Paul Vs. Thompson
- Thread starter eric_t12
- Start date
- Status
RealGun
Member
The discussions here don't speak for the whole group. I suspect others besides myself feel it is far too early to get too intense about an upcoming presidential election. Real candidates typically emerge much later. Others save their powder and decide to enter the race officially after the pack diminishes, and the public takes a greater interest in the election.
There is also the problem of this election likely turning on religion, abortion, racial divides, and cultural concerns re immigration, none of which are up for debate on this forum. We don't do it well, so we don't do it, period. What you read here may not represent the real deciding issues at all. It varies.
Now my opinion about the question posed is that Thompson is the viable candidate of the two because he has allies and potential allies in Washington. Paul does not. That would mean that Paul has little chance of being effective and would just serve out his days in the office being Dr. No, although perhaps having some effect down the road. If one values having the federal government accomplish nothing, then Paul might have his appeal.
There is also the problem of this election likely turning on religion, abortion, racial divides, and cultural concerns re immigration, none of which are up for debate on this forum. We don't do it well, so we don't do it, period. What you read here may not represent the real deciding issues at all. It varies.
Now my opinion about the question posed is that Thompson is the viable candidate of the two because he has allies and potential allies in Washington. Paul does not. That would mean that Paul has little chance of being effective and would just serve out his days in the office being Dr. No, although perhaps having some effect down the road. If one values having the federal government accomplish nothing, then Paul might have his appeal.
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
The President is the Executive branch... meant to execute what the People want via the Congress. His job isn't to Legislate by Executive Order or Blackmail.
Thompson, on paper, is alright in a field of sell-outs but my preference remains with Paul. Thompson's actions (and words) speak to larger and more active government than Paul. So given the possible pride issues that cause him to give even Michael Moore the time of day in a 40 second response to criticism (which, if you know film, would've taken at least a couple man-hours to execute- if not his, then his staff's)... I'm not wholly sure that Thompson would be able to restrain himself if frustrated by Congress.
To me, it's entirely plausible to see Thompson begin ruling the nation by Executive Order if he didn't get his way, leaving up dangerous precedents for Presidents to come. That's one invaluable action Paul promises and will no doubt follow through since it goes to the core of his beliefs and actions for decades now. Paul will undo the years of abusive Executive Orders, something no other candidate has promised.
On issues of character, which we can only presume and not know... Thompson is an actor which- to me- becomes a blow to his integrity simply due to the nature of the work. Thompson is said to have some womanizing/cheating issues that resulted in the divorce of his first wife and mother of his three children. About the period after the split, Thompson said:
"I was single for a long time, and, yep, I chased a lot of women," Thompson replied, chuckling, according to an attendee who took notes. "And a lot of women chased me. And those that chased me tended to catch me."
We all know (whether right or wrong) how womanizing can compromise the integrity of the Office. He his literally old enough to be his new wife's father (65 and 40, respectively, and his grown children actually are older, IIRC)... in a position of greater power and intense temptation, I'm not sure I'd trust him more than Paul.
But hey, he's electable!
Thompson, on paper, is alright in a field of sell-outs but my preference remains with Paul. Thompson's actions (and words) speak to larger and more active government than Paul. So given the possible pride issues that cause him to give even Michael Moore the time of day in a 40 second response to criticism (which, if you know film, would've taken at least a couple man-hours to execute- if not his, then his staff's)... I'm not wholly sure that Thompson would be able to restrain himself if frustrated by Congress.
To me, it's entirely plausible to see Thompson begin ruling the nation by Executive Order if he didn't get his way, leaving up dangerous precedents for Presidents to come. That's one invaluable action Paul promises and will no doubt follow through since it goes to the core of his beliefs and actions for decades now. Paul will undo the years of abusive Executive Orders, something no other candidate has promised.
On issues of character, which we can only presume and not know... Thompson is an actor which- to me- becomes a blow to his integrity simply due to the nature of the work. Thompson is said to have some womanizing/cheating issues that resulted in the divorce of his first wife and mother of his three children. About the period after the split, Thompson said:
"I was single for a long time, and, yep, I chased a lot of women," Thompson replied, chuckling, according to an attendee who took notes. "And a lot of women chased me. And those that chased me tended to catch me."
We all know (whether right or wrong) how womanizing can compromise the integrity of the Office. He his literally old enough to be his new wife's father (65 and 40, respectively, and his grown children actually are older, IIRC)... in a position of greater power and intense temptation, I'm not sure I'd trust him more than Paul.
But hey, he's electable!
Attachments
RealGun
Member
What if you were referring to Ronald Reagan?
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
Iran-Contra (regarding acting).
Divorce specifically because of political ambition and his new lady (Nancy) was hardly a spring chicken with her top falling out.
Divorce specifically because of political ambition and his new lady (Nancy) was hardly a spring chicken with her top falling out.
pcosmar
member
thewriter said
He promotes Non-Intervention, as did the Founders.
He promotes Free Trade and diplomacy. Not isolation.
Ron Paul is NOT an isolationist.
He promotes Non-Intervention, as did the Founders.
He promotes Free Trade and diplomacy. Not isolation.
Titan6
member
I find it really funny that people think Paul would reduce the power of the executive. Maybe unlawful power anyway.
But the veto button would start going off like a buzzer on Jeopardy.
But the veto button would start going off like a buzzer on Jeopardy.
nico
Member
So what? They're both adults capable of deciding who they want to be with.
fwiw, my aunt's (second) husband is older than my grandparents, and it's never been the cause of any problems.
rhubarb
Member
Fred Thompson is a Republican
Ron Paul is a RINO.
If Ron Paul is nominated for President by the Republican Party, I will vote Republican. Otherwise, I'll again vote for the Libertarian candidate.
Ron Paul is a RINO.
If Ron Paul is nominated for President by the Republican Party, I will vote Republican. Otherwise, I'll again vote for the Libertarian candidate.
xd9fan
Member
at least Paul has the courage to take the slings and arrows(been doing it for years).....where is Thompson again?
kcmarine
Member
Personally, I want to see a ticket with Thompson as President and Paul as the Vice President.
That is the team our country desperately needs...
That is the team our country desperately needs...
gyp_c2
Member
hmmm...
...no more important than being right-handed, a gamer, or say, an attorney?
...age differences between adults shouldn't be an issue either...
I still think they should run together...
...
...no more important than being right-handed, a gamer, or say, an attorney?
...age differences between adults shouldn't be an issue either...
I still think they should run together...
thumper723
Member
Maybe, just in Dr. Paul's case, RINO is not such a bad word..
DesertDawg
Member
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2007
- Messages
- 48
Oh, so much BICKERING! I didn't vote for either one, for neither of them are listed on an "official" ballot!
While many of you may be "rabid" about Ron Paul, I have several "issues" with him. It seems as if he has been IN and OUT of Congress several times, dating back to 1976....a total of less than 18 years during the past 31 years. Why? Did he get tired of being in Congress a few times, and go back to being a gynecologist? Or....?
Wasn't Ron Paul originally registered as a Libertarian? If so, why did he change parties? And why does his official web site call him a Libertarian, AND a Republican Congressman?
Why, at age 71, when most men are either retired or getting ready to retire, is Ron Paul entered into the race for the very demanding job of President of the USA? Would he, at that "senior" age, and with his track record as a Congressman, possibly "lose interest", especially after a few head-butting rounds with Senators and Congress critters?
Briefly, regarding Fred Thompson....at this point, he is somewhat of an "unknown", even though I have done some research on him. In a way, I actually ADMIRE his tactics for not prematurely entering the race! He can sit on the sidelines, snipe away all that he wants and not be in violation of any "candidacy rules". I think that Freddie will enter the race when he's good and READY! "He's tanned, he's rested, and he's ready.... that's 'Ready Freddie'!" (Maybe I should be his official campaign slogan consultant? HAHA!)
While many of you may be "rabid" about Ron Paul, I have several "issues" with him. It seems as if he has been IN and OUT of Congress several times, dating back to 1976....a total of less than 18 years during the past 31 years. Why? Did he get tired of being in Congress a few times, and go back to being a gynecologist? Or....?
Wasn't Ron Paul originally registered as a Libertarian? If so, why did he change parties? And why does his official web site call him a Libertarian, AND a Republican Congressman?
Why, at age 71, when most men are either retired or getting ready to retire, is Ron Paul entered into the race for the very demanding job of President of the USA? Would he, at that "senior" age, and with his track record as a Congressman, possibly "lose interest", especially after a few head-butting rounds with Senators and Congress critters?
Briefly, regarding Fred Thompson....at this point, he is somewhat of an "unknown", even though I have done some research on him. In a way, I actually ADMIRE his tactics for not prematurely entering the race! He can sit on the sidelines, snipe away all that he wants and not be in violation of any "candidacy rules". I think that Freddie will enter the race when he's good and READY! "He's tanned, he's rested, and he's ready.... that's 'Ready Freddie'!" (Maybe I should be his official campaign slogan consultant? HAHA!)
GoRon
Member
Fred Thompson Senate voting record LINK
Ron Paul House voting record Link
I don't think for one second Ron Paul has a chance of being elected. I like Ron Paul and would love to see him in a cabinet position or such influencing the President.
Thompson is kind of a Reagan "revolution" Republican. Not nearly as right wing as some would like, not nearly libertarian enough for others and probably real hard for the left wing to demonize as being an extremist.
With Ron Paul's voting record the Democrats would bury him in a heartbeat.
Sad but true, our battles will be won in little steps not leaps and bounds. Libertarians aren't willing to slug it out in the trenches, they want everything changed now or they will go home and pout.
If Fred runs I will vote for him.
Ron Paul House voting record Link
I don't think for one second Ron Paul has a chance of being elected. I like Ron Paul and would love to see him in a cabinet position or such influencing the President.
Thompson is kind of a Reagan "revolution" Republican. Not nearly as right wing as some would like, not nearly libertarian enough for others and probably real hard for the left wing to demonize as being an extremist.
With Ron Paul's voting record the Democrats would bury him in a heartbeat.
Sad but true, our battles will be won in little steps not leaps and bounds. Libertarians aren't willing to slug it out in the trenches, they want everything changed now or they will go home and pout.
If Fred runs I will vote for him.
BGlaze250
Member
Dr. Paul has no chance of winning either the primary or the general election. Thompson can do both.
I'd have to agree though, Paul as VP or in a cabinet position would be interesting...
I'd have to agree though, Paul as VP or in a cabinet position would be interesting...
Tell me what is so bad about these points you are trying to make? Maybe he loves being Dr. but feels a calling for politics?
So what if he was a libertarian and running republican. Blah blah, It's called a two party system right? The man wants to make a serious run at the presidency and is not going to be taking serious in a "two party system" as a libertarian. Besides he is a true republican. Republicans today are not what they used to be. Ron Paul is the real deal.
Ron Pauls Nickname is Dr. No because he votes NO on everything that is un constitutional. What is not to like?
This poll tells me that People think that Fred is more "Electable". People just like to play it safe, instead of getting behind a man who makes total sense.
'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
-George Bush on the US Constitution.
Sure is!
you are so right.
i would enjoy a good destruction of the most evolving, living, strongest constitutions in the world. we should re-write it more... 'modern.'
1,047 articles each explicitly detailing every single thing you can or cannot do in the country. i'm sure all the whiners would love it! other than not having an article for 'humane treatment of whales caught swimming upstream in major US areas', because i'm sure that there are some who think calling to the whales with 'pre-recorded feeding noise' is harmful to them, and they should be left alone, obviously a violation of the new constitution. im sure it would be pointed out then!
BUT THE WHALES!... OH GOD THE WHALES!... (not calling for harm on whales, but so many people in america are so silly now... i just have to comment)
that could be article 1048... i suppose. (rolls eyes)
finally a reason to defend that old crusty piece of paper!!
helpless said:
you are so right.
i would enjoy a good destruction of the most evolving, living, strongest constitutions in the world. we should re-write it more... 'modern.' 1,047 articles each explicitly detailing every single thing you can or cannot do in the country. i'm sure all the whiners would love it! other than not having an article for 'humane treatment of whales caught swimming upstream in major US areas', because i'm sure that there are some who think calling to the whales with 'pre-recorded feeding noise' is harmful to them, and they should be left alone, obviously a violation of the new constitution. im sure it would be pointed out then!
BUT THE WHALES!... OH GOD THE WHALES!... (not calling for harm on whales, but so many people in america are so silly now... i just have to comment)
that could be article 1048... i suppose. (rolls eyes)
finally a reason to defend that old crusty piece of paper!!
BGlaze250
Member
Yet. Also, Thompson can run for President, but Schwarzenegger cannot.
rugerman07
Member
Paul doesn't stand a chance in becoming president. Thompson does.
As much as I like Ron Paul, If it came between him and Fred Thompson I would vote for Fred. I just feel that having someone almost as good as Ron Paul (yes I do believe that Ron is better) is still a whole lot better than having a Hellary (Hillary). I believe that Fred chances of winning are much better than Ron. However if Fred does not run, then I will be voting for Ron!
- Status
