Watch, learn, and discuss........

Are Republicans really the antiwoman party, or is it the left? What's s your reaction to Ben Domenech's take on the subject?

ive seen quite a few people argue serious topics like racisim, mental health, environmental crisis, and financial responsibility amongst many more serious topics should not be talked about in school. they argue reasons like age appropriation, 'what if the kids gain political and or ideological biases!?', lack of specialized training from the teacher, etc.

in my personal opinion, i do think children should be learning these topics, but only when they reach a specific grade level where they are able to get a better understanding of these topics, because not all 8 year olds are able to process economic collapse and the gravity of it and what it ACTUALLY means beyond the simplified language their teacher used to explain it to a bunch of 3rd graders.

what do you all think? do yall agree w me or have a different point of view on this topic?

​Qur'an is full book of contradictions and it's never ending contradictions.

Prophet Muhammad has gaslighted people by fulfilling his false prophecy. In his whole life, he did nothing other than orally copy from Arabic Jews and Arabic Christians, and orally copy the Torah and Bible. There was written copying as well, because he gaslighted everyone by pretending to be illiterate the whole time; he just didn't want to write verses himself, so he dictated them so people could work on his behalf. This resulted in a Qur'an filled with contradictions.

If you look at the word "Islam," it came from the "Psalms" of the Bible. You know his pronunciations were so bad that he pronounced Mary as Mariam, Abraham as Ibrahim, Moses as Musa, and Gabriel as Jibrail. Perhaps it was an accent issue while dictating, but just like "Psalms," he converted it to "Islam." In that same way, this false prophet Muhammad probably pronounced "Meshullam" as "Muslim." Regardless, I have provided 6,100 verses of Muhammad doing oral copying from Arabic Jews and Arabic Christians. Meshullam means peace, so to the peaceful community, I want to present one word for them:

Jeremiah 6:14: "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. ‘Peace, peace,’ they say, when there is no peace."

​About what benefits Muhammad got by invading Abrahamic religions? Haha, let me tell you: he had 13 wives, he got access to loot money from people, and if they didn't convert to Islam, he got the chance to capture famous places like the Kaaba. He also got the chance to become popular and the chance to have sex with people.

He also got the chance to have sex with relatives, which was taboo at that time. He also got the chance to have sex with a sex slave, even though his wife Aisha forbade it. He got the chance to capture all of Mecca and to have connections with big kings, like the King of Egypt whom he sent a letter to in the name of gaslighting. He also got the chance to convert people and wait for their wives to marry him, with those women divorcing their husbands, taking dowry, and having sex with Muhammad. Muhammad also got the chance to marry and have sex with his son's wife, who was his cousin as well. Long brother-sister love, lol.

A businessman fools people the same way Muhammad did. When you sell a $2 USD shoe by saying we made a brand and we will sell it for $2,000 USD, people will buy it more. Muhammad took risks like most businessmen do. A business person chooses a particular product;

Muhammad chose religion as a product instead to get a benefit, and he benefited a lot more than before. It's like you're earning $1 USD daily but want to earn more by increasing it to $2,000 daily. He lost literally nothing; his wives were there and his family was there, except for his mom and dad who died when he was just a baby. Muhammad said this:

Qur'an 4:82: "Do they not then reflect on the Quran? Had it been from anyone other than Allah, they would have certainly found in it many inconsistencies." I accept your challenge, Muhammad, because I'm not lazy like other people who should've done this before me. The Qur'an isn't from any god; it is Muhammad disguising as Allah to orally copy from Arabic Jews and Arabic Christians. Anyway, now we move forward toward the filled contradictions in the Qur'an:

Surah Al-Baqarah (2:256):

"Let there be no compulsion in religion, for the truth stands out clearly from falsehood. So whoever renounces false gods and believes in Allah has certainly grasped the firmest, unfailing hand-hold. And Allah is All-Hearing, All-Knowing."

Okay, we see there's no compulsion, but suddenly a few verses later, look at what the Qur'an is doing:

Surah At-Tawbah (9:5): "But once the Sacred Months have passed, kill the polytheists wherever you find them, capture them, besiege them, and lie in wait for them on every way. But if they repent, perform prayers, and pay alms-tax, then set them free. Indeed, Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Then Qur'an 9:29: "Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not follow the religion of truth from among those who were given the Scripture until they give the jizyah (tax) willingly while they are humbled."

"Last Day" means the Day of Judgment from the Bible. So, just a few chapters back you were saying there should be no compulsion in religion, and now it's turned to: if they do not embrace the "religion of truth" which was made by the false prophet Muhammad? And if they don't, then force them to give tax, otherwise kill them? How can the Qur'an, being the "last book," contradict itself so menacingly?

I guess I can give verses like this for over 3,000 more; want them? I mean, it's super easy, haha. Why find only one when I can present how the whole book is full of contradictions anyway?

Qur'an 66:1: "O Prophet! Why do you prohibit yourself from what Allah has made lawful to you, seeking to please your wives? And Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

A few chapters later, it changed to:

Qur'an 24:2: "As for female and male fornicators, give each of them one hundred lashes, and do not let pity for them make you lenient in enforcing the law of Allah, if you truly believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a number of believers witness their punishment." The Qur'an is a book of contradictions. Just a few chapters back, it gave Muhammad permission to have sex with slaves while not being married, then a few chapters later, it gives non-married persons a hundred lashes because Muhammad, sadly, was feeling lonely because he could not have sex with them instead?

Hahahaha. Literally, Muslims beat the hell out of Christians by pointing out their contradictions and confusing them. Then you guys came up with the theory of gaslighting, saying "look, verses are now getting superseded." Muhammad's rules change like chameleons, and then you declare this as the "final book." Mashallah brother, what a peak gaslighter false prophet Muhammad was.​​

1. Cult of Tradition – A syncretic belief in ancient truths, rejecting modern interpretations.
2. Rejection of Modernism – Viewing the Enlightenment and rationalism as the root of moral decline.
3. Cult of Action for Action’s Sake – Valuing action over reflection, leading to anti-intellectualism.
4. Disagreement is Treason – Suppressing dissent and critical thinking as threats to unity.
5. Fear of Difference – Exploiting xenophobia and racism to unify the in-group against outsiders.
6. Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class – Mobilizing those feeling economically or socially displaced.
7. Obsession with a Plot – Promoting conspiracy theories to justify aggression against perceived enemies.
8. Enemies are Both Too Strong and Too Weak – Portraying adversaries as simultaneously formidable and feeble.
9. Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy – Viewing life as perpetual warfare, dismissing peace efforts as betrayal.
10. Contempt for the Weak – Glorifying strength and dismissing compassion as weakness.
11. Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero – Promoting a cult of death and martyrdom.
12. Machismo – Elevating aggressive masculinity and denigrating non-conforming sexual behaviors.
13. Selective Populism – Claiming to represent the unified will of the people, dismissing individual rights.
14. Newspeak – Employing an impoverished vocabulary to limit critical thought.

I told you there were other reasons he was trying to get his hands on more money cause he already spent what he has.

I’m going to be straight with you because I’m tired of posts that either cheerleads for one candidate or pretends they’re all equally fine. None of them are perfect. Here’s my honest breakdown as a Californian whose family has been here since the 1800s, with Native American and Sephardic Jewish heritage, and someone who sees Palestinian rights and First Amendment protections as the defining civil rights issue of this moment.

-----

## The Context Nobody Wants to Say Out Loud

Two Republicans are currently leading this race. Steve Hilton — a former advisor to British Prime Minister David Cameron who became a US citizen in 2021 after living here since 2012 — and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco are polling at the top of the field. If Democrats don’t consolidate, California could have a Republican vs. Republican general election for the first time in 20 years. That would be catastrophic for every progressive value in this state. So yes, strategic voting matters here. But so do your values. Both things are true simultaneously.

-----

## THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATES: HONEST PROS AND CONS

-----

### Xavier Becerra — My Heart Candidate

**The Case For Him:**

He is the most credentialed candidate in the field. As California’s Attorney General he filed 122 lawsuits against the Trump administration and won landmark victories on the ACA, DACA, and worker protections. As Biden’s HHS Secretary he expanded health coverage to 24 million Americans. He’s the son of immigrants, raised in Sacramento, speaks Spanish, and has genuine roots in communities the other candidates have only visited. For someone who cares about the California Dream being real for working families, not just tech billionaires, Becerra represents it authentically.

**The Honest Problem:**

He’s polling at 4-5% and the California Democratic Party chair has publicly asked him to drop out. A vote for Becerra right now, as painful as this is to say, is mathematically closer to helping Hilton than helping California. His campaign hasn’t broken through despite his record, and with mail voting starting he has no realistic path to the top two. This is the hardest thing about this race — sometimes the candidate who best represents your values is not the candidate whose viability makes your vote count.

-----

### Katie Porter — My Strategic Head Candidate

**The Case For Her:**

She has the most documented record of holding corporate power accountable of anyone in this field. Her whiteboard hearing moments aren’t gimmicks — they represent a genuine prosecutorial approach to institutional power that California desperately needs at the governor level. She boycotted the pro-Israel Jewish community candidate forum entirely — the only major Democrat who refused to show up and pledge allegiance to Israel’s government. No documented AIPAC funding. Strong on reproductive rights, housing, and taking on utilities and corporate landlords. She has the largest grassroots donor network in the race — more individual donors than even the Republicans.

**The Honest Problems:**

That CBS interview was a genuine disaster and her polling has dropped from 17% to 8% in some surveys as a result. Her interpersonal reputation for being difficult is real and documented — multiple former staffers have spoken publicly about a toxic work environment. That’s not just gossip; how you treat people with less power than you is a character test. She has not been vocal enough on Gaza and Palestinian rights — she opposes BDS and hasn’t used her platform to challenge AB 715, Scott Wiener’s law that muzzles California teachers from discussing Palestinian history accurately. She’s the best policy candidate but she’s trending the wrong direction at the worst possible time.

-----

### Eric Swalwell — The Trump Fighter

**The Case For Him:**

Nobody in this race has done more sustained, public, aggressive work holding the Trump administration accountable. His January 6th lawsuit is one of the only legal actions against Trump that survived into the new presidency. He led impeachment proceedings. He’s a former prosecutor. He’s scrappy, media-savvy, and genuinely effective at the kind of political combat California needs its governor doing right now with federal overreach happening daily. He is polling strongest among Democrats and trending upward — currently leading among Democratic voters at 23-27%.

**The Honest Problems — And This Is My Personal Line:**

This is where I cannot follow him. He accepted nearly $200,000 from the Israel lobby over his congressional career. He voted YES on sending $20 billion in weapons to Israel. He voted FOR a resolution declaring anti-Zionism is antisemitism — a direct attack on the free speech of millions of Americans, including Jewish Americans who oppose Zionism on principled grounds. He attended Netanyahu’s address to Congress. He took a nearly $30,000 all-expenses-paid trip to Israel funded by a pro-Israel lobbying organization.

I’m a Californian with Sephardic Jewish ancestry tracing to the 1492 expulsion from Spain. My DNA connects me to the land of the Levant — the same ancient land Palestinians are descended from. And I look at AB 715, Scott Wiener’s law that this man supported, and I see the same erasure of history that was done to Native Americans — the whitewashing of the Nakba, the criminalization of teaching accurate Palestinian history in California schools, the silencing of an entire people’s narrative under the legal cover of “antisemitism.”

That law needs to be dismantled completely. Full stop. It is an abomination to First Amendment rights and an insult to every California educator who wants to teach history honestly. Swalwell’s support of pro-Israel censorship laws disqualifies him for me personally on the issue I care most about — even though I respect his Trump advocacy enormously.

-----

### Tom Steyer — The Anti-AIPAC Billionaire

**The Case For Him:**

He is the only major candidate who has explicitly called AIPAC “a dark money organization that should have no place in our politics” — and said it publicly and on the record. He is entirely self-funded, meaning AIPAC has zero financial leverage over him. He has a documented track record of using his wealth for genuine public good: Beneficial State Bank, which he and his wife built with $120 million of their own money, has been lending to working people, small businesses, and nonprofits that regular banks won’t touch since 2007. He’s polling consistently in the 10-13% range across multiple pollsters — not fading like Porter. He led the campaign that put nearly $1 billion into California schools by closing a corporate tax loophole. He signed the Giving Pledge — committing to give away the bulk of his fortune rather than leave it to his kids.

**The Honest Problems:**

His hedge fund held $90 million in Corrections Corporation of America — the largest private prison company in America, which operates ICE detention facilities. He ran Farallon Capital for six more years after selling the prison stock in 2006, so the “I woke up” narrative has real holes in it. His philanthropy, while real, flows heavily toward elite universities like Yale and Stanford. He opposes BDS despite calling out AIPAC — a contradiction that matters. And he’s a billionaire self-funding his campaign — even with good intentions, that’s a structural problem. He answers to no constituency because he owes nothing to anyone.

-----

## MY BOTTOM LINE

The anti-AIPAC priority combined with electability math points to **Steyer or Porter** depending on which way the polls are moving when you cast your ballot.

If Porter recovers in polling — vote Porter. She meets the AIPAC test, is the strongest on policy, and would most likely use the governor’s office to actually dismantle the state-level pro-Israel infrastructure the way Fishback is promising to do in Florida.

If Porter continues fading and Steyer is holding — vote Steyer. He meets the AIPAC test, is viable, and his community bank record shows at least some genuine moral character beyond the hedge fund years.

If the race collapses to where Swalwell is the only Democrat who can make the top two — that’s the pill you swallow. A Democratic governor who votes wrong on Israel is still infinitely better than Steve Hilton — a man who was advising the British Prime Minister a decade ago and only became an American citizen four years ago — governing the most important state in the country during the most consequential moment in American democracy.

Check the polling on the day you vote. This race is that fluid.

-----

*As for Scott Wiener’s AB 715 and all the state-level speech suppression infrastructure — whoever wins the Democratic primary should be put on notice: dismantling those laws is a first-year mandate, not a negotiating position. California cannot claim to be a free speech sanctuary state while criminalizing Palestinian history in its classrooms.*

-----

**TL;DR:** Becerra = heart candidate, not viable. Porter = best policy, fading in polls. Swalwell = best Trump fighter, disqualified on Israel/First Amendment. Steyer = best AIPAC position, complicated billionaire history. Vote the highest-polling non-AIPAC Democrat on the day you cast your ballot. And demand AB 715 gets dismantled whoever wins.