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.
lolololol, I finally get it, you have no idea what you’re talking about, not just in regards to campaign staff or risk management, but about the actual damned movement! Your entire understanding of literally every point which you’ve brought up isn’t based in reality but rather how you’d like things to be. If it wasn’t so depressing it’d be impressive.
I feel dumber for having been in this conversation.
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.
Your source is basically “I feel this way!” Like what, you think the word uncommitted actually secretly means committed Democrat voter regardless? Is this the “people are saying” style of fact gathering???
Do you literally not understand that the movement leaders are actively trying to negotiate with the Harris team now? Goodness gracious.
Elected politicians are supposed to listen to their constituents.
You’re at the point where you’re either purposefully or wildly ignorantly misunderstanding what the word listen means. They’re not saying she needs to actively hear what they are saying, they mean it in the sense of “she needs to acquiesce to our demands.” That’s what listening to our demands/needs means in a political context. Just… Wow kid, wow.
the publicly stated premise
lol, the publicly stated premise that, as far as you’ve been able to show, only exists in a speech that wasn’t given? Neat publicly stated premise.
Good heavens, this is what I get for assuming people are worth engaging with. I mean, the misinformation you’re spreading is useful but like, I don’t want to be a party to lying to people.
You might look at an interview NPR did with one of the leaders where they have this interesting exchange:
SIMON: I mean, reading between the lines, it sounds as if your support is conditional upon some of your demands being met or reassessing your position.
ALAWIEH: I am an individual. As an individual faced with a binary choice between Trump and Kamala Harris on a ticket, I will circle Kamala Harris. But I’m also a movement leader…
SIMON: Yeah.
ALAWIEH: …Among movement leaders here. I can’t go to those folks and say, hey, I think Vice President Harris will feel differently. They need to see a plan because in this moment, saying thoughts and prayers, saying feelings, does not cut it.
In other words, if Kamala does not change course on Gaza, the uncommitted movement as a movement does not look like it will support her.
I’m pretty done with this.
That being said, it is flattering to see you borrowing my syntax, even though you’ve used at best/at worst less elegantly it has somewhat improved your style. So that’s nice.
Your source for a policy position is “many delegates say”? Seriously?
And even that comes with a “but” clause.
Really?
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.
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.
lolololol, I finally get it, you have no idea what you’re talking about, not just in regards to campaign staff or risk management, but about the actual damned movement! Your entire understanding of literally every point which you’ve brought up isn’t based in reality but rather how you’d like things to be. If it wasn’t so depressing it’d be impressive.
I feel dumber for having been in this conversation.
Your source is basically “I feel this way!” Like what, you think the word uncommitted actually secretly means committed Democrat voter regardless? Is this the “people are saying” style of fact gathering???
Do you literally not understand that the movement leaders are actively trying to negotiate with the Harris team now? Goodness gracious.
You’re at the point where you’re either purposefully or wildly ignorantly misunderstanding what the word listen means. They’re not saying she needs to actively hear what they are saying, they mean it in the sense of “she needs to acquiesce to our demands.” That’s what listening to our demands/needs means in a political context. Just… Wow kid, wow.
lol, the publicly stated premise that, as far as you’ve been able to show, only exists in a speech that wasn’t given? Neat publicly stated premise.
Good heavens, this is what I get for assuming people are worth engaging with. I mean, the misinformation you’re spreading is useful but like, I don’t want to be a party to lying to people.
You might look at an interview NPR did with one of the leaders where they have this interesting exchange:
In other words, if Kamala does not change course on Gaza, the uncommitted movement as a movement does not look like it will support her.
I’m pretty done with this.
That being said, it is flattering to see you borrowing my syntax, even though you’ve used at best/at worst less elegantly it has somewhat improved your style. So that’s nice.