:eek7:



i wonder what would have happened if he got elected President ?


We had a thingy about that in class ... but I was snoozing. what year was that again ? :eek3:


:confused:

Hello, Dr. Tweedbucket. Are you in high school or college or an insane asylum? :)

i wonder what would have happened if he got elected President ?

We had a thingy about that in class ... but I was snoozing. what year was that again ?

Perot talked about making sacrifices, and I do not think the American public (including me) wanted to sacrifice. Just my opinion.

Perot is an interesting guy. I’ve a friend who worked for EDS for 20 years. He met Ross Perot the first week he worked there. Three months later, my friend (Jack) bumped into Perot on the elevator. Perot said, “Hi, Jack. How’s it going? How is Nancy?” (Jack’s wife.) Jack was astounded.

He later found out that Perot had made it a hobby to remember people that he met.

There never was a chance for his candidacy. He was there solely to split the Republican vote and to get Clinton elected so that his welfare check company would stay in business.

There never was a chance for his candidacy.

That is a fact.

He was there solely to split the Republican vote and to get Clinton elected so that
his welfare check company would stay in business.

He certainly was there, at least in part, to take votes away from Bush. He succeeded, too.

What do you mean by his welfare check company would stay in business? I am not flaming. I really do not understand what you mean. I hope you can explain that.

I hear a huge Sucking Sound.

Probably the echo of my brain creating a vaccum in my head as it ran screaming from this thread.

Being an informed voter, I still have his book United We Stand: How We Can Take Our Country Back. Too bad Ross went insane and allowed split the Republican vote that got Clinton elected. :(

Some of the ideas in his book, though better than the ideas presented in the Al Gore Bill Clinton campaign book, have been proven to be incorrect.

Perot's one issue was fiscal responsibility. Since that was achieved in the Clinton administration, his candidacy was a success.

He sure was right about free trade...

Why the hell did billionaire Perot claim the Chimp's father was trying to screw up his daughter's wedding? I wonder if that was the turning point in his chances.

Why the hell did billionaire Perot claim the Chimp's father was trying to screw up his daughter's wedding? I wonder if that was the turning point in his chances.Yeah, he kinda went off the deep end with that stuff...crazy...

wonder what would have happened if he got elected President ?Probably a whole lot of nothing (which would have been fine with me) because neither the Dems or Reps would work with him, I'm sure.

I agree with Crim about the free trade issue with Perot. But, people seemed to have ignored that message. Of course, they ignored Buchanan when he brought it up too. People understand that they're losing their jobs and that the jobs are going overseas...but when politicians start talking about it, for some reason people don't want to listen.

Honestly, I think the idea of electing a Third Party (or independent) president is pure folly. A party needs to establish itself in local and state governments first. Then, capture some seats in the Congress. After that, they'll be ready to elect a president...not before.


We had a thingy about that in class ... but I was snoozing. what year was that again ? :eek3: The year was 1992.

How about that Admiral Stockdale guy that was Perot's running mate? I think that screwed up Perot's chances of being elected more than anything else.
Also, the idea that anytime a third candidate runs it is simply "taking away" votes from a democrat or republican is, in my opinion, a big part of what's wrong with the political process in this country.
Why should we be limited to choosing between a**hole A and a**hole B?
For instance, people affiliated with both parties still continue to have the Bush/Kerry debate all the time. However, they were both rich kids educated at the finest schools. They were not that different when you get right down to it. Had Kerry been elected, I think nothing would have changed.

He sure was right about free trade...

If I am not mistaken, his son (also Ross) took the opposite position on free trade.

I seem to recall that a lot of people laughed at jokes made about Ross Perot. He probably laughed all the way to the bank when he (1)built EDS into a company that GM wanted, and (2)sold it to GM for bunches of $$.

Also, the idea that anytime a third candidate runs it is simply "taking away" votes from a democrat or republican is, in my opinion, a big part of what's wrong with the political process in this country.
Why should we be limited to choosing between a**hole A and a**hole B?To some extent, I agree with you. Yes, you should vote for the person you believe is truly the best. I used to vote for Third Party presidential candidates. However, as I said earlier, the chances of a Third Party presidential candidate getting elected are truly and most definitely zero in today's political climate. Why? Well, it is like I said before...there exists no grass-roots structure to hold them up. It simply isn't realistic. I mean, it's like saying you have a real chance to win the Indy 500 when you've never even driven a car before. It just isn't going to happen.

So...once again...my advice is to vote for the "lesser of two evils" in presidential elections for the time being. But, work to help local Third Party candidates elected. When I say "work", I mean donating your time and money to actually helping these people get into local offices. It can be done (actually, it is being done in some places). Once we start doing that, we will start to undermine the base of the two major parties. The foundations will start to fall out from under them and new parties will emerge. That will be the time for the new parties to seek higher and higher offices. Until then, it is just a waste of time to try to get Buchanan, Perot, Browne or Nader elected.

Had Kerry been elected, I think nothing would have changed.I think you are correct. I have been of the opinion for a long time that not much changed between Clinton and GWB...in terms of the basic issues that are important to all of us. Sure, the stock market went down (well...actually not that much..the Dow is still at 10,600 or so, that's only about 400 points off the all-time high), but I don't think it is really possible to blame Bush for that. Can someone indicate the policy that GWB put forward to make that happen? Anyway...spending has not been curtailed...and our deficit problems are due to the economy's failure to keep up tax revenues with spending increases...again, I don't think Bush can be directly blamed (although he should have been pushing for budget cuts when revenues went down). Concerning free-trade, both Clinton and GWB are proponents....concerning illegal immigration, neither of them did a thing about it. The list goes on and on...

The only point where I disagree with you is about voting for the lesser of two evils in presdential elections.
That is exactly the type of behaviour the two major parties want to promote.
Once most people start voting their conscience instead of which of two parties they like, then we will see other political viewpoints get some consideration.
For instance, in the next Presidential election if 15% of the people voted independent, then it is still certain that a Democrat or Republican would win.
However, the party in power would have to do something to appease that 15%, or their base would continue to erode. So, voting, in my opinion, is the only real power people have to enact change, albeit sometimes it is indirectly.

What do you mean by his welfare check company would stay in business? I am not flaming. I really do not understand what you mean. I hope you can explain that.

His company printed the checks for welfare. That was how he became so rich.

My belief is that he felt that Clinton would do less to reform welfare and hence he would still be in all that government green.

if Perot had gotten elected, he wouldn't have been able to agree with the Congress on anything. He probably would have veto'd every bill that got sent his way, and none of the congresspeople would have written legislation that he asked for.

In other words, it would have been the best presidency in American history, because it would have crippled the federal government's ability to suck up all our money :nice: