Fred Thompson for Poker?

[Wahoo73]

[ QUOTE ]
He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source and/or citation for this assertion? Sorry...I won't believe the veracity of this allegation without some proof that he is really "promising" to do these things.

[Skallagrim]

Hard to resist saying I told you so ... we see the group he is playing too and one doesnt get any votes from that group by saying "of course I would sign a "legalized internet Poker/Gambling bill."

Skallagrim

PS - if the poster who knows Al D. reads this, would you give your opinion of whether to believe Al D. IF Al D. were to say "trust me, Fred cant say it, but he would sign the bill."

[4_2_it]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the final warning to keep any Hillary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Giuliani or McCain bashing/supporting out of here (unless you tie it directly to the OP's subject). If you must, just head to politics.........

I'll start by saying I understand what you're striving to avoid here. However, any discussion regarding legislation that includes an opinion about that legislation is by definition a discussion of politics.

If I were hired as a consultant to analyze and critique the taxonomy of this site, I would recommend that *Poker Legislation* is more properly placed as a sub-topic under *politics* than a subtopic under *General Poker.*

This specific forum is more about government than poker. How can we adequately discuss Fred Thompson's position on poker legislation if we have to avoid discussing his candidacy for President or the positions of his opponents?

That being said, I will adhere to your restrictions as best I can.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kurn,

I am not afraid of politics encroaching in this forum. There is a natural overlap, but there is no need for partisan rants or Clinton bashing based on the original subject of this thread. Having an opinion on how Hillary or Obama feels about poker and contrasting that to Thompson's views is fine and encouraged.

What I was trying to prevent was a thread about Fred Thompson's views on poker being hijacked into a "How electable is Hillary Clinton" thread. I had no other agenda.

I don't mind discussing candidacies. Look back in this thread. There were 3 short posts in row there were basically "Hillary sucks", "No she doesn't" "Yes she does, I'm not voting for her" with no support or logical argument. That's what is not acceptable.

[Legislurker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He is promising an amendment to ban gay marriage.............and to overturn Roe v Wade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Source and/or citation for this assertion? Sorry...I won't believe the veracity of this allegation without some proof that he is really "promising" to do these things.

[/ QUOTE ]

He was in Iowa today and I turned on CNN as obg said at 4pm.
I can't remember which of Turner's douchebags was covering it, but wrapped up Thompson's "life" statements at the State Fair as promising those things. I can't put out a press release, but I don't think CNN would make it up.

[Wahoo73]

Don't misunderstand me...there is little if no doubt in my mind that Thompson would be opposed to gay marraige and abortion as a matter of principle and policy. However, as President he would neither have the power to create an amendment to ban gay marriage (only Congress would) nor would he have the power to overturn Roe v Wade (only the Supreme Court would). Therefore, I am extremely skeptical that he would be "promising" to do either of these things, inasmuch as I'm confident he knows he would be unable to deliver either promise.

Knowing the bias that exists at CNN, if indeed the reporter said Thompson is "promising" to do these things, I suspect Thompson's positions have been mischaracterized. If this was reported by CNN, then there must be a record available of the report. Would you please attempt to find it for all of us so that we could have assurances that what you said is true?

[oldbookguy]

I watched as well and at the conclusion, the reporter "reported" that Thompson would push for the gay marriage amendment and seek to appoint judges to overturn RvW.
Would he do those, I do not know.
agreed, CNN is very liberal and reporters offer opinions as news a lot.
the conservative Fox reports and makes a big deal that he lobbied for abortion rights (which he did).
Seems neither side is pleased with his stance......
Also, he did meet with a rep from the evangelicals and he was interviewed but only stated a meeting took place and had no comment either way as to Thompson’s positions.

obg

[Legislurker]

This wouldnt be a [censored] issue if the primary system wasnt so gd broken. EVERY state has ChristaNazis, SC and Iowa especially. Republicans need to remember they can win national elections without totally pandering. Giuliani is their best run-off guy as is. Is it worth all that time for Visa and Viagra commercials? Would be great to have a moderate wing REFUSE to rally behind any panderer. Bush isn't a Christian in the least, but he has "honoured' the deal he made with the devil to get elected, and governs for them. Bush knew he owed them, and paid. You can't jsut move away in politics and expect nothing to happen.

[Skallagrim]

Whether Thompson "promised" those things or merely promised to "support" those things, the point for us is still the same: the people he is playing to are not people who will ever side with legalized internet gambling or poker.

And as legislurker points out, if these are the people who get you elected, you dont cross them if you want to be re-elected.

Skallagrim

[fnurt]

Thompson apparently "amended" his statement later to explain that he doesn't support an amendment to ban gay marriage, he just supports an amendment to prevent any state from forcing other states to have gay marriage. It's not really worth getting into, but it's kind of an embarrassing position for a legally trained person to take.

The more important point, as others have noted, is that this plants him firmly in the Dobson camp. It's hard to imagine anyone would take strong positions on abortion and gay marriage to please the likes of Dobson, and then go against them by supporting online gambling. Just not gonna happen.

[Cactus Jack]

The problem for Republican candidates is they must pander to get the nomination, then move away to win the election. That won't work. The country got fooled once, but not twice. Thompson is caught in the dilemma, and sounds as if he won't be able to walk to fine line. The small percentage of people that seem to count the most in the Republican Party are not going to ever wise up and see they are doing to their party exactly what the far left did to the Dems. Both will always believe they are fundamentally right. While they could in fact both be right, that doesn't mean it works for most of the people.

The problem is you need both fringe groups as a moral compass. When the compass becomes the driving force, things tend to go off the cliff.

Thompson cannot be elected, so there's really little point to much more discussion. As I said previously, one actor per 200 years, please.