Paul Vs. Thompson
- Thread starter eric_t12
- Start date
- Status
Hypnogator
Member
Fred Thompson.
Because he can win!
Because he can win!
I don't see it as an isolationist attitude; rather I see it as a "no more world's policeman" attitude.
I mean, what in the world did the conflict in Kosovo really have to do with the American citizens?
Thompson hasn't even announced that he's running for president.
Definitely going with Paul. #1 I know where he stands on everything #2 I *like* where he stands on almost everything. Fred, as far as I can tell, is simply an "electable" conservative.
I admit that either of them is a vast improvement over the other 9, but I'm just not willing to volunteer my time, money and energy on Fred's behalf.
I admit that either of them is a vast improvement over the other 9, but I'm just not willing to volunteer my time, money and energy on Fred's behalf.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Actually I think Paul would make a better opponent to Hillary, he did not support the Iraq war from the begining, that may be a huge factor among voters.
xd9fan
Member
I dont see Fred having the depth in understanding HOW to fix the country. Ron....just does..had it for years.
TrybalRage
Member
Fred, with the exception of being gun friendly, is just more of the same recycled crap.
xd9fan
Member
This is my take on him as well.
lets just go for the right guy first.
pdowg881
Member
Is Thompson officially running now?
And, most people I talk to have never heard of Ron paul, so until his name becomes well known he's going to have some trouble. It's not like when you turn on the local and national news and hear the names of Hillary and Obama 24/7.
And, most people I talk to have never heard of Ron paul, so until his name becomes well known he's going to have some trouble. It's not like when you turn on the local and national news and hear the names of Hillary and Obama 24/7.
+1 to "I know where he stands on everything" in reference to Ron Paul. You dont have to go research it on the internet to see where Ron Paul stands on a subject. All you need to do is look at the Constitution of the United States.
I dont know much about Fred except my girlfriend knows who he is and said he is a good actor and his character on Law and order always knows what to say...
No Fred Thompson is not running for president.
+1 to "Lets just go for the right guy first."
Fred Thompson is not going to fix America like Ron Paul would.
I dont know much about Fred except my girlfriend knows who he is and said he is a good actor and his character on Law and order always knows what to say...
No Fred Thompson is not running for president.
+1 to "Lets just go for the right guy first."
Fred Thompson is not going to fix America like Ron Paul would.
Jamie C.
Member
Anybody that thinks any one person is gonna "fix America" is probably smoking something they shouldn't.
The fact of the matter is, many politicians claim they're going to do any number of things... but then once they get in office, things change. Maybe they were lying all along, or maybe the reality of the situation is different from what they believed, and they discover that they either can't or shouldn't do some of the things they've said.
One way or the other though, it's a rare instance for any elected official to actually live up to their campaign promises, or the expectations of the people that voted for them.
J.C.
The fact of the matter is, many politicians claim they're going to do any number of things... but then once they get in office, things change. Maybe they were lying all along, or maybe the reality of the situation is different from what they believed, and they discover that they either can't or shouldn't do some of the things they've said.
One way or the other though, it's a rare instance for any elected official to actually live up to their campaign promises, or the expectations of the people that voted for them.
J.C.
Johnnybgood
Member
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2005
- Messages
- 206
Ron Paul may not "Fix America" But he will make it damn hard for those who want to tear it down further to do so.
pdowg881
Member
If I'm not mistaken the president also gets to appoint people that shares his views.
Autolycus
Member
Originally posted by Jamie C:
Anybody that thinks any one person is gonna "fix America" is probably smoking something they shouldn't.
The fact of the matter is, many politicians claim they're going to do any number of things... but then once they get in office, things change. Maybe they were lying all along, or maybe the reality of the situation is different from what they believed, and they discover that they either can't or shouldn't do some of the things they've said.
One way or the other though, it's a rare instance for any elected official to actually live up to their campaign promises, or the expectations of the people that voted for them.
J.C.
Ah but if you look at Ron Paul's track record as a senator you will see what that he does try to make good on what he believes. Its just that the other 2 parties would not support his bills. When he introduced a bill that would restore the 2nd Amendment to its original prominence no supporters from either party could be found. When he tried to garnish support against the Patriot Act neither party supported him. The same thing with opposition to the war in Iraq on Constitutional grounds nobody supported him.
So dont blame Ron Paul for not making good on his promises as he has consistantly tried to, its just that nobody else will help him. If he is elected President of the USA he would have a lot more power to make good on the promises he has made.
So support him as supporting Ron Paul is supporting the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. If you don't your unpatriotic. (I love propaganda!)
Jamie C.
Member
Do the reasons really matter that much, when it comes right down to it?
Don't get me wrong here... I'm not against Paul, or anybody else that says they want to do the right thing, and mean it.
However, I know better than to count on any one person in D.C. to really make a difference. It takes much more than that. ( I've been around since just before JFK was shot. Haven't seen much different, where presidents are concerned, in the 40+ years since then. )
Sorry, but I just don't see Ron Paul or Fred Thompson as being the "second coming of Christ".
( Although I freely admit that I think Hillary Clinton might be Satan... or maybe the Antichrist.
)Either of 'em may keep things from getting worse, but I don't expect that they'll be able to do as much as a lot of folks here seem to believe, to make things all that much better.
J.C.
Jamie,
I wouldn't count on him to "fix" Washington either. I'd just expect him to do the most good (or the least bad) in the oval office. He'd probably be the first president to wear out a veto stamp in 4 years, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
Let's not forget the authority to singlehandedly dismantle most Federal agencies, appoint justices, and manage the Executive in accordance with the Constitution. Plus, being the de facto
head of the Republican party, he'd be able to finally evict the neo-cons.
It's not like he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.
So then what's all the fuss about Hillary? I mean, if she's just one person she can't really make a difference, right?
I wouldn't count on him to "fix" Washington either. I'd just expect him to do the most good (or the least bad) in the oval office. He'd probably be the first president to wear out a veto stamp in 4 years, and I don't see that as a bad thing.
Let's not forget the authority to singlehandedly dismantle most Federal agencies, appoint justices, and manage the Executive in accordance with the Constitution. Plus, being the de facto
head of the Republican party, he'd be able to finally evict the neo-cons.
It's not like he wouldn't be able to accomplish anything.
Jamie C.
Member
In all likelihood.... probably no fuss at all.
I suppose it would all come down to whether she wanted one term or two.
Either way, I seriously doubt it'd be anything other than "more of the same". And much of that would depend on who controlled the House and the Senate.
Mostly I just don't wanna end up hearing about where she stuck the cigar...
J.C.
Titan6
member
A word on courage.
Courage is standing by what you believe is right no matter what and no matter who you have to go against.
Courage is not throwing out a BS challenge and when the challenge is answered lighting up a Cuban Cigar and saying you don't have time for it. (a la Fred Thompson and Michael Moore)
Paul has real courage and this is a rare thing. He believes in rule of law, limited government and that the power rests with the people. He has never wavered, never flinched, never compromised and never turned his back on the people in his five years of service in the military and 18 years in the congress. This is why the people of Texas keep sending him back year after year by a huge margin that crosses party lines; because they know he is on their side.
After his own party redrew the district lines to get him thrown out no one thought he could win; but he won big.
The facts are he does not have a single charismatic quality, does not have any special interest backers, and always speaks the truth, even when everyone else sticks their head in the sand. But none of these things say that he can not win only that people will have to vote for him on the issues and substance and character.
If you don't like Paul because you want big government, less freedoms, more intervention abroad then just say so. There are plenty of candidates in the race with that agenda, Thompson is one of them. But Paul is a man of good conscience and will not waver, will not give up and will not turn his back on the people. He does what he says and says what he means.
If instead of that you want more of what we already have (except better spoken and more polished); vote for Thompson you will not be disappointed.
Courage is standing by what you believe is right no matter what and no matter who you have to go against.
Courage is not throwing out a BS challenge and when the challenge is answered lighting up a Cuban Cigar and saying you don't have time for it. (a la Fred Thompson and Michael Moore)
Paul has real courage and this is a rare thing. He believes in rule of law, limited government and that the power rests with the people. He has never wavered, never flinched, never compromised and never turned his back on the people in his five years of service in the military and 18 years in the congress. This is why the people of Texas keep sending him back year after year by a huge margin that crosses party lines; because they know he is on their side.
After his own party redrew the district lines to get him thrown out no one thought he could win; but he won big.
The facts are he does not have a single charismatic quality, does not have any special interest backers, and always speaks the truth, even when everyone else sticks their head in the sand. But none of these things say that he can not win only that people will have to vote for him on the issues and substance and character.
If you don't like Paul because you want big government, less freedoms, more intervention abroad then just say so. There are plenty of candidates in the race with that agenda, Thompson is one of them. But Paul is a man of good conscience and will not waver, will not give up and will not turn his back on the people. He does what he says and says what he means.
If instead of that you want more of what we already have (except better spoken and more polished); vote for Thompson you will not be disappointed.
Autolycus
Member
Titan6: Well put in post #46.
Seriously folks Thompson is not a friend to the constitution by any means.
Seriously folks Thompson is not a friend to the constitution by any means.
RealGun
Member
I think Thompson represents people's desire to be rescued from the dissatisfaction with the current crop of candidates. Thus they might jump without actually knowing that much about him. I see him as potentially quite successful. That is on the basis of having what it takes to actually get elected rather than be a poster boy for some idealistic position that would not fend off a challenge from the Democratic candidate, most likely anti-gun and rabidly so.
ROTFLMAO
In what universe? You do realize that a good number of voters really like Hillary. I don't know why, but they do. Not a majority, but a good number.
The "center" and libertarians who make up a lot of the "undecided" voters don't comprise enough people to beat that good number of committed liberals, if conservatives and the center-right stay home on election day. If they stay home, Hillary would have a healthy majority. The sort of right-wing types who want an "authority figure" might actually vote for her, too, if she can woo them with her lust for power.
Does anyone really think that the left-wing statists who comprise the vast majority of todays Democrats would vote for Paul if they could vote for Hillary, when push came to shove? If you do, you must not know any!
For those who can't see shades of gray: I didn't say I didn't like Ron Paul. I said he doesn't make a good Hillary-buster. Maybe I'm wrong, but does anyone here who compromises his/her Libertarian righteousness by voting for candidates from legitimate political parties (aka parties which have members in Congress) actually think that Paul would beat Hillary Clinton?
Politics and strategy aren't just about who is a better human being. Sad, but true.
And for the record, I want someone to show how I'm wrong.
Titan6
member
Well umm I do, if he fights on the issues... Let me see what is important to the American voters?
War:
Clinton: Pro
Paul: Anti
American People: Anti
Taxes:
Clinton: Pro
Paul: Anti
American People: Anti
Abortion:
Clinton: Pro
Paul: States Right
American People : Divided along state lines
Get the idea? Paul is closer to the average American on many issues than the power mongers will ever admit.
- Status
