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.

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.

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.

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.

I mean, I’m sure they will, but I doubt it will make a difference. Trump almost got it twice this summer. He’s only alive because he was incredibly lucky the first time, and the second time, the shooter was incompetent. Meanwhile, in the last 25 years, schools have added metal detectors, more police, active shooter drills, and bullet-proof walls, but it’s only amounted to security theater. I’m sure there will never be another assassin who escapes and leads police on a 5-day manhunt, but there are too many guns in America to prevent a guy with a death wish from gunning down a CEO or billionaire.

Well, A) the point isn’t that, “fan service,” created this change. It’s that people’s willingness to side with outlaws over institutions is a good barometer of public anger, and based on the United Healthcare killing, people are fucking pissed. B) FDR passed banking reform and social welfare programs that created decades of economic stability and only lost their efficacy after half a century of conservative attacks chipped away at them. I’m not sure why you think a historical example of the sort of fundamental, radical change in talking about doesn’t count just because the Baby Boomers fucked it all up.

Yes. A decade after it was repealed, we had the largest financial collapse since it was enacted, and now we’re dealing with higher income inequality than we had during the Gilded Age. What part of this is meant to invalidate my point?

I actually don’t expect CEOs and billionaires to make any concessions. Honestly, this is how I imagine the next few years going:

Right now, billionaires are waking up to the fact that the majority of Americans want them dead. CEOs will start beefing up security while politicians and pundits try to spin this, and they’ll all hope this was a one-off. It won’t be. Sure, there probably won’t be another assassin who escapes and leads police on a five day manhunt, but there will surely be a guy with an AR-15 who takes out billionaire or CEO before getting gunned down himself by cops or private security.

Billionaires will start lobbying for protections from Congress, probably through special treatment from federal law enforcement and a push for gun control. This will only further enrage the public, who have faced mass shootings in schools and churches without any response. On top of that, the Trump administration is gearing up for an era of naked corruption, which is going to make the billionaire class even less popular

All in all, I think we’re heading towards a period of political instability and violence. Maybe it will end with public rage being channeled into a series of reforms like FDR managed with the New Deal. Maybe we’ll devolve even further into oligarchy and authoritarianism as American society collapses. Either way, I think there will be radical change.

Anyway, that’s my theory. Maybe I’m wrong, and this will be a blip, but I don’t think so. This feels like a very different, very significant moment.

More like how FDR used the banks’ need for government assistance to force regulation on them through the 1933 Banking Act and the Glass-Steagall Act.

During the Great Depression, people were so angry at banks that they rooted for bank robbers. Things are so bad now that we’re just straight up rooting for cold-blooded executions. Censoring people’s online activities won’t make this anger go away. The genies out of the bottle now, and if billionaires don’t want any more dead CEOs, there will need to be fundamental, radical changes to our society.

…I don’t disagree, but I’m struggling to see how this is related to my comment. Are you replying to the right person?

I would also like them to do that too, but I would prefer they do it for something other than nepotism.

…OK. Did you think I was agreeing with her when I called her the poster child for liberal delusion?

…no. I’m saying Joy Reid, an MSNBC pundit, believes Kamala Harris ran a perfect campaign.

who is like ran a pefect campaign?

Joy Reid. She was very impressed that Queen Latifah endorsed her. It’s made her into a sort of a poster child for liberals who are delusional about the Democrats flaws.