[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

i think the point i was trying to make is that, in conservative christian America, the minorities find it difficult to gain political influence, thats why most minorities go democrat and thats why all of the major muslim organizations will go democrat.

so no matter how good his foreign policy might be, the muslims still wouldnt support him because at home there's not much to gain from him.

what do we gain from democrats 'at home?'

[m_ali_qazi]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

what do we gain from democrats 'at home?'

depends on what you want

you wanna have a muslim in the cabinet? its more probable a democrat president would have that than a conservative

by the way, have you guys seen ron paul's new immigration ad? its brutal

[m_ali_qazi]

here's one example

Hillary’s Mystery Woman: Who Is Huma? | The New York Observer

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by m_ali_qazi

depends on what you want

you wanna have a muslim in the cabinet? its more probable a democrat president would have that than a conservative

by the way, have you guys seen ron paul's new immigration ad? its brutal

what's the point in having someone with a muslim name in the cabinet if their views don't represent those of your average american muslim whatsoever? if **** cheney changed his name to daud, would that make him anymore palatable as a politician?

i'm more concerned about the policies and issues they seek to enact and effectuate

[jinnzaman]

Voting for Ron Paul is a waste of a vote and will only weaken either party's electoral power. We should engage bipartisan electoral politics and get them to cater to our needs.

[kenneth]

The only way to "waste your vote" is to abstain from voting at all.

I suppourt instant run-off voting. this whole winner takes all system is for the birds.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

Voting for Ron Paul is a waste of a vote

And voting for Giuliani or Hillary isn't?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

and will only weaken either party's electoral power.

Is that a bad thing? The threat of that - if it is, in fact, shown to be a serious threat - will drive both parties to pay more attention to and cater to our needs.

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

We should engage bipartisan electoral politics and get them to cater to our needs.

Pipe dream until we're a much larger and more influential group. Right now, we're a small group with relatively little influence.. and we're directly at odds with the largest and most influential group (Evangelical "Likudniks"). While we work on getting bigger and more influential, Ron Paul is a good way to make noise.

[jinnzaman]

Originally Posted by sixpakistan

And voting for Giuliani or Hillary isn't?

No, they have a better chance at winning. Whatever votes we gave would probably help them seal their victory.

Is that a bad thing? The threat of that - if it is, in fact, shown to be a serious threat - will drive both parties to pay more attention to and cater to our needs.

No, it'll create a sense of distrust and they'll just use their other supporters to squash our collective voice. Rather than working with loopy individuals, lets go mainstream. Both parties are for more flexible then people make them out to be. They can adapt to our needs just as easily as a third party could.

Pipe dream until we're a much larger and more influential group. Right now, we're a small group with relatively little influence.. and we're directly at odds with the largest and most influential group (Evangelical "Likudniks"). While we work on getting bigger and more influential, Ron Paul is a good way to make noise.

Its precisely that we're a small group that we need to grab onto the coattails of the big boys. We need to pick a party, not just a President. The legislation in this country, judicial appointments, and what not is not done by the President alone, but by the political system as a whole.

[Kaminyu]

Originally Posted by pakmansc300

So, who here is supporting Ron Paul? Of all the candidates he is the ONE that makes the most sense. If he isn't the Republican nominee i'm not even wasting my time voting.

I'm not going to say I'm a supporter (I don't like saying I'm a supporter of anything), just that, out of all the candidates, he's my first choice, because he's a constitutionist who truly believes in individual freedom and liberty for everyone, and I agree with him the most out of all of them.

[sixpakistan]

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

No, they have a better chance at winning. Whatever votes we gave would probably help them seal their victory.

What good would that do us? If we'd voted for Bush again in 2004 that could've helped him seal a victory as well. Does that mean it would've been a good idea?

Originally Posted by jinnzaman

No, it'll create a sense of distrust and they'll just use their other supporters to squash our collective voice. Rather than working with loopy individuals, lets go mainstream. Both parties are for more flexible then people make them out to be. They can adapt to our needs just as easily as a third party could.

Its precisely that we're a small group that we need to grab onto the coattails of the big boys. We need to pick a party, not just a President. The legislation in this country, judicial appointments, and what not is not done by the President alone, but by the political system as a whole.

First of all, Ron Paul is running with one of the main two parties (at the moment). He's running as a Republican.

Secondly, he just got 11% in Iowa in the Republican primary & he's set several fundraising records. That's not indicative of a "loopy" or "wacko" individual. He did better than Giuliani.

The reality, however, is that he's suited better to a third party run. Why? Specifically because the strongest and largest branches of support the Republican party has and the ones they kow-tow to are directly opposed to Ron Paul's stances on some key issues (specifically war & Israel).

The fact that you relegate him immediately to a third party run without paying attention to the fact that he's currently running as a Republican is implicit acknowledgement of the fact that he can't make it as a Republican candidate. And if that's the case, what makes you think we can change the Republican party?

What makes you think we can make the Democratic party more conservative socially/morally, when social liberals form their base?

What makes you think we can make the Republican party less hawkish on foreign policy and less dedicated to Israel, when neocons form their base?

The Log Cabin Republicans have attached themselves to a major party. Hasn't done a whole lot of good for them, has it?

It is far more likely that a viable third party can be established than it is likely that we can, as a tiny minority, fundamentally reverse the current charter of the Republicans or Democrats while being opposed by the strongest elements of both parties.

If we're going to grab onto anyone's coattails, it should be the group that supports Ron Paul. That may wind up being Libertarians, as it was before, but it remains to be seen.