Democratic Party Rebuild

[the cac mamba]

Whole ideology is what republicans and fox news frame democrat states as .

i'm not seeing you answer how Newsom is supposed to defend the avalanche of attacks he's gonna face, on california's cost of living. because you can't

i wish he was the governor of Michigan, but he's not

and i know your reflex is to argue with anything i say, but i know you agree with me. you don't wanna run Newsom either

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Dems need to stop pandering to fundamentalist Islamic customs, especially after what happened in the previous election.

Democrats should be unapologetically secularists

What does this even mean? Can you plainly state what policies or actions you're talking about? What specific "fundamentalist Islamic customs" have Democrats pandered to?

 

[the cac mamba]

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Forcing women to wear a head garb because of some primitive religious tradition is retarded.

Muslims shouldn’t be oppressed and they should be able to practice their religion freely but the parts of their faith that’s not compatible with secular liberalism shouldn’t be promoted by the party

No one in the Democratic Party supports forcing women to wear hijabs. That's illegal here and universally opposed. Allowing women to wear religious clothing by choice isn't "promoting fundamentalism," it's basic civil liberty. If you think Democrats have actually endorsed coercive religious practices, name the policy. Otherwise you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.

I’m think all of those religions are retarded so what you’re saying isn’t a gotcha,

Christmas is more secular than religious in America. Anything that oppresses shouldn’t be pandered to though, women being forced to wear the hijab in other parts of the world is oppressive.

No, you don't. You only say things like this when it's convenient, and to mask your true beliefs. This is the same thing people like Sam Harris do -- they pretend to be anti-religious, but for whatever reason, only focus on one, while soft-pedaling others.

Like, it blows my mind that you think Democrats pander to Islam. You dudes really need to start being honest with what you believe, because these masks aren't working anymore, if they ever have been.

 

[the cac mamba]

i'm sorry, but this primary is about 13 months from becoming reality. this party needs to get serious

 

[Outlaw]

What does this even mean? Can you plainly state what policies or actions you're talking about? What specific "fundamentalist Islamic customs" have Democrats pandered to?

Specifically dem politicians wearing hijabs when they aren’t Muslims. The symbolism is women being subordinate to men. If you’re a true liberal you’d be against that.

I was referencing what @the cac mamba posted

 

[Outlaw]

No one in the Democratic Party supports forcing women to wear hijabs. That's illegal here and universally opposed. Allowing women to wear religious clothing by choice isn't "promoting fundamentalism," it's basic civil liberty. If you think Democrats have actually endorsed coercive religious practices, name the policy. Otherwise you're arguing against something that doesn't exist.

I never said the Democratic Party is doing that, you’re crafting a straw-man. However a Dem politician going out of their way to wear one when they aren’t a Muslim is showing implicit support of the custom.

No, you don't. You only say things like this when it's convenient, and to mask your true beliefs. This is the same thing people like Sam Harris do -- they pretend to be anti-religious, but for whatever reason, only focus on one, while soft-pedaling others.

Like, it blows my mind that you think Democrats pander to Islam. You dudes really need to start being honest with what you believe, because these masks aren't working anymore, if they ever have been.

I’m not mincing words at all. I think all religion for the most part is retarded and is holding humanity back. I’m not going to pretend like we should support Islam just because they’re oppressed in the west.

If the power dynamics were flipped the fundamentalists would be as oppressive if not more than the Christian nationalists. Those left of center need to stop pretending like religious ideology is congruent with the society you want to build.

 

[the cac mamba]

hopefully this breh can carry on the tradition of Wesley Bell, and primary out another awful Democrat

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

Specifically dem politicians wearing hijabs when they aren’t Muslims. The symbolism is women being subordinate to men. If you’re a true liberal you’d be against that.

I was referencing what @the cac mamba posted

Liberal feminism doesn't erase women's agency because you dislike their choice. Opposing coercion is liberal; declaring that women can't choose religious expression unless it aligns with your values is paternalism. Secularism limits state power, not individual expression. You are making a selective optics argument.

Have you ever argued that Democrats should stop taking sponsored trips to Israel -- an ethno-religious state?

I never said the Democratic Party is doing that, you’re crafting a straw-man. However a Dem politician going out of their way to wear one when they aren’t a Muslim is showing implicit support of the custom.

I’m not mincing words at all. I think all religion for the most part is retarded and is holding humanity back. I’m not going to pretend like we should support Islam just because they’re oppressed in the west.

If the power dynamics were flipped the fundamentalists would be as oppressive if not more than the Christian nationalists. Those left of center need to stop pretending like religious ideology is congruent with the society you want to build.

I'm not crafting a strawman, you're just deceitful in your arguments. Your response was a gross overreaction that distorted a simple, respectful act into something sinister, then used that to argue against something that's not even happening.

And you keep giving yourself away by conflating pushing back against bigotry, which the Democrats largely fail at, with "support" of a religion.

Wearing a hijab isn't endorsement of religious coercion any more than wearing a cross is endorsement of church doctrine.

And arguing about what Muslim fundamentalists, a group that holds *no* influence here, might do in a hypothetical future while ignoring Christian nationalism's real power today is unserious.

MAGA furious after Minnesota Democrat Lt. Governor Flanagan wears hijab

In footage aired on Somali-television, Flanagan stood beside local Somali leaders and thanked the community for its friendship.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Outlaw]

Liberal feminism doesn't erase women's agency because you dislike their choice. Opposing coercion is liberal; declaring that women can't choose religious expression unless it aligns with your values is paternalism. Secularism limits state power, not individual expression. You are making a selective optics argument.

Have you ever argued that Democrats should stop taking sponsored trips to Israel -- an ethno-religious state?

I’m not going to debate from a position I’m not making. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said none of that, I’m against showing implicit support for a custom that oppresses women in the the majority of countries that Islam governs.

Ask the women in those countries if they can freely leave the house without a hijab.

Women have agency in America to play pretend and put a hijab on to pay lip service for an ideology that would strip their rights if they had the power to.

Optics are important in politics. If you’re the party of secularism and liberalism you shouldn’t be showing implicit support for contradictions.

Just like you’re defending islam right now but you also vehemently support trans rights, knowing trans people would be out to death in most fundamentalist Islamic countries.

Sorry I’m not going to be ideologically inconsistent just because it’s fashionable.

I'm not crafting a strawman, you're just deceitful in your arguments. Your response was a gross overreaction that distorted a simple, respectful act into something sinister, then used that to argue against something that's not even happening.

And you keep giving yourself away by conflating pushing back against bigotry, which the Democrats largely fail at, with "support" of a religion.

Wearing a hijab isn't endorsement of religious coercion any more than wearing a cross is endorsement of church doctrine.

And arguing about what Muslim fundamentalists, a group that holds *no* influence here, might do in a hypothetical future while ignoring Christian nationalism's real power today is unserious.

MAGA furious after Minnesota Democrat Lt. Governor Flanagan wears hijab

In footage aired on Somali-television, Flanagan stood beside local Somali leaders and thanked the community for its friendship.

www.newsweek.com

I’m one of the biggest anti Christian nationalist posters on this site. You don’t have to make shyt up to fit a narrative you’re trying to push

By the way I don’t think Dem politicians should wear crosses either

 

[the cac mamba]

aka "i would vote for Shapiro, but not Newsom".

let the moderation continue

 

[wire28]

aka "i would vote for Shapiro, but not Newsom".

let the moderation continue

Welcome home Joe. Let’s keep the tent big, it’s the only way we keep the coalition strong and win. Let the rebuild continue.

 

[88m3]

Can you truly be progressive leftist without defending Islamic fundamentalism in 2025?

 

[Pull Up the Roots]

I’m not going to debate from a position I’m not making. Stop putting words in my mouth. I said none of that, I’m against showing implicit support for a custom that oppresses women in the the majority of countries that Islam governs.

Ask the women in those countries if they can freely leave the house without a hijab.

Women have agency in America to play pretend and put a hijab on to pay lip service for an ideology that would strip their rights if they had the power to.

Optics are important in politics. If you’re the party of secularism and liberalism you shouldn’t be showing implicit support for contradictions.

Just like you’re defending islam right now but you also vehemently support trans rights, knowing trans people would be out to death in most fundamentalist Islamic countries.

Sorry I’m not going to be ideologically inconsistent just because it’s fashionable.


I’m one of the biggest anti Christian nationalist posters on this site. You don’t have to make shyt up to fit a narrative you’re trying to push

By the way I don’t think Dem politicians should wear crosses either

I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm pointing out the logical consequences of what you are actually saying. If wearing a hijab counts as "implicit support" for oppression, then you are treating symbolic accommodation as endorsement and dismissing agency when it conflicts with your "values." If you reject those implications, then your argument has no force. So, which is it?

Oppression abroad does not negate agency at home, nor does it convert solidarity or cultural respect into approval of abuse. You're pretending to care about the suffering of women elsewhere, so you can use it as rhetorical weapon, to avoid the fact that you can't make a meaningful argument about US policy or liberal norms.

"Play pretend." This is exactly the kind of paternalism I'm talking about. To you, women only have agency if that agency aligns with *your* ideological demands.

The "optics" being managed here is majority discomfort. You're redefining liberalism and secularism in the process to make an argument for appeasement, not against any contradictions.

Now you're engaging in pink-washing. You don't care about trans people, so you're only exposing yourself using this rhetorical trick. And you can still defend trans people, oppose religious fundamentalism, and still defend Muslim Americans from cultural scapegoating.

You're *are* ideologically inconsistent. Saying things when they're convenient doesn't change that.

You're one of the most dishonest posters on here. It's no wonder you're always arguing that we need to make room for pieces of shyt like @the cac mamba or why you co-signed his bullshyt Handmaid's tale framing.

 

[Pressure]

Specifically dem politicians wearing hijabs when they aren’t Muslims. The symbolism is women being subordinate to men. If you’re a true liberal you’d be against that.

I was referencing what @the cac mamba posted

It’s cringe. Just like the kneeling shyt they did with kente cloth