pjwestin @ pjwestin @lemmy.world

Posts

3

Comments

1,079

Joined

2 yr. ago

Dude, you need to reread the article, then reread my comment. The Uncommitted movement and Abandon Harris are two different groups.

I criticized Abandon Harris in my comment for having unrealistic goals for how far they could push Democrats. Uncommitted had much more reasonable requests. Harris completely blew them off, so they couldn't endorse her, but they still came out with an anti-Trump, anti-third-party statement. Harris could have one their endorsement with some small, most symbolic gestures, and she fucked it up. Losing that endorsement was entirely the Harris campaign's fault.

Except you're glossing over the parts where he insists that being centrist and courting moderates, AKA the strategy Democrats have been losing with since 2000, was the path forward:

From remains an unabashed centrist who believes that economic growth, not the economic populism of Sanders or Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, is the answer. “It’s important the critical mass in the Democratic party show that it’s the party of opportunity, responsibility and community but not the party of the left,” he insists.

“The Democratic base alone is not enough to win elections, he warns. The party needs to reach moderate voters in the suburbs who “love the compassion” of the Democrats but question whether they have the “toughness to govern” as well.

Every pundit is saying the same stuff he's saying about working on the party’s communication, finding fresh faces for leadership, winning back the working class, etc., but he's being dragged back out to push centrism and remind everyone of the one time this strategy payed off in the 90s. I mean, he's literally saying they should, "not [be] the party of the left," after Harris got her ass handed to her with a centrist campaign. It's absurd.

Oh my fucking God WHY THE EVER LOVING FUCK IS THERE ANOTHER FUCKING INTERVIEW WITH AL FUCKING FROM?!?!?! For fuck's sake, the last time I heard from this fucking dinosaur was after Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, and they were dragging his old ass out of retirement to explain why actually, despite losing to Donald Trump, moderate centrism was a good strategy. Almost ten years later, and they're dragging his even-older ass out here to do the same fucking thing? This dipshit's centrist strategy won one election 32 years ago, and now we've got to listen to him prattle on about how Democrats need to be more moderate forever? I mean, Jesus Fucking Christ, its bad enough we have to listen to a Democratic fuckwad explain why this, "win suburban moderates," strategy is good (even though it has lost to Donald Trump twice now). But for fuck's sake, is it too much to ask that that they at least find a fuckwad who hasn't been politically irrelevant for 20 years? Is their really no one else beside this fucking 80 year-old ghoul that can champion this stupid, obviously ineffective strategy? I mean, fucking hell, what the fuck are we even doing here?

Well, I get what you're saying, but I think Harris' failure to negotiate with these groups is entirely on her. The Uncommitted movement's goals were very lofty, but their demands were small. They wanted State Rep. Ruwa Romman to give a speech at the DNC, and a leaked draft showed it was a very mild speech that didn't even condemn Israel. It just called for an end to the war. After the DNC declined, they asked her to meet with families who'd lost loved ones in Gaza, and she ignored the request. Finally, they gave her until September 15th to hold a meeting with them, and she again ignored them, so they decided not to endorse her.

The Uncommitted movement didn't create the problems Harris had with the Muslim community; Biden's handling of Gaza did that. The Uncommitted movement just took that anger, organized it, and put it towards productive action. That's what activist leaders are supposed to do. The Uncommitted leadership was clearly looking for any gesture towards the Palestinian community that they could take to their supporters, and Harris just wouldn't do it. You have to do something to win an activist groups' support. Endorsing her after she snubbed them wouldn't have convinced the Uncommitted members to vote for Harris, if would have convinced them their leaders were pushovers.

Yeah, also no, and it you'd actually read the original comment, you'd know that. As I said:

they declined to endorse her, but still urged their supporters not to vote Trump or third-party.

They knew Trump was worse, they didn't want Trump to win, but they needed Harris to make a gesture towards the Arab community before they could endorse her; she didn't, so they didn't. She didn't negotiate to get their endorsement, so she didn't get their endorsement. It's very funny that you're acting like everyone else is an idiot yet you still don't understand this.

Yeah, except the Uncommitted leadership didn't tell their people to, "swim in lava," (if I'm following this tortured extension of the metaphor correctly). As I said, they opposed Trump, and even warned their supporters that voting third-party would help him, they just didn't endorse Harris because of her failure to make any of the very small concessions they asked for. She put them in a position where, as political leaders, there was no way they could endorse her without completely destroying their own credibility. If she needed their endorsement that badly, then it sounds like her bargaining position wasn't that good.

I don't know what you're talking about, I play three of these systems regularly.

As I said in the other comment you left, your interpretation of the analogy makes no sense. Your point would be valid if I were discussing Arab and Muslim voters who voted for Trump, but I'm not; I'm discussing the Uncommitted movement, who endorsed neither candidate.

...except they didn't do that. The Uncommitted movement didn't leave her for Trump; they didn't endorse Trump and actively warned their members not to vote third-party because it would help him. They just followed through with their threat to withhold their endorsement. If she needed their help that badly, she should have done something to win that endorsement.

Well, A) I'm describing the position Uncommitted was in, not giving my own. B) Who the hell are you quoting when you say, "punish?" That word doesn't appear in my comment, and I definitely didn't say that the Uncommitted leaders were trying to punish anyone, so what the fuck are you talking about? Are you actually arguing with me, or someone you made up in your head? C) Your entitled, sneering attitude is indicative of why Harris lost; telling Palestinian that Harris won't oppose the genocide, but vote for her anyway or else; telling teamsters she didn't need them to win; it turns out that was a losing strategy, huh?

By the way, I actually voted for Harris, despite her floundering, directionless campaign, but since I'm not a complete idiot, I want to understand people who didn't. Blaming other people for Harris's loss might feel nice, but internet temper tantrums don't win elections.

Anyway, I could also call you an asshole and tell you to get fucked, but honestly, I'd rather you work on your reading comprehension. You don't seem to have understood (or at least engaged with) anything I said besides, "Uncommitted didn't endorse Harris." Honestly, based on your comment, I'm not even sure you understand what the Uncommitted movement was.

They call this design philosophy, "Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology." Basically, "using old tech we understand very well in new and innovative ways." For example, they were slower to get their 16-bit console to market, but while working on it, they used their expertise in 8-bit consoles to release the first cartridge-based handheld system.

Christ, it should be a rule never to be this pissy with people sharing information. Here's a screenshot. Of an audio post. Not sure how much help that's going to be, so I guess you can just read about it on Mediaite or Raw Story in a few days.

Musk is currently fighting with Laura Loomer over this and even pretended to be someone else in order to argue with her over Twitter Spaces and it is very, very funny to watch.

I don't really see how the Uncommitted movement could have done anything differently. They had pretty simple demands: let a Palestinian speak at the DNC, meet with families of Palestinians, meet with our leadership. The Harris campaign ignored all of those requests, so in the end, they declined to endorse her, but still urged their supporters not to vote Trump or third-party.

Endorsing her just wasn't an option, given that she did nothing to meet them halfway. If your spouse is abusive, and you say, "If you ever treat me like that again, I will leave you," then you have to leave them if their behavior doesn't change. Otherwise, you are just inviting more abuse. If you tell a politician, "These are the minimum actions you must take to earn our endorsement," and they ignore you, you can't endorse them anyway. Otherwise, you're announcing your demands carry no weight.

The Abandon Harris (previously Abandon Biden) movement was more hard-line, and the Democrats were clearly too centrist and hawkish to meet their demands for an immediate arms embargo But the Uncommitted movement offered reasonable steps that the Harris campaign could have taken to win over Arab Americans, and she flat out ignored them. She is clearly to blame for not taking that offramp.

Yeah, and I'm no longer rooting against strokes.

Everyone has this drawer, but this one is too organized. It appears to be 100% kitchen tools. You need to add a deck of playing cards, a bunch of soy sauce packets, a few half-used books of matches, a few take-out menus, and some loose keys in order to do this drawer properly.

In my original comment, yes, he is the person with cancer I'm referencing. In the comment you're replying to, I'm referring to Mitch McConnell, who suddenly froze mid sentence during a press conference.. Twice.

According to Wikipedia:

In general, the prognosis of esophageal cancer is quite poor, because most patients present with advanced disease. By the time the first symptoms (such as difficulty swallowing) appear, the disease has already progressed. The overall five-year survival rate (5YSR) in the United States is around 15%, with most people dying within the first year of diagnosis.

According to Connolly:

A few days ago, I learned I joined the ranks of millions of Americans. I have cancer of the esophagus. It was a surprise because, except for some intermittent abdominal aches and pains, I had no symptoms.

So, I'm not a doctor, but it sounds like he's showing early symptoms, he only has a 15% or living more than 5 years, and he's more likely than not to die within the next year. But even if you're right, a 74-year-old, who is undergoing chemotherapy and has a coin-flip chance of survival, is leading one of the most important committees in Congress.

I'm not trying to be cruel to the guy; cancer sucks and it's awful he's going through this. But given how narrow the Republican lead is in the House, it's irresponsible to have him just stay in Congress at all, since he might miss crucial votes. The Oversight Committee is going to be incredibly important for investigating the Trump administration, and having the top Democrat on the panel be a man going through serious health issues is insane.

Oh yeah, if we're talking Republicans too, don't forget that the 82-year-old Senate minority leader, who has had mysterious freezing spells this year, was hospitalized for a fall just last week.

He's also recently announced that he's undergoing chemotherapy for esophagus cancer, which has a very low survival rate. It's bad enough that the DNC will only allow corrupt geriatrics to hold the levers of power, but could they at least have found one that wasn't actively dying?