It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Muslim activists say Democratic party is taking their vote for granted

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 23 2012 @ 09:43 PM

Muslim activists involved in both state and national politics say that the Democratic Party is taking their growing voting bloc for granted.


The newspaper also reported that, so far, vicious currents of anti-Islam rhetoric in the Republican party have largely kept Muslim-Americans away from the party. In Florida, where Islamophobia has a particularly wide reach, a Muslim activist named Nezar Hamze was shut out by the Broward Republican Executive Committee, which rejected Hamze’s application to become a member of the Executive Committee and create a Muslim Republican Club last September.

Source article

See also

This is one reason (among many) that I am glad I abandoned the Democrat party and am currently voting for Jill Stein, presidential nominee of the Green Party, in November.

For a more detailed explanation, check out this thread I started explaining my position

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 01:26 AM
yes, the democrat party takes all votes for granted. that is all they want.
they do not care about anything but holding on to power.

they pander to minorities expecting their votes, but do nothing to empower or uplift these minorities.

republicans are mostly a religious party who feel threatened by the extreme side of the muslim religion.
they do not want to kill all brown people, as the democrats would have you believe. that is the democrats pandering to the muslim people.

i don't blame you for looking in a different direction.
i don't know squat about the green party.

i look to the few true conservatives in the republican party for the truth.
but, i stay away from the establishment republicans, like john mccain.
they are often complicit with the democrats.

i'am sure i will never really understand what the muslim people of america, and the rest of the world feel.
but if you want to be left the hell alone, try the constitutional conservatives. there are only a few who hold office. but their numbers are growing.

the democrats do not have anyones best interest at heart, only their own.

posted on Jul, 24 2012 @ 09:35 AM
reply to post by bjax9er

I'm sorry but you are not going to sell me on the "The Republican party is different from the Democrat party" argument especially on this subject.

The Republican party takes all their votes for granted also. They do not care about anything other than holding on to power also. They pander to minorities and the religious expecting their votes.

Do all Republicans hate Muslims? No. But a lot do. And while the Democrat party might be "pandering" to the Muslims (not so much anymore) at least someone is. The GOP hasn't even attempted to "pander" to the Muslims in America since when Bush first ran for office.

If you stay away from "establishment Republicans" then who are you voting for?

The "Constitutional Conservatives" are the same ones who oppose certain freedoms for Muslims. I see so-called "Constitutional Conservatives" opposing mosques and attempting to justify violating the First Amendment for Muslims every chance they get.

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:08 AM
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

I wish I could say the Green Party is any better. In my view it's just an offshoot of the Democrat Party due to the Progressive roots. In fact I would say that some of the Green Party type ideals have influenced the Democrat Party of late. Leftists have been known to embrace "green" or environmental issues as a way to push a radical agenda of communism.
Now if you are into Marxism, I can see that the Green Party might have a draw... sorry I don't mean to be critical but I do not care for anything Marxist.
Petra Kelly was involved in the original Greenpeace and the Green Party is pretty much evolved out of that Marxist social democrat model.

But like Brandt, Petra Kelly was confronted with an unresolvable political dilemma, as the result of the Green Party’s success. Lacking both programmatic and political resources, she could not solve the problem of power sharing. When the Green Party achieved a breakthrough at municipal and regional level, the question inevitably arose of its supporting SDP administrations or of forming coalition administrations with the SDP. The Greens succumbed to the temptation. What it took social democracy thirty years and the mass (increasingly social-democratized) communist parties fifteen years to do, the Green Party achieved in five years. Doubtless intentions were honourable and the choice agonizing [2]; nevertheless, the end result was clear – they would become increasingly drawn into the logic of reformism. This indeed proved to be the case, and organizational strength and moral authority began to decline. The party finally split following a factional struggle, the violence and strident tone of which ran directly contrary to the slogan proclaimed by the Greens’ parliamentary group as they entered the Bundestag: ‘Let us humanize the practice of politics’. In the November 1991 congress of the Green Party, Petra Kelly only received 30 out of a possible 1,000 votes for the post of National Executive Committee Spokesperson. This demoralized her greatly.

I can appreciate if you are interested in real environmental issues, but the Greens use it as part of their agenda to bring socialism/communism/social justice. For instance, the hatred of corporations is spun right out of Marxist communist hatred of the bourgeoisie, as can be seen from the marxist webpage, and many environmentalists today use environmental issues as a springboard to bring corporations to ruin through environmental regulations. Greenpeace was even known to fabricate things to further their agenda.
I am truly sorry though that there are issues with the Republican Party. I believe this happened partly at least to foment wars and revolution by the controlling elite. The controllers don't care ultimately what party you belong to, as long as they are in control. A study of Hegelian Dialectic helps to understand that.

Consider this quote by Rothschild

Give me control of a nation's money and I care not who makes her laws.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:12 AM
reply to post by CoolerAbdullah786

If you stay away from "establishment Republicans" then who are you voting for?

Paul Ryan and Ron Paul.

The "Constitutional Conservatives" are the same ones who oppose certain freedoms for Muslims

Which freedoms are those? True Constitutional Conservatives are for that which is Constitutional. If you want it and it's not Constitutional, you don't get my vote. That means Sharia if that's what you are talking about. No one has legislated you cannot go to mosque on Fridays. If you want to do an honor killing don't expect me to support that.
But why come to the US if one doesn't respect Constitutional law?

Perhaps you were specifically concerned with the mosque at Ground Zero and why would you want to stir things up by putting a mosque there? There is no moral justification for it.

And you know what? I find it highly ironic it is more liberal women who don't seem to mind the idea of forced face coverings and other tyrannical measures against women, when liberals were the first feminists. Just goes to show that the real agenda of feminism is and always was communism and totalitarianism.

edit on 25-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2012 by ThirdEyeofHorus because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 02:57 AM
roots of ACLU

posted on Jul, 25 2012 @ 03:05 AM
They should be grateful they even have the vote. Most of the countries they come from don't even allow women to go shopping without being supervised by their abusive backwards men. I absolutely hate it with non natives moan about the countries they move to.

new topics

top topics


log in