Choices for president


HK4U

New member
Seeing as how the Republican choice for president may not be much better than the Democrats does anyone have any idea who may be some of the "third" party choices?
 

RugerDog

New member
Since a third party candidate would likely split the Republican vote, we'd have a repeat of Ross Perot putting the first Clinton in office.

I think it's probably 95% that we'll have an anti-gun president.
 

Big Bubba

New member
President choices

Ron Paul seems to be pro second amendment. I will admit I need to research his ideals, a bit more.
 

Ektarr

Dedicated Infidel
Received today from a Friend...

A treatise on why Fred Thompson would be a good choice...

----------------------------------------------

Thompson vs. Clinton in 2008?

Bob Beckel, the Democratic commentator, stated that Thompson is the man that the Democrats fear most.

By Bruce Walker

Two months ago, I wrote an article, The Next Reagan, in which I outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan. Events since then have confirmed my arguments.

I predict that Fred Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the presidential election. Why?

First: No Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate. Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though respect for our current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply not an effective communicator or articulator of conservative principles. President Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the 1996 nominee, and also better as a communicator and campaigner than his father. That is how bad things have been for conservatives since the Gipper left the White House. Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal communicator.

His background as a film and television star combines perfectly with his background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that he is not only comfortable in front of the camera or at the microphone, but his skills in rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure since Senator Robert Taft over fifty years ago.

Second: Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson did not tolerate the corruption of the Nixon Administration. He can effectively point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in opposing corruption when it was his political party that had problems. Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption of the Clinton Administration and stood out as the lone Republican senator with real guts during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The combination of these two principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about how she became the best investor in America (with no experience), and otherwise to do more than simply suggest that Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.

Third: Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some conservatives may worry about his friendship and past support for John McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is reciprocated: McCain would be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred Thompson in the presidential election. In the interview Levin asked about his friendship with McCain and McCain's position on illegal immigration. He acknowledged his good friend but said that McCain was dead wrong on his stand on illegal immigration.

Fourth: The rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy" when he was in the Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is strength. Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for "work" in Washington The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who to day stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as "lazy" at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.

Fifth: Because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson would completely sweep the South, including problematic states like Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few modern candidates who has true regional drawing power. Thompson, though, would run very strongly in swing states outside the South like Ohio , Iowa, Wisconsin , Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly independent and undecided voters is real.

Sixth: Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in how the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his palpable decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him look awful and any attempt will backfire in pathetic support for him.

Seventh: Because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on the issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because, like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants POWER. Thompson just wants what is best for America.
 

revjen45

New member
Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn.

Every time I think We the Peons can't have a more more dismal choice for whom to vote I am proven wrong. I am sick to death of voting against the lying weasel I despise the most. It has been a long time since I voted FOR anyone. Cthulhu is as good as anybody, Yog-Sothoth for VP, and Nyarlathotep for Secretary of State.
 
Last edited:

doublenutz

New member
I took this test and was slightly suprised at where Huckabee ended up. I think had there been questions that addressed 2nd Amendment issues the tie between Fred and Duncan would be broken and place Fred in the distant lead.

Link Removed


Below are the candidates ranked by how much you agree with their stances.
Link RemovedLink Removed
Score: 57
Agree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Disagree
Social Security
Energy
Link RemovedLink Removed
Score: 57
Agree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Disagree
Social Security
Energy


Mitt Romney
Score: 54
Agree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Health Care
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Disagree
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Energy

John McCain
Score: 48
Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Death Penalty
Disagree
Immigration
Social Security
Marriage

Link Removed
Score: 45
Agree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Marriage
Death Penalty
Disagree
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy


Sam Brownback
Score: 43
Agree
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Disagree
Iraq
Social Security
Energy
Death Penalty


Mike Huckabee
Score: 36
VideoAgree
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Social Security
Energy


Tom Tancredo
Score: 36
Agree
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Social Security
Energy
Death Penalty


Ron Paul
Score: 34
Agree
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Energy
Disagree
Iraq
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Marriage
Death Penalty


Rudy Giuliani
Score: 28
Agree
Iraq
Taxes
Health Care
Death Penalty
Disagree
Immigration
Stem-Cell Research
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage


Bill Richardson
Score: 14
Agree
Line-Item Veto
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Energy
Marriage


Joe Biden
Score: 14
Agree
Line-Item Veto
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Energy
Marriage

Barack Obama
Score: 7
VideoAgree
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage


Hillary Clinton
Score: 7
Agree
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage


John Edwards
Score: 7
VideoAgree
Death Penalty
Disagree
Iraq
Immigration
Taxes
Stem-Cell Research
Health Care
Abortion
Social Security
Line-Item Veto
Energy
Marriage
 
Last edited:

doublenutz

New member
A treatise on why Fred Thompson would be a good choice...

----------------------------------------------

Thompson vs. Clinton in 2008?

Bob Beckel, the Democratic commentator, stated that Thompson is the man that the Democrats fear most.

By Bruce Walker

Two months ago, I wrote an article, The Next Reagan, in which I outlined many of the reasons why Fred Thompson will be the next Ronald Reagan. Events since then have confirmed my arguments.

I predict that Fred Thompson will enter the Republican nomination, that he will win it fairly easily, and that he will also defeat Hillary comfortably in the presidential election. Why?

First: No Republican since Ronald Reagan draws remotely as much genuine enthusiasm among conservatives as a serious presidential candidate. Both of the Bush presidencies have been mild disappointments. Though respect for our current commander-in-chief is high, President Bush is simply not an effective communicator or articulator of conservative principles. President Bush, however, is light years ahead of Senator Dole, the 1996 nominee, and also better as a communicator and campaigner than his father. That is how bad things have been for conservatives since the Gipper left the White House. Fred Thompson, in stark contrast, is a phenomenal communicator.

His background as a film and television star combines perfectly with his background as a very persuasive trial lawyer so that he is not only comfortable in front of the camera or at the microphone, but his skills in rhetoric are unequaled in any major political figure since Senator Robert Taft over fifty years ago.

Second: Thompson has always walked the walk on ethical issues. When he was Republican counsel in the Watergate hearings - the same hearings in which Hillary cut her teeth in politics as a Democrat - Fred Thompson did not tolerate the corruption of the Nixon Administration. He can effectively point out that both Hillary and he were on the same side in opposing corruption when it was his political party that had problems. Thompson also, though, was unrelenting in his opposition to the corruption of the Clinton Administration and stood out as the lone Republican senator with real guts during the impeachment trial of Clinton. The combination of these two principled stands will allow Thompson to relentlessly condemn Hillary as an accomplice in her husband's thoroughly corrupt eight years in office, to ask her point-blank about how she became the best investor in America (with no experience), and otherwise to do more than simply suggest that Hillary is a liar, a hypocrite and a bully.

Third: Thompson would unite the whole leadership of the Republican Party. No one dislikes him and almost everyone likes him. Although some conservatives may worry about his friendship and past support for John McCain, the critical fact is that friendship is reciprocated: McCain would be a very active and passionate supporter of Fred Thompson in the presidential election. In the interview Levin asked about his friendship with McCain and McCain's position on illegal immigration. He acknowledged his good friend but said that McCain was dead wrong on his stand on illegal immigration.

Fourth: The rap on Thompson is that he was "lazy" when he was in the Senate. This is precisely the same sort of rap that Leftists made about Ronald Reagan. In fact, this is strength. Because Thompson acts from principle, he does not need to engage in the Machiavellian machinations which pass for "work" in Washington The reality is that it is absurd to consider Thompson, who has worked during his life in more real jobs than almost any politician in Washington and who to day stars in two television programs as well as being the substitute for Paul Harvey and a frequent commentator in conservative periodicals as "lazy" at all. Like Reagan, he probably works harder than anyone in Washington.

Fifth: Because he was an extremely popular Tennessee senator, Thompson would completely sweep the South, including problematic states like Arkansas, Florida and Virginia. Thompson, like Reagan, is one of the few modern candidates who has true regional drawing power. Thompson, though, would run very strongly in swing states outside the South like Ohio , Iowa, Wisconsin , Oregon and New Hampshire. His appeal to truly independent and undecided voters is real.

Sixth: Thompson cannot be demonized. His whole life has been a study in how the American Dream works. His blue collar background, his constancy of moral purpose, his lack of ambition for power for its own sake, his palpable decency - all of these will make anyone who tries to slime him look awful and any attempt will backfire in pathetic support for him.

Seventh: Because Thompson cannot be hurt in the usual ways that Leftists hurt conservative Republicans, Hillary will have to campaign him on the issues. This will create an insurmountable problem for her because, like all Leftists, Hillary has no stands on any issues. She just wants POWER. Thompson just wants what is best for America.


gnikcuF FLAWLESS! I love it!:D
 

doublenutz

New member
Try this site out, it may help you decide. Be sure to read the questions, their spin may be a little different than what you'd expect.

http://www.ontheissues.org/default.htm

Almost Identical except that they have not included Fred Thomson as a candiaite in their survey and Ron Paul has sunk way down where the Liberal Dems live.

Total73%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]94%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]58%[/FONT]
Duncan_Hunter.jpg
Duncan Hunter
Republican Representative (CA-52)



Total73%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]88%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]63%[/FONT]
Tom_Tancredo.jpg
Tom Tancredo
Republican Representative (CO-6)


Total58%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]56%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]58%[/FONT]
John_McCain.jpg
John McCain
Republican Sr Senator (AZ); 2000 Primary Candidate for President


Total55%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]75%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]42%[/FONT]
Sam_Brownback.jpg
Sam Brownback
Republican Sr Senator (KS)


Total55%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]63%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]50%[/FONT]
Tommy Thompson
Former Secretary of H.H.S.; former Republican Governor (WI)


Total53%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]81%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]33%[/FONT]
Jim Gilmore
Former Republican VA Governor



Total53%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]69%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]42%[/FONT]
Mike Huckabee
Republican AR Governor



Total50%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]44%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]54%[/FONT]
Rudy Giuliani
Former Mayor of New York City; Republican Candidate for 2000 Senate (NY)



Total43%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]44%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]42%[/FONT]
Bill Richardson
Democratic NM Governor



Total38%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]56%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]25%[/FONT]
Mitt Romney
Retiring Republican MA



Total25%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]13%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]33%[/FONT]
Barack Obama
Democratic Jr Senator (IL); previously State



Total23%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]19%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]25%[/FONT]
John Edwards
2004 Nominee for Vice President; Former NC Senator


Total23%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]19%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]25%[/FONT]
Ron Paul
Republican Representative (TX-14); Libertarian nominee for President in 1988



Total20%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]0%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]33%[/FONT]
Mike Gravel
Former Senator (AK)


Total20%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]19%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]21%[/FONT]
Joe Biden
Democratic Sr Senator (DE)



Total18%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]6%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]25%[/FONT]
Hillary Clinton
Democratic Jr Senator (NY); former First Lady


Total15%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]0%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]25%[/FONT]
Chris Dodd
Democratic Sr Senator (CT)


Total10%
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Social[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]0%[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Economic[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]17%[/FONT]
Dennis Kucinich
Democratic Representative (OH-10)
 

ishi

New member
I have to weigh in for Ron Paul. We're in a constitutional crisis, and he's the only one who seems to have the integrity to stand behind it all the time. Will it split the vote? Maybe. I'm sick of playing these lesser-evil guessing games though. I'm voting my conscience.

I'd like to point out that our democracy isn't functioning that well, when nobody ends up voting for the candidate who really represents them.
 

doublenutz

New member
I have to weigh in for Ron Paul.

OH BOY! :eek: Our GOP is so badly fractured I am not confident that we are going to make it in again in 2008.

I fear that many of you are not getting the point. Tossing these votes in the direction for folks that will never beat Hillary will not help us in the end.

Ron Paul beat RINO Rudy ...no way
Ron Paul beat Hillary ... no way

WE MUST UNITE BEHIND CANDIDATE THE CAN DEFEAT THE LIBERAL DEMS!

There are so many of you concerned about your second amendment rights that you cannot see the forest for the trees. If Hillary makes it into office or enevn RINO Rudy those jokers will likey get a Supreme Court appointment during their time in office. If that happens... GUYS if you think your 2A rights are in trouble now you need to get a grip on tomorrows reality. The Supreme Court is interpreting the constitution and making the decisions... NOT THE FRIGGIN PRESIDENT!:eek:

Lemme say that again- The President will appoint the Supreme Court Justice that will interpret and determine the direction of your 2A rights. Do you want RINO RUDY or HILLARY making that appointment or a Fred Thompson? I would put good money behind Fred Thompson making a better SCJ appointment than those two any day.

A vote tossed in the direction of a candidate that acknowledges himself (Ron Paul) that he cannot win, is a vote cast for the other side.
 

Apollo

New member
I don't think Rudy Giuliani will win. I am voting for either Fred Thompson or Mike Huckabee. I will decide as it gets closer.
 

Red Hat

New member
Another one for Fred! I joined his team just before he declared that he was running. I'm a burned out Conservative that is fed up with so called Moderate Republicans. In my book now if you are a Moderate you are a liberal! I go to bed every night and pray that someone in SC has the balls to run against Lindsay Graham! There is still hope!

Fred for Fred in 08!
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,384
Messages
622,979
Members
74,199
Latest member
jerpar69
Top