politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
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.
lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?
YES! AND THAT'S THE POINT! I don't know this person, you don't know this person. We have both invented possible versions. Except you seem unable to realize that there is a chance, however small, that your version is incorrect and that there are risks associated.
Look, I do forget my own privilege. A probabilistic worldview is difficult and not everyone has the cognitive capacity to do so. Making things binary (yes/no) is easy but not a very good way of looking at the world. Here's an article that kind of outlines probabilistic thinking in fairly simple terms, it might help:
https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking
Come on. A movement doesn't announce serious policy change via a single interview to a news site.
Just to demonstrate this conversation is worth having, after you've read the article, can you explain what you think probabilistic thinking is?
People were protesting the DNC. No one was being held hostage. In the US, people have the First Amendment right to assemble.
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.
They did though. There is no reason not to. The point of the news is to inform the public.
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.
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.
Clearly you need to re-read the article.
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
https://modelthinkers.com/mental-model/probabilistic-thinking
Kid, the entire point of the article is that things are not will/won't happen. It's that there are a range of probabilities.
This nonsense of claiming the person representing a movement explicitly about withholding support for the Democrat nominee has the exact same risk of deviation from the other speakers is, at best, foolish.
Then ignoring that movement and saying I'm only seeing a risk because of her race is either impressively dumb or disingenuous. I'm not sure which is worse.
The rational or adult way to look at the issue is to think about the probability of an event vs the rewards of the action. That's a conversation worth having. Your position would be worth respect if you could have the sanity to admit "sure, there's a chance that she'd go off script but here's what I think are the odds, rewards and costs." That's a reasonable discussion. What you are doing is just saying over and over again that there is zero risk and any notion of such risk is racist.
That's just petulant child shit.
As you grow up, hopefully you'll learn that things that you assume will happen, may not happen and vice versa. Part of being an adult is learning to think about that sort of uncertainty, it's tricky but a worthwhile excercise.
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.
Jesus, the self righteousness of ignorance, it's impressive.
Race has nothing to do with the fact that the movement she represents has explicitly argued against the Democratic nominee and the **only **place where that position changes was to be the speech.
Just... Wow kid, wow.
I already commented this but FYI:
Wiki is a good place to start if you would like to learn more!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncommitted_National_Movement
Okay, I'll bite. Beyond the speech, what is your source for this?
Or do you literally not understand the strategic point of marking those ballots uncommitted?
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/8/21/meet-the-uncommitted-how-gaza-hangs-over-democratic-national-convention
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=uncommitted+movement&atb=v411-1&ia=web