To answer your question, no, I don't believe everything a political party says.

I had to go back to the post from 22 days ago to figure out who you even were. I recommended you read that comment section again, because our conversation was not the most memorable comment chain there. I had a conversation with an openly racist troll. I figured it had to be that user again, but your username and user icon didn't look right.

If the Uncommited Movement won't endorse Harris then they are making a mistake. There's still time for them to change their mind. What the Uncommitted Movement cited seemed to be ethical concerns. Moral reasoning cannot help us against fascism and genocide. We need to think in terms of utility. It is useful to endorse Harris because in a two party system either Harris or Trump will be elected. And Harris is the candidate that will do the least harm to the Palestinians. Where as Trump will allow Israel to complete its genocide.

Withholding votes and endorsements isn't a meaningful way to create change in our democracy. We need to push the Overton window to the left. We do this by both voting for the most viable progressive and/or socialist option in elections and advocating for progressive and/or socialist causes between elections. Allowing fascists to takeover our democracy and kill us in death camps to avoid personal ethical quandaries does nothing to further a progressive and/or socialist agenda.

Also, to be clear, we need a socialist agenda, but a lot of progressives probably haven't realized that yet. Regardless, a progressive majority would still be preferable over the current neoliberal majority. Any legitimate progressive movement is going to realize they will need to redistribute the owner class' wealth. Every reform a progressive enacts will be undermined by the wealthy who are incentivized to overturn our democracy to enrich themselves.

I'm not a Democrat. I have no interest in going to bat for the Democrats. I was referencing an article that had an interview with the Uncommited Movement's preferred speaker and speech. I'm going to advocate for strategies that I think are most the useful for achieving goals such as majority rule democracy, socialism, ending Israel's genocide, etc. So while Biden was the nominee I advocated voting for him. Now that Kamala is the nominee I advocate voting for her.

edit: Also, to be even more clear, Kamala is a neoliberal, but she is the closest we can get to a progressive this election.

🔺Triangles for the Triangles God!🔻

That's the best kind of cheese burger.

I would say it's very weird. No sense in normalizing a useless practice like false equivalencies. No one benefits from being unable to determine the difference between a neo-liberal politician and fascist cult leader.

The useful way to report on Donald Trump is to identify him as a fascist and his mass deportation plan as ethnic cleansing.

Reporters think it violates journalist integrity if they correctly identify the MAGA movement as a fascist movement. As if a view point from no where would be biased by the act of calling a fascist a fascist. We should not want the news to have a neutral view point on fascists. There is nothing neutral about an ideology that will kill us all. A viewpoint from no where isn't something we should even want. Rather than being unbiased the news should be biased in favor of the people's common interests.

Trump's tariffs will hurt the economy. We know this because when faced with new tariffs countries raise tariffs in response. There is historic evidence for this, the most recent is Trump's first term. When Trump raised tariffs on China, China responded with their own tariffs and American farmers paid the price.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/eriksherman/2019/12/27/trump-china-tariffs-farmers-subsidies/

News that attempts to make equivalency between Kamala Harris' and Donald Trump's policies in the pursuit of an unbiased viewpoint is not useful to the American people because it's not accurate. Donald Trump's policies are bad for the economy and news reporting that explains that to the American people would be useful because it's provably true information.

The news media should be a mechanism on delivering measurable, falsifiable, verifiable reality to the American public. Not a balancing act of attempting to appear unbiased from a political perspective. There is no utility in a institution that can't call out a death cult like MAGA for what it is. We are on the tipping point between incrementally improving society and death camps. Meanwhile the news media is worried they might be accused of media bias if they point that out to the public. edit: typo

The fascists can always wait, they only have to win once.

You brought up a personal story, which I appreciate. I am going to share my own as well. It is not my intention to compete with you. I have two stories I can share where I did intervene and was prepared to use violence. When presented with new evidence it became clear in both cases that violence was not the answer. Here's the one that happened the earliest in my life that also happens to involve cars.

When I was in high school, either junior or senior year, I was hanging out with my friend by the school parking lot. We were waiting for the traffic to clear out. There were about ten people left in the area in total. I think while I had my back turned talking to a different friend, my friend spotted a guy trying to jack a car in the school parking lot with what looked like a metal ruler. I couldn't believe someone would do that in broad daylight. I had to get a closer look. My friend said it wasn't worth dying over a car. I said it wasn't about the car and I didn't want to live in the world where we did nothing. By then the eight guys nearby were walking with us. We surrounded the guy. It turned out the man was trying to break into his daughter's car because she had locked herself out. Apparently this had happened more than once. I abruptly asked his daughter's name and he immediately said his daughter's name. My friend bought the guys story and he seemed to be telling the truth so we backed off.

The other story is more recent. I was alone in my apartment bedroom, a year or two before covid. I heard smashing noises and screaming coming from the apartment on the other side of the wall. I was tired and wasn't sure if someone was being murdered or just being noisy. I threw on some stuff for going outside. I went to the neighbors' apartment. The door was open and there was a guy sitting at the top of the stairs. He asked me who I was. I introduced myself. He asked me to be more specific. He then seemed really concerned when I told I was one of his neighbors. It turned out his 18 year old daughter was throwing a temper tantrum and was breaking stuff. He shouted multiple times to his daughter that there was an uber driver to pick her up. I could hear her clearly in the background asking what he meant by that. I said good luck with that and I left.

I am not going to analyze our stories. I bring this up to show that I do have the kind of criteria that you seem to think is required to discuss this topic. My point is that it's not a requirement. We have nothing to do with what we are discussing. This is about how people as a society respond to threats from fascists.

The woman in question is also not relevant to this discussion. Her choice is. That is it. It is not my intention to talk shit about this woman nor do I think any energy should be put towards that end.

Self-defense is when a person defends themselves from an attacker. What society would be doing by agreeing with her choice is saying that when push comes to shove people should trade liberty for life. There can be no resistance to fascism without risking all of our lives, because fascists will threaten everyone and anyone.

If people want a future that is worth living in for future generations then people as a society must uphold the idea of liberty or death. Society must accept the idea that people would be better off dead than in a fascist dictatorship or else people will end up in a fascist dictatorship. Liberty must be held above human life or else liberty will be lost.

This means being willing to risk every child. There is no life worth living under tyranny. Life under fascist rule is hollow and meaningless. If we trade in liberty for life then future generations will have a pointless existence. People should want future generations to have lives worth living.

The good news is that the Army put out a statement backing up the woman and criticizing the behavior of Trump and his campaign staffers. At the very least the Army stood up to Trump in writing.

Trump and the MAGA movement are the fascists. Snowden and Assange didn't stand against them. In fact, what happened to them is very likely to happen to lots of people if the fascists take power.

We have to stand up to fascists even when they threaten us with violence otherwise the fascists win. There is no sign up sheet to stop fascism. There is no safe way to stand against fascists. There is no future worth living in under fascist rule. Fascists do not go away if the society that spawned them stays the same.

If threats to someone's safety is where we decide our resistance to fascism ends that is where our freedoms end. We do not have to shame this woman, but we do have to disagree with her decision. If we allow her decision to be incorrectly labeled as a reasonable strategy for self-preservation then we will all be living in a christo-fascist dictatorship.

It's liberty or death. That idea is one of the last remaining cornerstones of our democracy. If living is more valuable to use than freedom then we will be incapable of stopping the fascists.

Fascism proceeds one step at a time. One day you wake up and everything is different. Today is that day. The people saying to stand up to fascists got it right. The people calling them armchair warriors and telling people to choose life over liberty lost the plot. The fascists plan is to take power by any means necessary and then kill the people they hate indiscriminately. To stop them we must stand against them even if that means risking death.

The premise of the Uncommitted Movement is to protest in the primary election by voting uncommitted, but not in the general election. It's in the name. Anyone involved in the movement or advocating for it will explain this. It's public knowledge. The goal is to move the Democratic Party to the left on issues related to the Palestinian people.

Still, the war in Gaza remains a flashpoint dividing the Democratic Party. Many of the “uncommitted” delegates say they want Harris to win — but they also want her to listen to the antiwar voters who elected them to the convention.

These aren't mutually exclusive positions. Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents. That's how representative democracy is supposed to work.

Your argument refuses to acknowledge the publicly stated premise of the Uncommitted Movement. It misrepresents or ignores all sources related to the topic. This is disingenuous at best or trolling at worst.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/21/meet-the-uncommitted-how-gaza-hangs-over-democratic-national-convention

Still, the war in Gaza remains a flashpoint dividing the Democratic Party. Many of the “uncommitted” delegates say they want Harris to win — but they also want her to listen to the antiwar voters who elected them to the convention.

Only with their support can she succeed on election day, several delegates told Al Jazeera.

The “uncommitted” movement started with the Listen to Michigan campaign in February. A grassroots protest movement, Listen to Michigan encouraged the state’s primary voters to cast protest votes — and its push exceeded expectations, winning more than 13 percent of the vote.

Then the movement went national. Voters across the country cast enough “uncommitted” ballots to send delegates from states like Hawaii, Washington and Minnesota to the convention.

Those delegates are using their presence at the convention to demand a commitment to an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and an arms embargo against Israel, which has killed more than 40,000 Palestinians over the past 10 months.

To make their case, the delegates are arguing that, without a meaningful change in policy, large parts of the party base — including young voters, Arabs, Muslims and progressives — will not be energised to elect Harris in November.

At the convention this week, uncommitted delegates and their allies are making themselves visible with keffiyehs and lapel pins calling for an end to weapon transfers to Israel.

https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=uncommitted+movement&atb=v411-1&ia=web

I already commented this but FYI:

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.

Wiki is a good place to start if you would like to learn more!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement

It might be multiple overlapping shadows.

My argument's central point is supported by evidence. Your argument's central point is to invent risk with racial bias. Your argument is fundamentally flawed because it is not based in reality. Racial profiling will only lead to unjustly excluding people.

The reason I know it would be safe for her to speak is that I'm not a racist. When I grow up, I hope to help build systems that include everyone and exclude intolerance.

This is a self-help article on a self-help website. It's not a justification for racial profiling.

https://modelthinkers.com/playbook/welcome-to-modelthinkers

ModelThinkers has an ambitious goal. We aim to help build a better world by empowering individuals, teams and organisations to be smarter, faster.

https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking

The horrible truth? In our culture, 'uncertainty' is a dirty word.

In most situations, it's common, perhaps even expected, that you approach and explain the world with Binary Thinking — where options, choices and everything is either black or white; yes or no; on or off.

Binary Thinking will suffice for some things, sometimes. But for the most part, in the reality of our uncertain, complex world, this simply won't cut it.

A more useful approach is Probabilistic Thinking, which helps to inform decision making by considering the odds, or likelihood, of various outcomes.

FROM POKER TO BUSINESS.

As poker champion and author Annie Duke explained: “Poker players and entrepreneurs both embrace the probabilistic nature of decisions. When you make a decision, you’ve defined the set of possible outcomes, but you can’t guarantee that you’ll get a particular outcome.”

FORECASTING.

This model is particularly important given findings from behavioural economics that we tend to be overly optimistic and overconfident in predictions. For example, one way to improve forecasts involves researching past cases and assigning probabilistic outcomes to those cases.

BEFRIENDING UNCERTAINTY.

Part of Probabilistic Thinking involves befriending uncertainty, which is incredibly hard. And, as a result, finding the confidence to act by understanding probable outcomes, based on your current knowledge, while accepting the fact that you might always be wrong.

Your immediate inclination might be to focus Probabilistic Thinking on how you understand the world, that's wonderful, but also consider how you might apply it to your own development — see the Actionable Takeaways below for more.

IN YOUR LATTICEWORK.

Consider how to apply this Probabilistic Thinking to understanding Correlation vs Causation, Split Testing, Cynefin Framework, the Risk Matrix and even Second-Order Thinking all of which, in a variety of ways, help to understand and/or predict events in complex situations. Actionable Takeaways

Acknowledge and befriend uncertainty.

Be okay with saying ‘I’m not sure’. Accept that you are never going to know all the facts in any given situation and that there will be no guarantees of a specific outcome.

Ask yourself, ‘what else might happen?’

Investing time and effort to consider more possible options will help to inform the actual chances of the desired or expected outcome.

Decouple notions of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ decisions from outcomes.

Uncertainty and complexity means there is always a degree of luck involved in any situation, so it’s possible to make a ‘bad’ decision that leads to a positive outcome. Instead of focusing on results, reflect on past decisions from a probabilistic point of view.

Express levels of confidence and avoid claiming 100% certainty.

Get in the habit of assigning levels of certainty to predicted outcomes, rather than claiming that something simply ‘will happen’, estimate the percentage chance it will happen based on your available facts.

Update your probabilities.

Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.

Apply Probabilistic Thinking to understanding yourself to be adaptable and grow.

Rather than just pointing this mental model outwards, to help you understand the world, consider how it can help you to understand, manage and develop yourself. When expressing an emotion or thought, practice using the term 'part of me...'. For example, rather than saying 'I'm anxious about that', try saying 'part of me is anxious about that'. Not only is it more accurate, but it also gives room for you to acknowledge that other parts of you might be excited or happy at the same time. After all, you're as complicated as the rest of the world :).

lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?

People were protesting the DNC. No one was being held hostage. In the US, people have the First Amendment right to assemble.

We have both invented possible versions.

My argument is based on the evidence about her status as an elected representative. It is not based on bias involving her inherent characteristics of being a Palestinian woman. The risk of her speaking was no greater than any of the people who got to speak at the DNC. There was no risk associated with anyone who spoke at the DNC.

Come on. A movement doesn’t announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.

They did though. There is no reason not to. The point of the news is to inform the public.

A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so.

can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?

This is a self-help article designed to help with anxiety related to life being uncertain. It's not a worldview or even a way to justify bias of any kind. If this helps some people that's great, but it's not implying anyone actually calculates the probabilities in their head. Humans aren't calculators. It's a collection of linguistic tricks to help manage uncertainty that anyone can do.

Update your probabilities.

Be open to new information and consider emerging facts that might inform an updated view of your probabilities. This involves challenging and interrupting your biases.

If your argument is that this is a justification for racial profiling then the source cited undermines that position.

The point of sharing this speech on lemmy was to give people a tool for arguing in favor in of both the Palestinian people and Democratic Party's ticket. The goal was to discuss useful strategies. As long as your argument is about excluding people based on inherent characteristics, racial profiling, we have nothing further to discuss. Racial profiling is not a useful way to view reality because it is not based on reality.

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.

“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.

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.

This is from the Harris campaign.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-official-explains-why-dnc-denied-a-speaking-spot-to-palestinian-american

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.

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

"Those protesters out in the street, they have a point. A lot of innocent people are being killed on both sides."

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.

The OSS disagreed. They used Germans to spy on Nazi Germany.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/hitlers-nightmare-meet-americas-spies-nazi-germany-148301

Initial selections were made from several demographic POW groups, Catholics, Austrians, and those who had been assigned to punitive battalions because of their political views. Potential recruits were cleverly transitioned from the main prison population through assignment to work details. After days of observation, the candidates were given intense interviews to determine their motivation to “betray their country” by returning to Germany as American spies.

Standing up for the rights of all people should be a winning issue for Democrats. Trans people should not be an exception to that.

I think in the past Democrats were to reluctant to fight on social issues, such as abortion. And I think the inability to push back on Republicans on these social issues cost Democrats elections. Democrats are finally fighting for a women's right to an abortion in a bold way and stating loudly that abortion is women's health care.

I'm weird. Being weird is good. Calling fascists weird is such an effective strategy because it shatters their fragile egos. They are unable to see themselves as anything other than their fictional concept of 'normal'. So the attack will not work in reverse, as it's not going to bother anyone besides the fascists. As long Democrats continue to fight for everyone's rights they will dominate Republicans on social issues in polling and elections. edit: typo

Fascism is a collective puzzle that has to be solved collectively. Humans are not necessarily predisposed to fail or succeed this puzzle. Fascism takes advantage of human tribalism, but any person is still capable of rationalizing that fascism is not in either their self-interest or a larger collective self-interest. Fascism is self-destructive.

Fascists have to make good on their promise to eliminate the out-groups they demonize. In order to stay in power, the fascists have to keep dividing a country's population into new in-groups and out-groups. The subjective hierarchies they construct and adhere to are based on unattainable ideals. If this process is not stopped externally, the fascists eventually have to kill everyone. This includes the fascists drinking the flavor-aid.

The only way for humanity to survive fascism is to educate ourselves and each other about these self-destructive ideologies. That everyone is imperfect and everyone deserves to live no matter where they fall on subject hierarchies. Anyone who is seriously considering fascism as means of self-preservation can conclude that this ideology will lead to their own destruction and the destruction of the people they care about. Fascism logically contradicts it's own false promises of security and prosperity. Once people understand this, people will then be open to other ideologies to solve their problems that do not involve demonizing groups of people.

People of course have to be given complete information as part of their education on fascism and other self-destructive ideologies. If all a person gets is fascist propaganda, as is happening in the US, then it shouldn't be surprising when people stuck in echo chambers become fascists.

Ideologies can work as far as convincing people to adopt the ideology. However fascism does not work as far as solving the economic problems that drive people to look for solutions in the first place. No amount of genocide of a society's existing population improves a person's material conditions in that society. That kind of genocide is likely to eventually destabilize the society that is committing the genocide. The human psychology that can make us all susceptible to fascism does not prevent us from seeing it for what it is, inherently self-destructive. The human population destroys itself as part of implementing fascism.

There will always be con artists that try to demonize people to get what they want. But if people know that not no amount of demonizing can put food on the table or keep people safe they aren't going to fall for it.

Not to blow you off, but maybe create a new post to continue this discussion and send me a link if you want my thoughts specifically. This post's comment section got glowy.

I'm saying the mischaracterization of the meme as juvenile is incorrect as the meme contains the minimum information everyone should know.

Mexico respects Bigfoot's privacy.

I would hope at least this much, but ideally more. It probably depends on the American teenager though.

One is much more useful to the Capitalist and so it will ultimately prevail. The capitalist will devote all resources to crushing the leftist populism up to and including directly funding fascism.

Unless. We have to spread these ideas to as many people as possible. We can't afford to call it early.

Gesundheit!

Not with that attitude. We know how to implement socialism while maintaining a market economy and how to improve our democracy to achieve majority rule. All of it is logistically doable and well understood. What we need is the political will to do it.

We don’t have any evidence to suggest it will get better.

We know how to make things better. We need to get off fossil fuels and capitalism. Hoping it will get worse won't work. It will just get worse. People have made things better before. We are living in the success of optimistic activists who believed they could make the world a better place. We need to do the same.

I’m also not really sure what you mean by “more complete lives.”

How about making more money. Eating food and breathing air that doesn't kill us. Working for ourselves and not billionaires. Having third spaces where people can be a part of a community, instead of being isolated.

I’m just against human life period.

This is literally the root of the flawed ideologies of our time. I implore you to reconsider. We are all in this together.