Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.
Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by Ruble Noon, Oct 1, 2012.
20 years ago, he was made fun of for predicting our current crisis. I hope that he is wrong about this one.
"Former presidential contender and billionaire Ross Perot is worried that America is a sitting duck for an unnamed foreign invader."
That "unnamed foreign invader" has a name.
It's the Militant Islamic Fundamentalist Movement led by Iran.
20 years a go he personally started us on the road to our current crisis by causing Bill Clinton to be elected president - events like dominoes brought us from there to here.
If he couldn't predict that very obvious result, I have to question his predictive powers.
No Bren, you caused Clinton to be elected.
Many Republicans have already admitted to having a problem and are taking a harder stance on spending, which is why they're being vilified as right wing extremists by the left, even thought they're just using common sense in the face of an imminent economic disaster. Either progressivism or capitalism will get blamed for the disaster and the winner will probably drastically shape the future of this country.
Is this some deranged, bizarro version of it's Bush's fault? It's Perot's fault that it is Clinton's fault?
That's what I thought.
News flash for you Slick.
A lot of us voted for Perot and got Clinton as a result. We learned about third parties, the braindead still dream and refuse the intrusion of reality and continue of their fantasy, OR they were asleep in history class and are merely first time ignorant who haven't been taught about the effects of third parties
America has already been taken over. It is time to take it back.
The Clinton thing was my fault. I was one of the dumbasses who voted for Perot because he was the Real Deal, I was tired of voting against the "lesser of two evils", and I wanted to teach the Republican Party a lesson.
Nah, it was Bren's fault for not voting for liberty as is the crash that ensued because he voted against Perot.
No one has yet been able to show Perot's causation of Clinton. There is only a loose correlation between Perot being on the ballot and Clinton winning.
Using the same logic; someone could assume crime rates increase because more ice-cream is being sold through the summer months.
Will one of you three that keep claiming this show me some math behind how Perot caused Clinton?
An that would prove either Perot helped Clinton,
it would prove that a vote for a libertarian now, would be as useless as a vote for Perot was then,
either way it makes a case for voting Romney
Perot took many times the voters that Bush needed to beat Clinton (I posted the actual numbers in another thread). If you were around back then, you know he took the majority of them from the Republican party. Had he not done so, Bush would have won the popular vote by a very wide margin and, fairly certainly, the electoral vote.
That would have meant, no Bill Clinton, first or second term. Maybe no AWB. No Janet Reno. Likely No Waco and then no Oklahoma City, just among the first things that come to mind. Then, likely no Barack Obama, no Hillary Clinton as candidate or sec of state, a completely different course of events in the middle east - even 9/11 is fairly questionable.
George H.W. Bush had made some comments about the imminence of a "new world order" during the run-up to the first Gulf War, and that...and a few other issues that now were clearly irrelevant...caused a substantial number of conservatives to leave the Republican fold, in a snit, to vote for Perot.
That was a very costly lesson that we're still trying to dig out from under.
Yes!!! Just like Iraq about to invade us in 2003, right?
THIS is why I voted for Perot.
H. w. lost for the same reason W. would have lost had his first term looked more like his second - because he was a mealy-mouthed moderate "centrist" trying to pretend he was a conservative.
Yes, a lot of otherwise intelligent folks went with Perot. That lack of savvy, political sophistication some may call it, seems to dominate our younger set.
If you voted for Perot back then, you had lots of well-meaning company which resulted rather directly in a Republican loss. Splitting the group weakens it and the Democrats are extremely good at dividing us as we see by the efforts of Obama's admin.