restocking the iron dome and shooting down Iran's missiles and drones. Democrats are working to negotiate a ceasefire which is essential to stopping the genocide.
This is from the Harris campaign.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-official-explains-why-dnc-denied-a-speaking-spot-to-palestinian-american
A commitment to defend Israel doesn't have to be an endorsement of genocide. The campaign is onboard with supporting Gaza. This is already a huge departure from Biden's rhetoric who would barely mention the Palestinians at all. Actual indications are that the next Democratic administration will be better on this issue and certainly better than the Republicans.
The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris because the Democrats are the best option for the Palestinian people. Kamala has made it clear she wants a ceasefire. Trump stated he's going to let Israel finish the job, ie finish the genocide. Anyone voting for Republicans or refusing to vote for Democrats either wants the genocide to continue or has been misled by people who do.
::: spoiler Mother Jones - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for Mother Jones:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2024/08/dnc-speech-uncommitted-movement-harris-walz-ruwan-romman/ ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
I can't imagine a competent campaign manager or DNC staffer who would let this happen.
Sure, the speech as presented isn't bad (though doesn't really help Harris) the nightmare scenario is the speaker deviates (in the name of Palestine/"I thought it was too important to be quiet" etc) and the DNC has to play them off. Imagine how bad that coverage and fallout would be.
Edit: a word
The Uncommited Movement endorses Harris in the speech. So it would actually be good for Harris. In fact going off script would be bad for the Uncommitted Movement and Palestinians by the logic provided in their speech.
The actual Uncommitted Movement sees themselves as an integral part of the Democratic Party. They correctly assert that the Democratic Party is fighting for everyone and that everyone includes the Palestinians. Anyone who can write this speech should know that it is of the utmost importance to stay on script.
By not airing the speech the DNC is leaving Israel's genocide in the Gaza strip to be a wedge issue for bad actors. It falls to the rest of us to assert that this is not the case. There is no other secret speech that needs to be said. Free Palestine and Vote Blue No Matter Who are not statements that are at odds in the general election.
Yes, the speech as given is fine (again, not super helpful but not awful) but the risk is the speaker deviates from a speech submitted for DNC approval etc.
Given the protestors outside have signs accusing Democrats of funding genocide it just seems like an unnecessary risk.
As for giving a wedge issue for bad actors, that'll happen regardless of whether one speaker says nice things at the DNC.
In sum, negligible upside with a significant risk this is not a move I, or any rational campaign staffer, would make.
There is no serious risk of a deviation in giving the speech. This is isn't a speech by protesters holding 'Killer Kamala' signs. This is the speech from the Uncommitted Movement. The speaker is a Democrat state representative herself. The Uncommitted Movement made their point in the Democratic Party's primary election and now are supporting the Democratic ticket in the general election.
An endorsement by a major pro-Palestinian movement in the US would be a huge upside to Kamala Harris' campaign. Again, not just any speaker saying nice things. A Palestinian woman who is a Democrat and state representative. Who, on behalf of a large pro-Palestinian movement, says things that would turn this issue around for the Democrats.
The real downside by not airing the speech is giving more ammo to bad actors and psyops on social media platforms. Who try to make supporting Palestinians and Democrats mutually exclusive. That kind of misinformation dominating the discourse and depressing voter turnout would negatively impact the Democratic ticket.
The rational analysis is in favor of letting this speech air. I am not privy to the DNC's thought process. What could be happening is self-sabotage based on unfounded fear. Fear that is motivated by a misunderstanding of who the Uncommitted Movement is. Anyone protesting to prevent Kamala from winning the general election is either a bad actor or part of a psyop, not the Uncommitted Movement.
This is is a missed opportunity for the Democrats. However, it need not be a missed opportunity for us. Whenever someone tries to hit Kamala with this topic as a wedge issue, show them this speech. The Uncommitted Movement is with Kamala Harris.
As far as I can tell, the uncommitted movement hasn't made any official statements supporting Harris or anything to that effect on their website.
So the DNC has to trust this group's policy is going to be announced by this speaker at the DNC with zero mechanisms to make sure things go as planned.
Outside of a few goofs, most voters understand the Dems will be better for Palestine than trump. Even if the uncommitted movement made a serious pledge, a lot of the genocide Joe crowd would just call them party hacks or whatever. At the same time, frankly, among the people most likely to actually vote (those 65+) support is incredibly favourable to Israel, even during this conflict.
Again, negligible possible gains, huge risk, avoiding this is a no brainer.
(Unsure how old you are but you might remember the kerfuffle over Bernie in 2016 or the ridicule after Eastwood's bizzare empty chair speech. A successful convention is one that avoids those embarrassing moments at all costs.)
I don't imagine we're going to agree on this but I appreciate your input.
Outside groups somehow universally guaranteeing support support and only then being allowed to join the political process is just not how things work. And they're not putting a random person or even the group as a whole on stage. It's a particular person with a reputation and incentives to not make an enemy of the Democratic party and future president.
This fear that they're likely to go rogue, or that such a risk would always outweigh the benefits is not realistic, and massively downplaying how important it is to heal this rift. This is the single serious issue weighing on both youth support and the support of critical populations in swing states. Pretending like nothing needs to be done to resolve that is a foolish strategy.
This "old people are the only people who vote" meme is just completely disconnected from reality. Old people vote at higher rates, but they were only around 25% of the total number of votes cast in 2020. Around the same number as 18-34 (40M vs. 38M). And they tend to be biased toward Republicans, while 18-34 is strongly Democratic. Chasing voters who aren't likely to support you while alienating those who are is something with "negligible possible gains" and "huge risk". Avoiding it is a "no brainer".
The Uncommitted Movement do not need to indirectly communicate with the DNC via their website. They requested to speak at the DNC and eventually got a no. If the DNC wanted additional assurances they could have just asked. The DNC didn't even want to look at the speech. They analyzed fewer facts than we are now.
The same mechanisms as anybody the DNC works with. Again, the speaker is a Democrat. Specifically a Democrat state representative in Georgia. The DNC should be able to trust this person.
Those goofs are people whose votes the Democrats will need to win the election in November. This speech was an easy way to win them over.
Which the Uncommitted Movement did. They released the speech to Mother Jones. We need to tell people that the Uncommited Movement has done this.
The Democrats need high voter turnout to win. Swing state elections this year could be determined by younger, unlikely voters. Many younger, unlikely voters care about Palestine. So it is critical they know the Democratic Party's ticket is in the interest of Palestine.
Those were 8 and 12 years ago respectively. So recent. The kerfuffle you are referring to is a major source of grievance for the kind of people who would otherwise support the current Democratic Party's ticket.
Your argument misses that these examples are in fact the opposite problems. The DNC went out of their way to put down Bernie's campaign. Where as the RNC were completely blindsided by Clint Eastwood's improv performance. The RNC couldn't be bothered to get Clint Eastwood to commit to an agreed on speech.
The DNC again went out of their way to block a speech that could have benefited them and is yet another unforced error from Democrats. Rather than allowing the DNC mistake cost the Democrats another election we should inform people what an actual pro-Palestinian movement thinks.
It is a no brainer, but not in the way your argument is describing it. No matter how many times your argument minimizes the benefits of and invents risks for this speech for Democrats doesn't make it true. The DNC's analysis is a moot point anyway. We can see that this speech is a useful tool against people wrongly using the topic as a wedge issue. We should use the speech.
Your argument's analysis isn't based on the available facts. Your argument invents a 'reasonable' DNC response when we are in the dark about the actual reasoning. Why imagine a world where the DNC did the right thing when we can simply do the right thing for them. Show people the speech.
It really seems like you are asserting things without regard for evidence or observable reality. You can't just say "there's no risk of deviating from the speech." That's a very bold assertion made entirely without evidence!
Yes, they kind of do. That's the thing. It is very strange to have a "movement" say they are going to make a significant strategic decision but only if they are able to do it live and on primetime. That works for WWE and reality television but not politics. And it is a strategic switch that seems to only exist in this one copy of a speech, not on the website or anything where you would expect to see a significant policy switch.
Yes, except those speakers have all been part of groups that are enthusiastically and vocally for Harris.
Again, you have this group that have been pretty anti-establishment then promising they are going to radically shift gears and are now going to be vocal for Harris? Seems off.
You should look at the swing state data! https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/10/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the "blue wall" https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/08/17/us/elections/times-siena-poll-likely-electorate-crosstabs.html - For the interesting possible swings (Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina.)
In both, you can see that Harris leads or is close with 65+ (a group that is twice the size of the younger voters and votes reliably.)
Nate Silver also broke down the math pretty well in an aptly titled post "Your friends are not a representative sample of public opinion"
(https://www.natesilver.net/p/your-friends-are-not-a-representative)
You might also look at how the issue fits in with the broader public, where even a third of Democrats oppose a ceasefire if Hamas does not release the hostages (the ones they haven't murdered yet): https://today.yougov.com/politics/articles/49384-majorities-support-a-ceasefire-in-gaza
Like I said, huge risk with marginal upside. Even if the odds are against it, the outcome could be disastrous. Think about Russian Roulette with a 1/100 chance, sure the odds are in your favour but would you play that game for a nickel?
No, it's not. Again, she is an elected Democrat. If the DNC can't trust their own elected officials then they can't trust anyone. Your argument is trying to make it sound like a random protester would be giving the speech.
Their website is for general information and donations. Not for sending smoke signals to the DNC. They can communicate over the phone or by email. The Uncommitted Movement do not have to signal anything publicly on their donation page for the DNC to take them seriously.
The Uncommited part in Uncommitted Movement referrers to the uncommitted option on certain state's primary ballots for the Democratic Party. The intention of the movement was always to contest Biden during the primary election and not the general election. There is no switching gears, that was always the plan.
All of the above is a moot point anyway. The DNC is over. They did not allow the speech to be given by anyone.
Those likely voters are voting. It will come down to unlikely voters. This the margin of victory in 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/election/2020/results/president
Many of the races in battle ground states came down to less than a million votes. .5% of 340 million people is 1.7 million people. In other words, enough people to make the Democrats lose critical swing states.
Rather than misleading people about reality and blowing off voters in an election where every vote counts, consider telling them the truth instead. The Uncommitted Movement supports Kamala Harris. The speech is evidence of that. Arguments trying to make this a wedge issue against the Democrats are demonstrably false. The Democratic Party's ticket is good for the Palestinian people, don't let any misinformation about that go unchallenged.
I'm talking about arguments like this one in this comment section:
Trump is going to let all of the Palestinians be killed. Arguments in support of the Palestinian people should be trying to energize people to vote for Kamala and to defeat Trump this November. However the rhetoric in the above argument is designed to de-energize voters. We can argue against that rhetoric with facts like this speech.
It just seems wild to put your entire argument as "there is no way a state member of Congress who has been in office for all of 20 months would go off script in support of a cause which she feels is super important." Especially to heartily endorse Kamala, a position which the uncommitted movement has (as far as I can tell) kept fairly quiet, not even bothering to publish on their website. (Yes, we have this super important message about the election but it's not on us to present that message anywhere if we don't get our way with a speaker!"
Even if I think the odds are the script would go fine, it's a silly risk and would be an insane unforced error.
Wanting something to be true is not the same as it being true.
Twenty months? You mean almost two years? No one is throwing away their career for the thirty seconds it would take to escort them off stage. This idea that she or anyone in her position would seriously plot to do this is an exceptional claim. Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence to back them up.
They released the speech to Mother Jones where people saw it. In that speech they endorsed Kamala.
That's exactly it. Your argument wants there to be a secret speech for her to go off script to. But the speech they released is the speech. There is no conspiracy. There is no evidence there was any plot to use the time for anything besides reading the two minute speech they released to Mother Jones. There was no indication there was any risk whatsoever. They had a list of speakers. They were open to edits and vetting for the speech.
Wanting there to be another speech won't make it true. Wanting the Democrats be the reasonable people who don't make obvious mistakes won't make it true. Wanting this issue to go away won't make it go away.
In this comment section, I've been arguing with a user who is arguing that Kamala is no different than Trump on this issue. I think we can both agree that isn't true. People with these views are not uncommon. I have been arguing with people for months about Israel's genocide in Gaza and related topics. We don't know how close the election is going to be, but pretending no one cares about these issues is not an effective strategy. This issue is not a wedge issue for the Democrats, so don't let anyone make it out to be one. This speech is a useful tool, if we choose to use it.
Except she's had a long career, probably making a better living, working for Deloitte. Seriously, 2 years is nothing in politics. She has many back ups and promoting this cause may be important to her. You are making a wildly large assumption in deciding that a life in Congressional politics is going to be this woman's lifelong career. And frankly, using a giant national event to grab headlines in the name of a cause isn't a terrible way to make a name for yourself. (Consider how much of the republican party leadership actually got their start in the tea party, which was at the time a similarly anti-establishment group.)
That's the thing. This person is a relatively unknown, there are potential benefits (or someone could see plausible benefits) to going off script and that's inherently risky.
Consider that State legislators occasionally straight up switch parties during legislative sessions.
I am not claiming that she was plotting to do this, I am saying there was a risk that she could have.
Another way to think about it, they had metal detectors at the DNC. Now, if I were to claim that someone was planning to shoot up the DNC, that would be an extraordinary claim and would require evidence. But, like me, the DNC understands the difference between a potential risk and a known danger. The metal detectors, like stopping this speech, are there to prevent a potential risk, despite the odds being fairly slim.
No, you are misunderstanding. My argument is that there is a **risk **of such and that's an unforced error. It's the same risk averse strategic approach that Harris has adopted to great success thus far.
Yeah, because the thing someone promises to say is not what they were concerned about. Pretty simple.
I really don't know how to break this down any more clearly for you. But I will say it's very strange to be like "it's important to nominate Harris, so we're going to tell people in this one leaked speech rather than say, using any of our social media or web presence which, y'know, are how we generally try to disseminate information directly to people."
This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument. This version of her is not real. It is based on bias, not evidence. People do not normally engage in the behavior that you are describing. She is not any more risky than any other speaker who got a speaking slot at the DNC.
She has every reason to take advantage off the slot by giving the intended speech and nothing to be gained by deviating. The Uncommitted Movement explains in the speech their cause is a part of the Democratic Party and is best served by being part of the Democratic Party. Going against the Democratic Party and trying to sink Kamala Harris' campaign would be detrimental to the Palestinian people. Where as sticking with the Democrats is beneficial for the Palestinian people.
They know what Trump thinks about Palestinians. Again this is the endorsement line.
Your argument again relies on bias instead of evidence. Here you equate the risk of a Palestinian woman speaking to concealed weapons. Your argument's application of risk is targeted to her and her movement selectively as if they have some kind of known inherent risk when they do not. This is commonly referred to as racial profiling. Where instead of using actual evidence to exclude a person, your argument relies on culturally inherited biases to invent risk where there is none. Your argument is attempting to use racism, unsuccessfully, to make an obvious mistake seem like a reasonable decision, when it's not. We can only hope this was not the reason the DNC gave the Uncommitted Movement a no.
Also, the speech wasn't leaked. It was given freely by the Uncommitted Movement so people could see it. Mother Jones interviewed the speaker. A news site like Mother Jones is a legitimate way to communicate with the public in the year 2024.
Like Israel, the DNC refuses to acknowledge they exist
Biden said the Gaza war protests have a point. There is plenty to criticize about the DNC. This isn't one of those things.
https://www.axios.com/2024/08/20/biden-dnc-gaza-war-protesters-point
There's lots to criticize about Biden on this issue and his words mean little to nothing when he's the one in a position of power to act. But thank god he's not our nominee anymore. Harris can turn a new page.
She is off to a great start. Harris already took a stab at it tonight. The fact neither Harris nor Walz are zionists is a relief.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/aug/22/kamala-harris-dnc-night-4?CMP=share_btn_url&page=with%3Ablock-66c803fc8f0841a2a14c4dd4#block-66c803fc8f0841a2a14c4dd4
Hollow meaningless words when they have the ability to get no one killed.
Again, there is plenty to criticize, but it is an acknowledgement. The suffering of the Palestinians has as least been allowed into the Democratic Party's organizational knowledge.
When it's mostly the Palestinians being killed, over 40000 currently which is an underestimate, it is inaccurate to assert the magnitude of the deaths are equivalent. The magnitude of the suffering of the Palestinians and the one-sidedness of the Gaza war against the Palestinians is the Democrats' organizational ignorance that needs to be corrected for everyone's sake, especially the Palestinians.