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.
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.
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.
lol, did you forget the part where she is part of a group that tried to hold the Democratic nomination hostage?
This version of the person your argument is about is invented for your argument.
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:
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.
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.
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?