Replies

• Big Al1 Posts: 8,813 Senior Member

  July 2019 #2

  Bye to the man who assured Klinton got elected. I lived through it so may he RIP!!

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• JerryBobCo Posts: 8,227 Senior Member

  July 2019 #3

  Big Al1 said:

  Bye to the man who assured Klinton got elected. I lived through it so may he RIP!!

  
  Yeah, that.  If he had kept out of the 1992 election, we may never have had to deal with Clinton corruption.  I'm not sure the Bushes are any less corrupt, but I have no use for Perot.

  Still, may he rest in peace.

  Jerry
  
  Gun control laws make about as much sense as taking ex-lax to cure a cough.

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• bisley Posts: 10,815 Senior Member

  July 2019 #4

  I think it's quite possible that Perot could have been elected, had he not mysteriously pulled out of the race for part of the campaign. Bill Clinton only won with about 43% of the vote, that time, if I remember correctly, and Perot already had more than 20% in the polling when he dropped out. By the time he re-entered the race, he had lost momentum and had been written off by most Republicans. I think the prospect of actually winning might have scared him off, when what he really wanted was to keep HW Bush from winning.

  
  

  I considered voting for him, myself, for a time, but his general squirrelly-ness finally alarmed me enough to run away from him. Trump had some similar quirks, but his release of his federal judge list won me over, along with the absolute need to deny a Hilary win.

  
  

  The guy was entertaining as hell, if nothing else. ("...I'm all ears.")
  

  2 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Varmintmist Posts: 8,305 Senior Member

  July 2019 #5

  The mans personal vendetta enabled the Clintons and the current progressive movement.
  

  It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• zorba Posts: 25,282 Senior Member

  July 2019 #6

  bisley said:

  I think it's quite possible that Perot could have been elected, had he not mysteriously pulled out of the race for part of the campaign

  Yep. He was that era's Trump - or would have been if he wasn't so flaky.
  

  -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
  
  

  "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."

  )O(
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Make_My_Day Posts: 7,927 Senior Member

  July 2019 #7

  That voice and "A giant sucking sound" is what I remember about him. Unfortunately, he was right about the jobs going away with NAFTA.
  

  JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
  

  THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• zorba Posts: 25,282 Senior Member

  July 2019 #8

  Make_My_Day said:

  Unfortunately, he was right about the jobs going away with NAFTA.
  

  Now how can that be? Both parties - Clinton AND Bush - were telling us how WONDERFUL NAFTA was going to make things. Didn't buy it then, don't buy it now... </sarcasm>
  

  -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
  
  

  "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."

  )O(
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Diver43 Posts: 12,757 Senior Member

  July 2019 #9

  I stayed in a MOS that little promotion potential because back then Traffic Managers made decent money, so I had a plan.  Well Clinton signed NAFTA and my plan tanked. My 75K job went away.  Anyways Mr Perot was right.

  Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Accipiter Posts: 898 Senior Member

  July 2019 #10

  Big Al1 said:

  Bye to the man who assured Klinton got elected. I lived through it so may he RIP!!

  I always thought it was HW’s ineptitude, lies, and laziness that assured Herr Clinton’s rise to power.
  
  Anyway, I liked good old Ross.  He was smarter than the other two combined, and we need to break the two party rule in this country.  If candidates were worth half and ass hair in value, they would not need to fear a third, fourth, or fifth party candidate.
  
  
  Read “On Wings of Eagles”.  You will realize he was a better man than the other two by a large margin.

  Apparently free thought is punished, and conformity is required, while peckerless cowards run the show.
  
  ECHO...ECHO....echo...
  
  Ah......One savors the hypocrisy!
  
  Karma.........It’s a bitch.

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• bisley Posts: 10,815 Senior Member

  July 2019 #11

  We have had a lot of flaky presidents that succeeded because they at least had enough sense to listen to other smarter people, at critical times. A bad manager can be propped up for years, if he at least has enough innate cleverness to recognize talent in the ranks, and use it effectively. Perot and Trump were/are both balancing their successes and failures on a knife edge between what their instincts dictate and what common sense dictates. They were/are gamblers that know how to win the long game. They play a conservative game to pay the bills, but will roll the dice for a big win, if the odds look right.
  

  
  

  Good gamblers lose sometimes, but usually manage to recover from their losses and come out on top, at the end. Apparently, such choices are all that is available for the voting public to choose from, when their country's momentum keeps inching it up towards the edge of the cliff.
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Make_My_Day Posts: 7,927 Senior Member

  July 2019 edited July 2019 #12

  alphasigmookie said:

  
  

  What's wrong with all that? Newt and company loved the deal as a boon to their corporate donors! More Republicans voted for it than Democrats in both the house and Senate. It was actually negotiated and signed by HW, not Clinton, but he did push for it's approval in Congress so he is also culpable. 
  
  https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/trade/stories/tr111893.htm?noredirect=on
  

  Wow, finally a verifiable lie told by the know-it-all in chief. BTW Republicans didn't win a majority in the House until 1994. NAFTA was signed into law in 1993!

  
  

  https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/nafta-signed-into-law
  

  
  

  I didn't look into HW Bushes responsibility in that, but HW was a globalist asshole too, along with most democrats. When will you admit that the demonrats have as much responsibility for screwing the country as republicans?
  

  JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
  

  THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!

  1 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• zorba Posts: 25,282 Senior Member

  July 2019 #13

  alphasigmookie said:This was a true bipartisan screw job, at least for the powerless working class. A great win for the elites. 

  It sure was - and shoved up our, uh, down our throats by both.
  

  -Zorba, "The Veiled Male"
  
  

  "If you get it and didn't work for it, someone else worked for it and didn't get it..."

  )O(
  

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• bisley Posts: 10,815 Senior Member

  July 2019 #14

  alphasigmookie said:

  All of these are historical facts. This was a true bipartisan screw job, at least for the powerless working class. A great win for the elites. 

  This new idea of using historical fact to debate a political point appeals to me. Can we expect more in the future? It would be interesting to see some political history about border policy over a similar time period, or maybe the history of American politicians who have colluded with the Russians over a similar time period, using the same standards of evidence applied in the most recent investigation, of course.

  
  

  
  

  2 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook
• Make_My_Day Posts: 7,927 Senior Member

  July 2019 #15

  bisley said:

  alphasigmookie said:

  All of these are historical facts. This was a true bipartisan screw job, at least for the powerless working class. A great win for the elites. 

  This new idea of using historical fact to debate a political point appeals to me. Can we expect more in the future? It would be interesting to see some political history about border policy over a similar time period, or maybe the history of American politicians who have colluded with the Russians over a similar time period, using the same standards of evidence applied in the most recent investigation, of course.

  
  

  
  

  There aren't many liberal sources for this article, so I'll just post this one:

  https://www.newsmax.com/Reagan/ted-kennedy-russia-kgb-ronald-reagan/2017/06/16/id/796526/

  
  

  Ted Kennedy was close to treason for trying to get the Russians involved in a plot to defeat Ronald Reagan in the 1984 election. Democruds are such pathologically lying hypocrites.
  

  JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
  

  THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!

  0 · Share on TwitterShare on Facebook