Ross Perot, former presidential candidate, dies at 89 - Page 5 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

General Discussion Anything non-survival related - news and information, current events, general chit-chat stuff.

Advertise Here
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-12-2019, 11:07 AM
comdot comdot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,809
Thanks: 2,558
Thanked 27,379 Times in 4,540 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
People claiming Bush was a weak candidate, or unpopular, etc. don't remember history very well.

Bush had the 3rd highest Presidential approval rating according to Gallup since WWII. (And Kennedy was probably a sympathetic anomaly given his assassination and the "dynasty" etc. We won't know how good or bad his Presidency might have been). And the highest approval in my lifetime. Some by a double digit difference.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/116677/...cs-trends.aspx

In the relevant modern era, he was the only 1 term POTUS even with approval ratings higher than other 2 term Presidents like Reagan, Clinton, Obama, Bush Jr....

The ONLY explanation is Perot. Bush lost 6 million votes from 1988 to 1992. Clinton got more votes than Dukakus, but that accounts for a general increase in voting population. Perot got 19 million votes. Bush went backwards 6 million, which is unusual. So it's fair to say that the 6 million he lost, and probably another 5+ million he should have gained, were due to Perot. So at least 10+ million of those were Bush's and would have given Bush a re-election.

Harry Truman April 1945-January 1953 45.4
Dwight Eisenhower January 1953-January 1961 65.0
John Kennedy January 1961-November 1963 70.1
Lyndon Johnson November 1963-January 1969 55.1
Richard Nixon January 1969-August 1974 49.0
Gerald Ford August 1974-January 1977 47.2
Jimmy Carter January 1977-January 1981 45.5
Ronald Reagan January 1981-January 1989 52.8
George H.W. Bush January 1989-January 1993 60.9
Bill Clinton January 1993-January 2001 55.1
George W. Bush January 2001-January 2009 49.4
Barack Obama January 2009-January 2017 47.9
1992 was the first demonstration of the power of the Amnesty act of 1986. Republicans lost California and Bush lost over 1.5 million votes, one fourth of his deficit, between 88 and 92.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to comdot For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 11:10 AM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,015
Thanks: 23,113
Thanked 30,843 Times in 7,467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by comdot View Post
1992 was the first demonstration of the power of the Amnesty act of 1986. Republicans lost California and Bush lost over 1.5 million votes, one fourth of his deficit, between 88 and 92.
Maybe true. But even without CA's 54 EC votes with similar total Bush still crushes Clinton in 92 but for Perot who bled off conservative voters.

Trump handily beat Clinton in an upset (really making it a blowout given he was a 10 to 1 underdog), even having lost California and losing the popular vote.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 12:45 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,847
Thanks: 2,363
Thanked 15,970 Times in 6,713 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble View Post
Lol!!
Did this make sense to you when you wrote it?
Liberals voting for Perot cost Bush the election.
The point was to show Perot was a higher, more tax man not a conservative. He was a tax the money that had already been taxed man by favoring higher taxes on Social Security. Therefore people that supported Perot may have thought of themselves as conservative by practice and ideology were liberals. They were a contradiction.

I had an 8th grade teacher. Her favorite saying was, "I cannot hear what you say because what you do speaks so loudly."

That saying fits perfectly you Perot supporters and defenders.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 01:03 PM
comdot comdot is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 5,809
Thanks: 2,558
Thanked 27,379 Times in 4,540 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PalmettoTree View Post
The point was to show Perot was a higher, more tax man not a conservative. He was a tax the money that had already been taxed man by favoring higher taxes on Social Security. Therefore people that supported Perot may have thought of themselves as conservative by practice and ideology were liberals. They were a contradiction.

I had an 8th grade teacher. Her favorite saying was, "I cannot hear what you say because what you do speaks so loudly."

That saying fits perfectly you Perot supporters and defenders.
There are some fiscal conservatives that believe if you're going to spend trillions on big government and you aren't willing to cut excessive spending because its too difficult politically, then you need to pay for it with taxes rather than borrow money and grow the national debt.

It has nothing to do with the politicians mentioned, dead or otherwise, but just a fact of life.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to comdot For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 02:17 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
The ONLY explanation is Perot. Bush lost 6 million votes from 1988 to 1992. Clinton got more votes than Dukakus, but that accounts for a general increase in voting population. Perot got 19 million votes. Bush went backwards 6 million, which is unusual. So it's fair to say that the 6 million he lost, and probably another 5+ million he should have gained, were due to Perot. So at least 10+ million of those were Bush's and would have given Bush a re-election.
Woulda coulda shoulda. If uncle Ken had boobs we'd call him aunt. If that Perot meanie hadn't entered the race, Bush woulda won. If 200 people hadn't laced up to run in the 5k, I woulda won, or at least placed in the top 3.

No one else here besides you guys are crying about politics being tough, competitive, unfair and treacherous.

Perot ran a campaign based on something that most beltway, campaign and media advisors would tell you is tantamount to suicide. Bare knuckled truth and candor. Not easy or fun stuff to hear. The kind of stuff that goes over like a turd in a punch bowl in DC and makes you plenty of enemies. By 2016 some conservatives were ready to start listening and give an outsider a shot.

If youve got some self loathing to do about your Clinton vote, thats fine, but leave us the hell out of it.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 03:20 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,015
Thanks: 23,113
Thanked 30,843 Times in 7,467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Woulda coulda shoulda. If uncle Ken had boobs we'd call him aunt. If that Perot meanie hadn't entered the race, Bush woulda won. If 200 people hadn't laced up to run in the 5k, I woulda won, or at least placed in the top 3.

No one else here besides you guys are crying about politics being tough, competitive, unfair and treacherous.

Perot ran a campaign based on something that most beltway, campaign and media advisors would tell you is tantamount to suicide. Bare knuckled truth and candor. Not easy or fun stuff to hear. The kind of stuff that goes over like a turd in a punch bowl in DC and makes you plenty of enemies. By 2016 some conservatives were ready to start listening and give an outsider a shot.

If youve got some self loathing to do about your Clinton vote, thats fine, but leave us the hell out of it.
I think you're misinterpreting at least what I'm writing. I'm not crying about anything. I'm simply preserving factual reality.

Perot harmed the nation by helping Clinton defeat Bush. Perot had zero chance. Wasted a truckload of money. Achieved nothing positive and not a single EC vote. Proving again that 3rd party votes are for morons, and often HARM the nation by being a spoiler and defeating the better candidate. In this case Bush was a fantastic alternative to Clinton.

But for Perot... we'd never have the blight known as the Clintons for the last 3 decades.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 04:39 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
I think you're misinterpreting at least what I'm writing. I'm not crying about anything. I'm simply preserving factual reality.

Perot harmed the nation by helping Clinton defeat Bush. Perot had zero chance. Wasted a truckload of money. Achieved nothing positive and not a single EC vote. Proving again that 3rd party votes are for morons, and often HARM the nation by being a spoiler and defeating the better candidate. In this case Bush was a fantastic alternative to Clinton.

But for Perot... we'd never have the blight known as the Clintons for the last 3 decades.
Not much to misinterpret honestly, I know a dead-ender when I'm talkin to one. You've done everything but stand on your head to illustrate you kneel at the altar of establishment/dynasty agenda and party over principle type pragmatism. Every.Damn.Time.

Well, the last 2 decades was almost exclusively Bush/Clinton/estab dynasty excrement. Two decades on, two back to back losses running establishment hacks like McCain and Romney and the gop STILL! ran against Trump.

Where do you think this is all going?? The party is thumping a very distinct message against your skull but I dont think anyones home.

Last edited by Fonz; 07-12-2019 at 05:46 PM.. Reason: Phrase clarification.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 04:43 PM
Crackshot's Avatar
Crackshot Crackshot is online now
Joe McCarthy was Right!
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Alabama by choice
Posts: 4,584
Thanks: 7,104
Thanked 8,801 Times in 2,818 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Sorry, but no. See post #77 for proof.
I lived it. You can take your "proof" and stick it.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 05:42 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crackshot View Post
I lived it. You can take your "proof" and stick it.
So did I. After all this time if the only thing you've taken away from all of it is party>principled conservatism, you can take your stick and continue to flick it. Thats all you've been doing anyhow.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 07:07 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,015
Thanks: 23,113
Thanked 30,843 Times in 7,467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
Not much to misinterpret honestly, I know a dead-ender when I'm talkin to one. You've done everything but stand on your head to illustrate you kneel at the altar of establishment/dynasty agenda and party over principle type pragmatism. Every.Damn.Time.

Well, the last 2 decades was almost exclusively Bush/Clinton/estab dynasty excrement. Two decades on, two back to back losses running establishment hacks like McCain and Romney and the gop STILL! ran against Trump.

Where do you think this is all going?? The party is thumping a very distinct message against your skull but I dont think anyones home.
Well, that's an interesting (albeit incorrect) assertion.

Whilst so many others were for establishment candidates in 2016, I was pretty solidly Trump. So many here were for "3rd parties" and I was solidly Trump. So many here were "they're the same between Clinton and Trump..." Yet I was solidly Trump.

Trump has been overall fantastic. A 3rd party vote would have given Hillary the election, btw, just like in 1992...

If you're not aware, Hillary is a Clinton and a deep swamp creature. Trump is not a swamp creature...

Tell me more about how 3rd party votes are useful, given not a single 3rd party has even scored 1 EC vote in relevant history... out of thousands of votes scored.

Winners make the rules and laws and policies and have the power.
Losers are a footnote in history.
3rd parties are lower than losers.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 09:17 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

LMAO. Based on what he was campaigning on at the time, Trump WAS the third party candidate. Said differently, YOU wasted your third party vote on Trump. So did I. So did alot of other people who like us, wouldnt even consider voting for bernie or hillary but were also sick of the Gop's usual crop of Bush-clone lackeys.

Don't you remember the debates? Trump was in the Gop's house, smashing their plates, slaughtering all of their sacred cows and walking around wiping his ass on their drapes. NOONE wanted him gone more than they did. Remember the party op-eds that were in the newspapers?

You're smitten with the party but it could care less about you, your children, or the country overall. Have you thought any of this through, at all, beyond Trump and hopefully the next 4 short years?
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Fonz For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:23 PM
Ruble Ruble is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,145
Thanks: 3,106
Thanked 7,510 Times in 2,232 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
Well, once again the idealists were morons and dumb. Voting for a less-than-perfect candidate results in throwing away your vote and voice and gives us the WORST POSSIBLE CANDIDATE. Eliminating good votes results in only bad votes being counted.

Bush wasn't a bad POTUS. He had a very high approval, and he only lost 6 million votes. Like I said, had it been a binary choice, he'd have won in a landslide like against Dukakus.

Let's not forget Clinton was a draft dodging pot smoker with an already dubious record on maltreatment of women. He won the least by far popular vote over any modern era POTUS with 43%... he was not likable.

Perot gave us the Clintons. Like it or not that's the reality.

Full disclosure, I was dumb and voted for Clinton in my youth.
LMAO!

You voted for Clinton and are accusing us and Perot of getting Clinton elected?
With that revelation we know what weight to give your opinion.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to Ruble For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:25 PM
ksmedman's Avatar
ksmedman ksmedman is offline
Dunning-Kruger Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 6,794
Thanks: 10,806
Thanked 19,227 Times in 4,993 Posts
Default Rick Perry was a fan

This week, the nation remembers Ross Perot for his success in business, his two independent White House bids and his no-nonsense, straight Texas talk. His love of country, larger-than-life personality and generosity are all part of his legacy that will live on. But there is another little-known part of the life of Ross Perot that should be told now that he is gone. He was a tireless, but private, supporter of our wounded veterans.

During my time as governor of this great state, I had the honor and privilege of knowing countless warriors who stepped forward to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan and returned home with horrific wounds of war. U.S. Army Cpl. Alan Babin Jr. is one such hero.

While serving in Iraq in 2003 as a medic in the 82nd Airborne, Alan was shot in the abdomen while tending to a fallen comrade. While Alan survived his injury, he faced a long and difficult road to recovery, complicated by the onset of meningitis and a stroke-induced coma that left him confined to a wheelchair for the rest of his life.

On the one-year anniversary of his wounding, I joined Alan and his family for a small gathering. He was still in very bad shape, neurologically and physically incapacitated. When I asked his mother, Rosie, what I could do to help, she said she was eager to get him out of the hospital and back home, but struggling with the prospect of transporting Alan to his many medical visits.

I knew there was one person to call: Ross Perot. What happened next still amazes me to this day. The next morning, Ross personally called Rosie and made arrangements for his plane to pick up the Babins in Austin and fly them to Dallas where Alan could be seen by leading neurologists at Zale Lipshy University Hospital.

When the hospital elevators opened, Ross was standing there to meet Alan personally and ensure that he got the best of care. Later that day, Rosie was handed a key to a hotel room across the street so she could be close to Alan throughout his extended stay.

It didn't stop there.

When Rosie returned to the family home in Round Rock for her daughter's prom, Ross visited privately with Alan to sit with him and make sure he wasn't alone.


Ross Perot visits wounded veteran Alan Babin. (Rosie Babin)

After three weeks in Dallas, Alan and Rosie returned home to Austin on Ross' plane. When they arrived home, a fully customized luxury conversion van equipped with a wheelchair lift was waiting for them in their driveway.

Later when they spoke, Ross told Rosie two things: "One phone call is all you ever need to make if you need anything. Now, I want you to focus on Alan." And that is exactly what happened.

In 2005, when Alan needed to return to Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Ross flew the Babins to Washington, D.C., and arranged for a private ambulance to pick him up on the tarmac and transport him to the hospital.

Today, Alan and his parents live together in a specially adapted smarthome provided by the generosity of another great champion of our wounded warriors, Gary Sinise. Thanks to the support of patriots like Gary and Ross, Alan has progressed in his limited physical ability to become an accomplished adaptive skier, hand cyclist and golfer.

Over the years, Rosie has come to call those who rushed to Alan's aid "Alan's Angels," but the title "Big Angel" is and will forever be reserved for Ross Perot.

While alive, Ross would have shunned any effort to grant him credit for his support of Alan and the untold others he quietly helped through unimaginably challenging times. But now that he is gone, everyone should know the quality of the man that our state, our nation and our wounded veterans have lost.

God bless Ross Perot.

Rick Perry is the former governor of Texas.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/c...article_inline
__________________
“There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally, and attempting to make them equal.” – Frederich Hayek
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ksmedman For This Useful Post:
Old 07-12-2019, 09:28 PM
leadcounsel's Avatar
leadcounsel leadcounsel is online now
Comic, not your lawyer!
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 10,015
Thanks: 23,113
Thanked 30,843 Times in 7,467 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fonz View Post
LMAO. Based on what he was campaigning on at the time, Trump WAS the third party candidate. Said differently, YOU wasted your third party vote on Trump. So did I. So did alot of other people who like us, wouldnt even consider voting for bernie or hillary but were also sick of the Gop's usual crop of Bush-clone lackeys.

Don't you remember the debates? Trump was in the Gop's house, smashing their plates, slaughtering all of their sacred cows and walking around wiping his ass on their drapes. NOONE wanted him gone more than they did. Remember the party op-eds that were in the newspapers?

You're smitten with the party but it could care less about you, your children, or the country overall. Have you thought any of this through, at all, beyond Trump and hopefully the next 4 short years?
False.
Trump was intelligent. He took it to the primaries and beat the condenders to get the GOP nomination for the BINARY race. He'd have lost as a 3rd party, with votes split between him and a GOP nominee (Bush or Cruz), and Hillary would have won. That would have been a repeat of 1992. Trump was smarter than that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble View Post
LMAO!

You voted for Clinton and are accusing us and Perot of getting Clinton elected?
With that revelation we know what weight to give your opinion.
Yup. I'm honest. I've repeatedly admitted my foolishness as a naive idealistic young college student when I voted for slick Willie. My 1 vote was one of 45 million. So I'll take 1/45 millionth of the blame.

I would hope a reasonable person would allow for others the ability to learn and change over 3 subsequent decades...
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 10:25 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by leadcounsel View Post
False.
Trump was intelligent. He took it to the primaries and beat the condenders to get the GOP nomination for the BINARY race. He'd have lost as a 3rd party, with votes split between him and a GOP nominee (Bush or Cruz), and Hillary would have won. That would have been a repeat of 1992. Trump was smarter than that.
You're not fooling anyone with repetition and word salad.

Yes, Trump was smart with his messaging and shoving a trojan horse 3rd party candidacy down the republican party's throat for them to choke on, so agreed, and I've already stated as much.

What isn't so smart, is you trying, and failing badly at, denigrating an admirable American who, as was perfectly legal and his right, ran a campaign focused on pointing out the unaddressed issues that would shape the nation's future, as a spoiler because of your apparent self loathing for voting Clinton. Not terribly classy either especially in light of so many people posting up examples of his good works and testaments to the strength of his character.

The remainder of your posts in this thread amounts to nothing more than your highly implausible and unprovable speculation and musings about what might have been had Clinton never taken office but Bush had.

From what I can see, your efforts in this thread have failed to convince anyone of the merits of your position or changed their mind and have only served to muck up a RiP thread again like you did with the Steven Hawking one. Tasteless, dumb and pathetic overall.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 10:27 PM
Fonz Fonz is offline
Paleoconservative
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: USSA
Posts: 808
Thanks: 4,374
Thanked 1,776 Times in 595 Posts
Default

Nice post BTW, ksmedman.
Quick reply to this message
Old 07-12-2019, 10:55 PM
PalmettoTree PalmettoTree is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 11,847
Thanks: 2,363
Thanked 15,970 Times in 6,713 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by comdot View Post
There are some fiscal conservatives that believe if you're going to spend trillions on big government and you aren't willing to cut excessive spending because its too difficult politically, then you need to pay for it with taxes rather than borrow money and grow the national debt.

It has nothing to do with the politicians mentioned, dead or otherwise, but just a fact of life.
Sure it does. I suppose one can say a person can be fiscally conservative and still be illogical. Spending too much is wrong. Taxing too much is wrong. The logic that two wrongs make a right is a logical fallacy.

Taxing too much will not prevent those that spend too much from spending.

Your ability to spend exceeds you ability to earn money regardless of who you are. A man making $30K cannot max out all the credit cards he is capable of getting. Then say I will just earn more.
Quick reply to this message
Reply

Bookmarks



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net