A Georgia state House member who advocated for Palestinians at the 2024 Democratic National Convention is entering the state's race for governor. Ruwa Romman announced her 2026 bid for governor on Monday.
I’ll try and find the clips, but it was a combination of live streams and interviews from the DNC that formed the narrative as it happened. So they may or may not have gotten clipped, but I basically streamed multiple channels for the entire DNC. Ill do the foot work of finding the clips if I can find the time between work today.
The DNC had effectively agreed to a spot, and yes, but don’t know for certain they had a speaker to fill it, but there was at least verbal commitment being communicated to an opportunity to speak. And then either day of or day before they pulled it. It was a big ol thing.
But there’s like, a lot of hours to scrub through to find it.
Zeteo broke the story because they were litterally in a cafe interviewing Ruwa when it happened:
But the presenting the DNC as just being “uncertain” about who was going to speak is a complete misrepresentation. The speakers were shortlisted and their speeches were being reviewed.
Adam Kinzinger. That’s who (along with 7 other Republicans throughout) they platformed instead of building a bridge to the Muslim American community.
It should be easy to know which pro-war Republican they gave her slot to… you know who it was that got substituted in, to know that it was a pro-war Republican, right? So who was it?
Also, in that story I linked you to, they talked to a bunch of people who were involved in the effort to get a Palestinian speaker on stage. They just didn’t happen to mention who was already scheduled and had had their slot pulled? Your version is that they claimed to the press that the DNC had denied their request, when what actually happened was that it was agreed to and scheduled, and then the slot was pulled for a Republican speaker instead? But they didn’t want to mention that?
I mean feel free to send me livestreams saying otherwise, if you want to. In the meantime I’m skeptical.
Okay, I read your edit and saw the citation. What it says is what I said: They were sort of led to believe that a Palestinian might be able to speak, and then at the last minute (but still way before they even selected a speaker let alone gave them a slot), they said no.
Again, I agree with you that it was fucked up and overall just more DNC shit. I get it. What I’m saying is that you’re playing little factual games, playing up certain aspects beyond what actually happened to present a tweaked version of reality to make it ever more bad than what actually happened. A lot of times that’s an indication that someone’s reason saying something is, for example, to randomly turn a story which logically should be “Palestinian Democrat is fighting to save the soul of the Democratic party, that’s good” into “Kamala Harris is the worst, she betrayed the Palestinians, don’t vote for Democrats, they’re bad.”
I do notice that people tend to randomly bring up things linking in that narrative in mostly unrelated stories sometimes. I mean, it’s fair, she’s connected to the story in this case. Somewhat. I’m just saying that your little factual exaggerations with it are happening for a reason, I think, and that you’re linking that story into the narrative at all for precisely the same reason.
No it doesn’t say what you said. I told you to watch the interview. Allowing the DNC the weasel language that a Palestinian speaker was just a “maybe we can” when they litterally had speakers, a time skot, and we’re in review is a complete misrepresentation of what happened, while it was happening. In the sense that a Palestinian slot wasn’t “promised” no slots are promised. But that’s a complete misrepresentation of how these things work.
Maybe you just weren’t paying much attention but there was a walk out and a sit in, and a vigil over the matter. It was a big fucking deal when it happened.
and we’ve just heard word that the answer is no that the DNC have said officially no officially the answer is
3:11
no was there a chance before was there a negotiation underway we thought we had been under you know doing those
3:18
negotiations for the last several days we were being told it’s a good thing there’s not a no answer there’s not a
3:24
yes answer keep giving us names keep giving us names we have given them names of elect
So yeah. It’s fucked up. If you hadn’t been factually exaggerating things, I probably would have been agreeing with you, just seeing this makes me sad, because she’s not wrong.
I do know for a fact if I
33:14
texted the WhatsApp groups that I’m in right now and I said I need you to vote for KLA Harris after what just happened
33:20
this week they’re literally going to tell me I have no shame and the thing is the point of this week was to try to
33:26
reduce that anger was to to because it would be a very different WhatsApp conversation tomorrow night if you were coming off a stage having spoken
💔
Yeah.
Anyway, stop lying about how it happened to pretend that she had a timeslot that they pulled and gave to Adam Kinsinger. Please and thank you. If she’s running for governor (maybe because of giving up on US congress and trying to do something locally, which might not be a bad idea honestly), then fuckin’ great. The only reason I’m quibbling about your details is that it annoys me to have people busting in with “YEAH AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE FUCKIN WORST” any time something happens that’s in any way related, and I’m nitpicking some of your details to point out that you’re trying hard to spin it as far as it can go. That’s all. It’s pretty shit, regardless, yes.
It is literally in the transcript. “It’s not a no answer, it’s not a yes answer.” You can say otherwise as confident as you want, but that’s what happened, according to what you sent me, which by coincidence was all the way up to the minute until the instant it turned into a no answer.
(I think you just didn’t expect me to skim the transcript so I wouldn’t have to watch a half hour podcast in order to respond to your Lemmy comment.)
What you are doing is a misrepresentation because it completely avoids acknowledging how EVERY speaker is slated to speak at an event like this. No one has a “guaranteed” spot. Its all angles and negotiating, up until the very last moment. But that doesn’t mean that agreements haven’t been made.
Literally EVERY speaker is a “maybe” until the very last moment. They are “slated”, as in, written in chalk on a blackboard. This is the misrepresentation of your behalf.
Actually take the time to develop some context for yourself on this, because its clear you weren’t present in the moment.
I mean, not really. Here’s a list of convention speakers that were slated for the convention, clipped from right before it began (I think) on Monday: https://archive.is/1yxYb
Notice that some are slated, and then some additional people (most but still not “literally EVERY speaker”) had been added to the list as of Wednesday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-speakers-2024/
You’re trying super hard to mischaracterize “it’s not a yes answer” in some way where it was a yes answer. Go to it, I guess, but insisting it super hard doesn’t mean it is accurate. I honestly have no idea why I felt I needed to dig up citations for how speakers for these kinds of things can get slated before they begin, that is a thing that happens, but if you want them those are them.
I’ll try and find the clips, but it was a combination of live streams and interviews from the DNC that formed the narrative as it happened. So they may or may not have gotten clipped, but I basically streamed multiple channels for the entire DNC. Ill do the foot work of finding the clips if I can find the time between work today.
The DNC had effectively agreed to a spot, and yes, but don’t know for certain they had a speaker to fill it, but there was at least verbal commitment being communicated to an opportunity to speak. And then either day of or day before they pulled it. It was a big ol thing.
But there’s like, a lot of hours to scrub through to find it.
Zeteo broke the story because they were litterally in a cafe interviewing Ruwa when it happened:
https://zeteo.com/p/uncommitted-dnc
Don’t watch a clip or the summary, review the full interview: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rkxLYHPQUzk&t=9s
But the presenting the DNC as just being “uncertain” about who was going to speak is a complete misrepresentation. The speakers were shortlisted and their speeches were being reviewed.
Adam Kinzinger. That’s who (along with 7 other Republicans throughout) they platformed instead of building a bridge to the Muslim American community.
It should be easy to know which pro-war Republican they gave her slot to… you know who it was that got substituted in, to know that it was a pro-war Republican, right? So who was it?
Also, in that story I linked you to, they talked to a bunch of people who were involved in the effort to get a Palestinian speaker on stage. They just didn’t happen to mention who was already scheduled and had had their slot pulled? Your version is that they claimed to the press that the DNC had denied their request, when what actually happened was that it was agreed to and scheduled, and then the slot was pulled for a Republican speaker instead? But they didn’t want to mention that?
I mean feel free to send me livestreams saying otherwise, if you want to. In the meantime I’m skeptical.
I’m editing my response with them. It’s more work than you might think to find these things.
Which pro-war Republican did they give her spot to?
Adam Kinsigner
Okay, I read your edit and saw the citation. What it says is what I said: They were sort of led to believe that a Palestinian might be able to speak, and then at the last minute (but still way before they even selected a speaker let alone gave them a slot), they said no.
Again, I agree with you that it was fucked up and overall just more DNC shit. I get it. What I’m saying is that you’re playing little factual games, playing up certain aspects beyond what actually happened to present a tweaked version of reality to make it ever more bad than what actually happened. A lot of times that’s an indication that someone’s reason saying something is, for example, to randomly turn a story which logically should be “Palestinian Democrat is fighting to save the soul of the Democratic party, that’s good” into “Kamala Harris is the worst, she betrayed the Palestinians, don’t vote for Democrats, they’re bad.”
I do notice that people tend to randomly bring up things linking in that narrative in mostly unrelated stories sometimes. I mean, it’s fair, she’s connected to the story in this case. Somewhat. I’m just saying that your little factual exaggerations with it are happening for a reason, I think, and that you’re linking that story into the narrative at all for precisely the same reason.
No it doesn’t say what you said. I told you to watch the interview. Allowing the DNC the weasel language that a Palestinian speaker was just a “maybe we can” when they litterally had speakers, a time skot, and we’re in review is a complete misrepresentation of what happened, while it was happening. In the sense that a Palestinian slot wasn’t “promised” no slots are promised. But that’s a complete misrepresentation of how these things work.
Maybe you just weren’t paying much attention but there was a walk out and a sit in, and a vigil over the matter. It was a big fucking deal when it happened.
Which time slot did she have? What pro-war Republican spoke during her time slot?
Kinsinger.
Just checked the transcript.
So yeah. It’s fucked up. If you hadn’t been factually exaggerating things, I probably would have been agreeing with you, just seeing this makes me sad, because she’s not wrong.
💔
Yeah.
Anyway, stop lying about how it happened to pretend that she had a timeslot that they pulled and gave to Adam Kinsinger. Please and thank you. If she’s running for governor (maybe because of giving up on US congress and trying to do something locally, which might not be a bad idea honestly), then fuckin’ great. The only reason I’m quibbling about your details is that it annoys me to have people busting in with “YEAH AND THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE FUCKIN WORST” any time something happens that’s in any way related, and I’m nitpicking some of your details to point out that you’re trying hard to spin it as far as it can go. That’s all. It’s pretty shit, regardless, yes.
I’m just correcting your misrepresentation of what happened. What you are doing is a re-write that ignores context and the process these things take.
The DNC had a spot ready and a slate of speakers ready to speak on behalf of the uncommitted movement/ Palestinian/ Arab Americans.
At the last moment, the DNC pulled that opportunity and platformed a hawk.
It happened. Its just history at this point.
It is literally in the transcript. “It’s not a no answer, it’s not a yes answer.” You can say otherwise as confident as you want, but that’s what happened, according to what you sent me, which by coincidence was all the way up to the minute until the instant it turned into a no answer.
(I think you just didn’t expect me to skim the transcript so I wouldn’t have to watch a half hour podcast in order to respond to your Lemmy comment.)
What you are doing is a misrepresentation because it completely avoids acknowledging how EVERY speaker is slated to speak at an event like this. No one has a “guaranteed” spot. Its all angles and negotiating, up until the very last moment. But that doesn’t mean that agreements haven’t been made.
Literally EVERY speaker is a “maybe” until the very last moment. They are “slated”, as in, written in chalk on a blackboard. This is the misrepresentation of your behalf.
Actually take the time to develop some context for yourself on this, because its clear you weren’t present in the moment.
I mean, not really. Here’s a list of convention speakers that were slated for the convention, clipped from right before it began (I think) on Monday: https://archive.is/1yxYb
Notice that some are slated, and then some additional people (most but still not “literally EVERY speaker”) had been added to the list as of Wednesday: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/dnc-speakers-2024/
You’re trying super hard to mischaracterize “it’s not a yes answer” in some way where it was a yes answer. Go to it, I guess, but insisting it super hard doesn’t mean it is accurate. I honestly have no idea why I felt I needed to dig up citations for how speakers for these kinds of things can get slated before they begin, that is a thing that happens, but if you want them those are them.