What's new

For Muslims, is a Democrat controlled US Govt better than one run by the Republicans?

For Muslims, is a Democrat controlled US Govt better than one run by the Republicans?

  • Democrats are the best

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Republicans are good news for Muslims

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4

MenInG

PakPassion Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Oct 2, 2004
Runs
217,977
Somehow the impression is that Republicans are stern, anti-Muslim psychopaths but is it actually true?

Democrats appear liberal but is there support of Israel make them as anti-Muslim as anyone else?
 
Naa. I support Republicans. Don’t care what happens in Palestine, more concerned about what impacts me personally. Dems are all about high taxes, soft on crime, bloated government all of which I detest. Just to give you a perspective- our relatively wealthy suburb has off-late seen a spate of car-theft cases - the police has even caught many of the perps red-handed but our ‘progressive’ DA refuses to even charge them. Used to be a democrat, but will never vote for them again.
 
Somehow the impression is that Republicans are stern, anti-Muslim psychopaths but is it actually true?

Democrats appear liberal but is there support of Israel make them as anti-Muslim as anyone else?

Is your question for US or non US Muslims?

Domestically, I will be honest there is very little to go by unless you are in the process of immigration. If you are already a citizen or green card holder, almost no difference. You have the same rights and neither of their policies tend to massive deviations from one another. They tend to moan and whine about stuff like abortion and guns and taxes.

If you are a visiting Muslim or one planning to immigrate, then Democrats are obviously better because as an immigrant, it is assumed you are their vote base so they will try to make things easier for you to get here.

Externally, most may disagree with me here but Republicans are actually far far better than Dems who use subterfuge, hypocritical policies with Muslims states. Republicans tend to be more accommodating and flexible and "honest", dare I use the term. I would like to point out, that I am basing my opinion based on the "true" Republican party, not that idiotic and *******ized Trump version here. Also, the era of the "War on Terror" may stand in contrast to what I said due to the invasion of Iraq, which was largely an exception- thanks to Cheney.

Bottomline, neither party has the best interests of the world at heart. They just look out for their own interests and sometimes that tends to benefit Muslim nations or Muslims and sometimes it does in direct contrast.

So if you are looking for an answer based in idealism of either party, thats an exercise in futility.
 
Is your question for US or non US Muslims?

Domestically, I will be honest there is very little to go by unless you are in the process of immigration. If you are already a citizen or green card holder, almost no difference. You have the same rights and neither of their policies tend to massive deviations from one another. They tend to moan and whine about stuff like abortion and guns and taxes.

If you are a visiting Muslim or one planning to immigrate, then Democrats are obviously better because as an immigrant, it is assumed you are their vote base so they will try to make things easier for you to get here.

Externally, most may disagree with me here but Republicans are actually far far better than Dems who use subterfuge, hypocritical policies with Muslims states. Republicans tend to be more accommodating and flexible and "honest", dare I use the term. I would like to point out, that I am basing my opinion based on the "true" Republican party, not that idiotic and *******ized Trump version here. Also, the era of the "War on Terror" may stand in contrast to what I said due to the invasion of Iraq, which was largely an exception- thanks to Cheney.

Bottomline, neither party has the best interests of the world at heart. They just look out for their own interests and sometimes that tends to benefit Muslim nations or Muslims and sometimes it does in direct contrast.

So if you are looking for an answer based in idealism of either party, thats an exercise in futility.

Agree. Most Muslims or rather Asians in the US are wealthy & well educated as well as relatively socially conservative & such demographics usually tilt Republican. Barring a few crazy ones in the Midwest/Bible belt, most Republicans arent the demons they are made out to be - they are actually moderate & serve local interests better.

And as far as foreign policy is concerned, both parties will look out for its own, as anybody would do. No US President/party can ever downgrade Israel relationship nor be soft towards China. Don’t expect to see any major difference there.
 
Absolutely not - Republicans always have better relations with Muslim majority countries
 
[MENTION=137804]msb314[/MENTION] [MENTION=17315]Stewie[/MENTION]

Pls add your vote
 
I say a non-extreme Republican is better.

Democrats/Liberals tend to ruin everything in the long run (economy, societal morality etc.).

But, at the end of the day, neither side can be trusted 100%.
 
Last edited:
Anywhere in the non-muslim world, a leftist government is better than the right wing government for Islam.

As for Muslims, it depends. Left treats them as vote bank and does nothing for Muslims. But they do back them up when Islam is criticized. Rightwing does not like Islam in general. Their ideas of supporting indigenous people, their pride and culture does not go well with Islam.
 
I say a non-extreme Republican is better.

Democrats/Liberals tend to ruin everything in the long run (economy, societal morality etc.).

But, at the end of the day, neither side can be trusted 100%.

Republicans are Christian dominant party. Majority of their vote bank and leaders follow Christianity. Their faith will always be a hurdle when it comes to Muslims.
 
Republicans are Christian dominant party. Majority of their vote bank and leaders follow Christianity. Their faith will always be a hurdle when it comes to Muslims.

No. I don't think so.

I have lived through Conservative Stephen Harper's entire tenure (2006-2015). I never faced any issue.

As long as the leader is not extreme, things should be fine.

A non-extreme Conservative/Republican leader is always better than any radical leftist leader.
 
Anywhere in the non-muslim world, a leftist government is better than the right wing government for Islam.

As for Muslims, it depends. Left treats them as vote bank and does nothing for Muslims. But they do back them up when Islam is criticized. Rightwing does not like Islam in general. Their ideas of supporting indigenous people, their pride and culture does not go well with Islam.

I think there is a difference between Islam and Muslims. I do not think anybody here is questioning which one is good for Islam, rather who is better for those who practice Islam.

Believe it or not in the US, the foundations of democracy and secularism are very strong and both dems and republicans fully support your right to exercise your own faith. There is not much difference there. Republicans in the US are more of constitutional conservatives. But if you are talking about extreme RWingers or Trump supporters, then I would say yes, most of them are bad for Muslims.
 
Republicans are Christian dominant party. Majority of their vote bank and leaders follow Christianity. Their faith will always be a hurdle when it comes to Muslims.

Christian faith aligns a lot with Judaism and Islam, this is common knowledge. We all share common values such as opposition to abortion, conservative societies, checks on liberalism and opposition to homosexuality so I dont know what makes you think the other way.
 
Christian faith aligns a lot with Judaism and Islam, this is common knowledge. We all share common values such as opposition to abortion, conservative societies, checks on liberalism and opposition to homosexuality so I dont know what makes you think the other way.

Christians don't like the fact that you call their God as a mere human. You also call their holy books corrupt. A Christian ignorant of Islam may not know this. But a Christian educated about Abrahamic faiths will not have a good opinion of Islam.
 
Christians don't like the fact that you call their God as a mere human. You also call their holy books corrupt. A Christian ignorant of Islam may not know this. But a Christian educated about Abrahamic faiths will not have a good opinion of Islam.

Not all Christians believe in trinity though.
 
Christians don't like the fact that you call their God as a mere human. You also call their holy books corrupt. A Christian ignorant of Islam may not know this. But a Christian educated about Abrahamic faiths will not have a good opinion of Islam.

Who is "you" and why would they call the Christian "God" a mere human? If you were stereotyping about American Muslims, you need to be educated about the religious dynamics of the US and the Abrahamic faiths in general. The Christian God is the same as Muslim God or Jewish God. There are varying beliefs. Jews dont believe in Jesus, and yet Muslims do. We respect him as a holy prophet. Most educated Christians actually know about that, so your current perception is reversed. That being said, they do not believe Muhammed to be a real prophet, so what does that make them to us?

The point is the uneducated and the intolerant will always find differences to fight over and ignore the common grounds. Thankfully speaking, the Muslims in the US are more educated than other parts of the world and they get along just fine with educated Christians and Jews. We realize we have more in common with each other than we are different. Also we have more in common with each other than other religions of the world.

Once again you keep referring to Islam to drag this discussion towards a system of faith, when the thread is about the human who practice the said belief. There is a big difference between the two that you will need to understand to make an intelligent contribution to this thread.
 
Christians don't like the fact that you call their God as a mere human. You also call their holy books corrupt. A Christian ignorant of Islam may not know this. But a Christian educated about Abrahamic faiths will not have a good opinion of Islam.

They seem to manage to get on well with those that murdered their 'god' and call the virgin Mary foul names.

Point being that dogmatic religious debates don't often come into play in politics, especially when groups share some similarities and commonalities.
 
Last edited:
Christians don't like the fact that you call their God as a mere human. You also call their holy books corrupt. A Christian ignorant of Islam may not know this. But a Christian educated about Abrahamic faiths will not have a good opinion of Islam.

Some of the more educated ones would describe Islam as a Christian heresy.
 
They seem to manage to get on well with those that murdered their 'god' and call the virgin Mary foul names.

There have been numerous pogroms committed by Christian’s against Jews throughout history in many countries including Britain.

Since WW2 ended, adherents of the two religions have got on much better, though of course there are extremists such as the KKK in many nations.
 
Some of the more educated ones would describe Islam as a Christian heresy.

And vice versa. Islam teaches you that Judaism and Christianity were originally Islam but distorted by man through the ages. But we all agree the origins of the faiths are the same and they are more closely related than other beliefs in the world.

The books of all three faiths have very similar stories about the other holy men such as Adam, Noah, Lot, Joseph, Yaqub, Isaac, Ishmael, Abraham, etc.
 
He's the oldest president in US history and his approval ratings have stalled in the low 40s. Is President Joe Biden ripe for a primary challenge in 2024?

Donald Trump, the man he defeated two years ago, has just announced he will run for the White House again.

But both men are unpopular, and polls show a majority of Democrats want their party to nominate someone other than Mr Biden.

That may present an opportunity to a generation of young liberals.


Kamala Harris

Perhaps nobody would benefit more from an aging president stepping aside than his deputy Kamala Harris.

A former prosecutor who went on to serve as California's attorney general and as its junior US senator, the 58-year-old broke glass ceilings in 2020 as the first female, first black and first Asian-American vice-president in US history.

Last year, she briefly served as acting president in the 85 minutes it took Mr Biden to undergo a colonoscopy - but it may be the closest she gets to the Oval Office.

Ms Harris is even less popular than the president and some voters have questioned her competence.

Since taking office, she has been assigned some of the administration's toughest portfolios, including the influx of immigrants at the southern US border. Conservative critics have accused her of awkward public appearances. High staff turnover and reports of low morale in the VP's office have only made matters worse.

Kamala Harris

But the vice-president's supporters - including an army of online fans sometimes called the "K-Hive" - insist she has been unfairly maligned with misogynistic and sexist slander.

Gavin Newsom

If VP Harris was once a shoo-in to succeed President Biden, it is another California politician - Governor Gavin Newsom - who is now garnering the most 2024 buzz.

Mr Newsom, 55, first gained national attention when, as mayor of San Francisco in 2004, he issued same-sex marriage licences in violation of state law.

A wine entrepreneur by trade, he was elected governor of his home state in 2018 and established himself as a progressive bulwark against the conservative Trump administration.

He earned praise for assertive leadership at the beginning of the pandemic, but a caught-on-camera dinner in which Mr Newsom flouted his own Covid rules gave rise to an effort last year to recall him as governor before his term ended.

Ultimately defeating the Republican-led recall, the governor is now entering a second term after he won re-election earlier this month.

Mr Newsom has a massive campaign war chest and the backing of major Democratic donors, but it is his willingness to pick fights on the national stage recently - from launching ads in Republican-held states like Florida and Texas to criticising his own party for its weak messaging - that is drawing attention to his future ambitions.

Pete Buttigieg
Of the 28 Democrats Mr Biden defeated to become the party's nominee for president in 2020, few shone as brightly as Pete Buttigieg.

Despite being unknown in the national politics arena, the 40-year-old out-performed seasoned politicians before dropping out of the race and endorsing the eventual president.

Voters were drawn to his resume, youth and polished speech. A Harvard graduate who attended Oxford on a Rhodes Scholarship and served with the US Navy in Afghanistan, Mr Buttigieg had come out as gay in 2015 while serving as the mayor of South Bend, a small industrial town of about 100,000 people in Indiana.

Dubbed "Mayor Pete" by his supporters, he was chosen as Mr Biden's Secretary of Transportation.

While the cabinet position is typically low-key, Mr Buttigieg has overseen the passage of major infrastructure investments, been forced to respond to various supply chain disruptions and is one of the administration's most frequent surrogates on cable news.

In the meantime, he and his social media-savvy husband Chasten have also welcomed twins and are often seen hobnobbing in Washington.

Bernie Sanders

If Mr Biden's age is a deal-breaker for voters, nominating Bernie Sanders - the 81-year-old senator from Vermont - may not make sense to many.

But many voters still see the long-tenured lawmaker as the beacon of a burgeoning left-wing movement in the United States.

Mr Sanders - an independent lawmaker who votes with Democrats - nearly beat the odds in the 2016 presidential nominating contest against Democratic heavyweight Hillary Clinton.

Placing second again in 2020 behind Mr Biden, the self-described "democratic socialist" has since worked to influence administration policy, with moderate success.

But his message that Democrats do too little to convince young voters and the working-class to vote for them continues to resonate, and supporters of another White House run may be hoping the third time is the charm.

Others who could run

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Known to her legions of adoring fans as "AOC", the youngest woman ever to serve in Congress will turn 35 - the minimum age to be US president - one month before the 2024 election. A darling of the progressive left, Ms Ocasio-Cortez has big ideas and plenty of supporters, but she has demurred on questions about her future, recently telling GQ that her time as a lawmaker has given her "a front-row seat" to the misogyny of American society.

Ro Khanna: A self-described "progressive capitalist", this Indian-American lawmaker represents the heart of Silicon Valley in the halls of Congress. He has indicated he will not run if Mr Biden is the nominee.

Amy Klobuchar: The senator from Minnesota, 62, did not make waves in the 2020 presidential race, but she is closely aligned with the Biden administration and is a key Democratic power-broker in the Senate.

Cory Booker: Another candidate in the 2020 presidential race, the black New Jersey senator, 53, drew praise earlier this year for an emotional speech, in which he wiped away tears as he celebrated the historic nomination of the Supreme Court's first black female justice.

Elizabeth Warren: An early pace-setter in the 2020 race, the 73-year-old senator from Massachusetts has channelled female voters' anger in recent months over the overturning of abortion rights in the US.

Gretchen Whitmer: This Michigan native, 51, faced a kidnapping plot in her first term as the state's governor, then breezed to re-election earlier this month. She says she has no plans to ever run for president.

JB Pritzker: The Illinois politician, 57, whose family owns the Hyatt hotel chain, is the wealthiest governor in the country. He has targeted Mr Trump in recent speeches, accusing him of "treasonous insurrection".

Jared Polis: The first US governor to be in a same-sex marriage, Mr Polis, 47, from Colorado, won plaudits for an even-handed approach to the pandemic and has just handily won re-election.

Phil Murphy: A Goldman Sachs financier and former US ambassador to Germany, the New Jersey governor, 65, has worked closely with both Republican and Democratic administrations in Washington.

Every election cycle, pundits opine that former First Lady Michelle Obama or former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a twice-failed presidential candidate, could join the race. But while both women remain popular with Democratic voters, neither have so far indulged in stoking the speculation. In fact, Mrs Obama recently told BBC News it was her least favourite question.

BBC
 
Back
Top