Fred Thompson For 2008

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by SpeakTrue

Hmmmm, unite under who? ...

We need a sticky on the Constitution, as a lot of people don't seem to realize who is, and isn't voting for the President. The President is chosen by Congress, which is why the 270 votes are important.

Article 2 of the US Constitution (details) specifies this process, and also the 12th amendment (details). If you superimpose the bicameral (two-party) party system over top of this, it becomes clear the President is and always will be either Republican or Democrat, depending on the voting pattern of Congress. Since the voting pattern usually follows party lines (for obvious reasons), the dominant party in Congress is usually reflected in the White House.

The closest you'll ever get to voting for a President is either the Congressional elections, or the primary elections, depending on your level of cynicism.

The next question that should be asked is, why bother voting in Presidential elections? This is an uncomfortable topic for elected officials, as it implies too much separation between voters and high-ranking elected officials.

The only legal method of intalling an independent in the White House would be to fill Congress with like-minded folks first. Until then, independents are a waste of time, unless deliberately used as a spoiler to influence election outcomes as some have asserted with the 1992 elections and Ross Perot.

Article II, Section 1 and 12th Amendment - The Electoral College
The Electoral College is a peculiar American institution. When Americans vote for President and Vice-President, they do not actually vote for those people, but for electors. These electors meet in their state capitals after the general election and cast votes for President and votes for Vice-President. Though electors are pledged to the candidates of their party, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to so vote - and, in fact, every so often an elector defects from his party's candidates, though the effect on the election is usually nil. Some states have laws against electors casting such "faithless" votes, but it is unclear if anyone could actually be prosecuted under such laws, since the electors are protected by the Constitution (though not in so many words).

Source

If you're wondering who the next President will be, it's won't be Republican. You can thank Mr. Bush for scotching hopes for election victories from his escapade in Iraq.

So, it's either Hillary or Obama. Either way we lose big time.

[NineseveN]

I love how people are trying to fabricate a clear difference in the amount of recognition that Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have...there really is none. He was on a TV show...so what? Ask a hundred people who Fred Thompson THE POLITICIAN is, you'll get the same blank stare as you might with Ron Paul, except, Ron Paul IS actually running and due to the debates, his name IS actually out there.

Fred who?


I suspect that all this "I'd vote for Ron Paul, but no one knows him and he's not electable" is simply a smokescreen for something else. Thompson, at this point, is a dead horse no one even knows about...he's not even running. You might as well say, "I'd vote for Ron Paul, but I'm holding out for Jerry Mathers, people know him and he's more electable".

Ron Paul has made the top googled ranks, has clearly won the first GOP debate, has a ton of exposure on youtube/google video/myspace and from the Gun owners of America, the Libertarian groups, the Republican Liberty caucus...all he needs is to pick up in the media a bit more...he's made great strides for being such a "nobody".

But yeah, Ron who?


The truth is, I suspect the vast majority of his "I'd vote for him too but..." folks really wouldn't vote for him because he's far too married to actual liberty for their tastes, they'd prefer a more thoecratic/conservative/neoncon/statist/LEO/military/whatever type of rule, they just don't want to be outed as half-way supporters of liberty.

Those that don't like his stances (especially on the war or the gold standard) have a much more valid argument than a candidate's popularity...the majority of boobtube americans haven't heard of any of these people other than Hillary, Obama, Rudy and McCain...if it goes purely by recognition and support BEFORE the election, then we're fucked either way.

[TwistedCopper]

Originally Posted by PA Rifleman

We need a sticky on the Constitution, as a lot of people don't seem to realize who is, and isn't voting for the President. The President is chosen by Congress, which is why the 270 votes are important.

Article 2 of the US Constitution (details) specifies this process, and also the 12th amendment (details). If you superimpose the bicameral (two-party) party system over top of this, it becomes clear the President is and always will be either Republican or Democrat, depending on the voting pattern of Congress. Since the voting pattern usually follows party lines (for obvious reasons), the dominant party in Congress is usually reflected in the White House.

The closest you'll ever get to voting for a President is either the Congressional elections, or the primary elections, depending on your level of cynicism.

The next question that should be asked is, why bother voting in Presidential elections? This is an uncomfortable topic for elected officials, as it implies too much separation between voters and high-ranking elected officials.

The only legal method of intalling an independent in the White House would be to fill Congress with like-minded folks first. Until then, independents are a waste of time, unless deliberately used as a spoiler to influence election outcomes as some have asserted with the 1992 elections and Ross Perot.

Article II, Section 1 and 12th Amendment - The Electoral College
The Electoral College is a peculiar American institution. When Americans vote for President and Vice-President, they do not actually vote for those people, but for electors. These electors meet in their state capitals after the general election and cast votes for President and votes for Vice-President. Though electors are pledged to the candidates of their party, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring them to so vote - and, in fact, every so often an elector defects from his party's candidates, though the effect on the election is usually nil. Some states have laws against electors casting such "faithless" votes, but it is unclear if anyone could actually be prosecuted under such laws, since the electors are protected by the Constitution (though not in so many words).

Source

If you're wondering who the next President will be, it's won't be Republican. You can thank Mr. Bush for scotching hopes for election victories from his escapade in Iraq.

So, it's either Hillary or Obama. Either way we lose big time.

Although it is true that the votes are cast by the congressmen, they vote for the candidate who wins their district. No, they don't have to, but they do. To not do so will almost guarantee not being re-elected.

Democrats and Republicans will do a lot to support their party, sell their souls it seems, but give up their seat? Idonthinkso

IF there was ever an election where congressmen ignored the popular vote of their constituants to get their party's candidate in office I can't remember it. Gore lost the electoral but won the popular vote, but not because of party patronage, it's just how the numbers fell.

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I love how people are trying to fabricate a clear difference in the amount of recognition that Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have...there really is none

Well I am sorry to tell you there is a difference. A big difference. Why? Because no one is talking about Ron Paul. Fred T. is a topic on talk radio, News talk shows, etc.

Fred Thompson has got name recognition, and when his ads hit the TV he's got a familiar face. Like it or not that is invaluable to a candidate. Ronald Reagan had it.


Ron Paul is a little known guy from Texas. While they both have an uphill battle, Ron Paul hasn't even got his name into the ring yet.

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by TwistedCopper

...IF there was ever an election where congressmen ignored the popular vote of their constituants [sic] to get their party's candidate in office I can't remember it. ....

You're referring to a faithless elector (details - Wilkipedia article). It goes on to list quite a few wayward constituents as recent as 2004.

This remains a dormant issue until a close presidential election, restirring public awareness of the electoral college and calls for reform.

Getting back to the main topic, the main point of my earlier post was illustrating the unlikelihood of an independent in the While House. I wish them well, but they're wasting their time without congressional endorsement. That said, there must be some other incentive to run in an election where their loss is certain.

[TrybalRage]

Originally Posted by TwistedCopper

Well I am sorry to tell you there is a difference. A big difference. Why? Because no one is talking about Ron Paul. Fred T. is a topic on talk radio, News talk shows, etc.

Fred Thompson has got name recognition, and when his ads hit the TV he's got a familiar face. Like it or not that is invaluable to a candidate. Ronald Reagan had it.


Ron Paul is a little known guy from Texas. While they both have an uphill battle, Ron Paul hasn't even got his name into the ring yet.

He's on the news because he's just another R.

Giuliani, Thompson, McCain... If you look past the gun issue, where Thompson stands out, its more of the same crap.

This 2 time GWB supporter is now sick of the same crap. I want radical change.

[NineseveN]

That's the question I find still jumbling around in my head, aside from the gun issue, how is Thompson much better than the other Republicans? Where else does he really stand out in a positive way?



Perhaps some of his more ardent supporters could illustrate that for us, I'm not familiar enough with his history to make an honest observation on that just yet.

[SpeakTrue]

Originally Posted by NineseveN

I love how people are trying to fabricate a clear difference in the amount of recognition that Ron Paul and Fred Thompson have...there really is none. He was on a TV show...so what? Ask a hundred people who Fred Thompson THE POLITICIAN is, you'll get the same blank stare as you might with Ron Paul, except, Ron Paul IS actually running and due to the debates, his name IS actually out there.

Fred who?


I suspect that all this "I'd vote for Ron Paul, but no one knows him and he's not electable" is simply a smokescreen for something else. Thompson, at this point, is a dead horse no one even knows about...he's not even running. You might as well say, "I'd vote for Ron Paul, but I'm holding out for Jerry Mathers, people know him and he's more electable".

Ron Paul has made the top googled ranks, has clearly won the first GOP debate, has a ton of exposure on youtube/google video/myspace and from the Gun owners of America, the Libertarian groups, the Republican Liberty caucus...all he needs is to pick up in the media a bit more...he's made great strides for being such a "nobody".

But yeah, Ron who?


The truth is, I suspect the vast majority of his "I'd vote for him too but..." folks really wouldn't vote for him because he's far too married to actual liberty for their tastes, they'd prefer a more thoecratic/conservative/neoncon/statist/LEO/military/whatever type of rule, they just don't want to be outed as half-way supporters of liberty.

Those that don't like his stances (especially on the war or the gold standard) have a much more valid argument than a candidate's popularity...the majority of boobtube americans haven't heard of any of these people other than Hillary, Obama, Rudy and McCain...if it goes purely by recognition and support BEFORE the election, then we're fucked either way.

All right, that's it...if you're pushing Jerry Mathers then I can't take it any MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET'S ALL UNITE BEHIND GARY COLEMAN...YES GARY COLEMAN...

Here's a man...a little man, efficient here in the 21st century...who hasn;t had a decent job since he was a child actor except as a security guard and i think he went out with Tonya Harding once on TV for a few bucks...

That's right he was an actor...just like Fred Thompson...he seems kind of sleazy like John McCain...and again he's a small little bugger like Ron paul...ron who?....he's just about as freaky and wierd to me as Hillary...oh and he's black...like Obama...he's kind of Nazi like Giuliani is....I think he may be a Morman or wants to be like Mit...who mit? Mit? Obama Rudy Mit Hill...Doesn't anyone have a real name anymore...well GARY COLEMAN DOES>>.....

GARY COLEMAN FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!!!!!!! THIS MAN COULD BE OUR IDI AMIN!!

[dgg9]

Originally Posted by SpeakTrue

All right, that's it...if you're pushing Jerry Mathers then I can't take it any MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!
LET'S ALL UNITE BEHIND GARY COLEMAN...YES GARY COLEMAN...

Here's a man...a little man, efficient here in the 21st century...

He could brag about his small "carbon footprint."

[SpeakTrue]

Originally Posted by dgg9

He could brag about his small "carbon footprint."

THANK YOU dgg...you made my century!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!

[ChamberedRound]

Looks like Fred is going to run after all:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefi...whos_hurt.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...053000583.html