Post: #1

It was my first Presidential election. It was also the last Presidential election in which the Internet had no influence on politics. It was 1992, and a billionaire from Texas was drafted for the Presidency after an appearance on CNN.

He got 19 million out of about 100 million total votes. He was on the ballot in every state. He and his VP candidate were invited to the debates. He bought time and put out thirty-minute infomercials showing his plan to save America from deficits. He launched the Reform Party, which quickly fizzled because it had no unifying ideology.

He attended the Naval Academy and started Electronic Data Systems at the age of 32. He later founded a new company called Perot Systems. He was only five feet, six inches. Yet, he found a way to tower over everyone else.

People who worked for his companies said that he would eat in the cafeteria and talk to anybody. They also said he still drove an old beat-up pickup truck. He launched a rescue mission to get his employees out of Iran after the 1979 Revolution, and he went there in person.

Ross Perot was a man who got shit done. He was a loving father and family man as well. The world is a less interesting place without him.

Here is his commencement speech at the University of Oklahoma:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?26003-1/pr...ot-dies-89

Post: #2

It was my first Presidential election as well. I had a Perot bumper sticker on my '86 IROC-Z. It was the first time I had become engaged in politics. Perot really blazed the trail for a figure like Trump in 2016. With the populist message against NAFTA, government waste and the costs associated with being the "worlds Policeman," time would prove him right.
His position against the massive trade agreements of the nineties went against the rhetoric and conventional thought of the Washington establishment which encompassed (and still does) a plurality if not a majority represented by both political parties in the 'swamp'.

Perhaps too late... Middle America rebelled in 2016 after realizing that they had been lied to. What was left of their birthright and livelihood had be sold to corporate global interests and radical energy sector killing environmentalists. The final nail in the coffin of the American middle class was to be the Trans Pacific Partnership. The MAGA Movement arrived not a moment too soon.

For me, the biggest lesson learned from the Perot candidacies of the nineties is that an outsider candidate needs to have the organization, funding and experience of an already established political party apparatus. Trump realized this and engineered a hostile takeover of the Republican party. The rest is history... Cheers to Ross Perot! We stand on the shoulders of this trailblazing America icon.

Post: #3

19 percent of the popular vote is no small feat for a third party candidate in US presidential elections.

I wonder if all the people who said "I like Perot but I don't think he has a chance so I'm voting for Clinton or Bush" actually voted for him, maybe he would have won. Instead it took another 20 years before people voted in Trump.

Post: #4

My perspective from the UK; I was in my late teens and remembered seeing him a lot on the TV and quite liking him, despite the universally negative portrayal in the UK media. Definite Trump parallels to be seen.

Post: #5

If you haven't already read it, look for the book On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett. It's a nonfiction book and it's about Perot's privately-funded, privately-manned rescue mission to get two of his American employees out of Iran after the Ayatollah took over and started imprisoning foreigners. And it's a brilliant read.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #6

What a legend. I want there to be a docudrama made about his rescue mission with his band of mercenaries.

Post: #7

Inb4 assorted off-topic comments.

Post: #8

(07-10-2019 06:16 AM)infowarrior1 Wrote:  What a legend. I want there to be a docudrama made about his rescue mission with his band of mercenaries.

There was (made for TV). It wasn't bad from what I remember.

Post: #9

I always liked the guy and I think he would of made a fine president. He was socially moderate to liberal but that wasn't his focus. He focused on the real issues that were plaguing American society such as the economy and international policies.

Post: #10

All he said was true, but what I wonder is whether there is some validity in the theory that he was allowed to run in order for Clinton to win. Without him Bush would have won, but they wanted the Democrats to take over for the next years. Most of Perot's big businesses depended on the government, so it's hard to say that he could have truly opposed the Big Boys.

Albeit he may have started to run with absolutely honest intentions and goals. Supposedly he pulled away after some death threats. They may have just let him run for their goals.

It's just funny that so many of his predictions turned out to be true and any trade union with Mexico was pure insanity - and that was back when illegal immigration was not an issue yet as the demographic replacement will destroy the US more than NAFTA.

RIP either way - Ross Perot was a great guy.

Post: #11

F

G

Post: #12

(07-11-2019 06:02 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  All he said was true, but what I wonder is whether there is some validity in the theory that he was allowed to run in order for Clinton to win. Without him Bush would have won, but they wanted the Democrats to take over for the next years. Most of Perot's big businesses depended on the government, so it's hard to say that he could have truly opposed the Big Boys.

It's interesting how the myth of "Perot let Clinton win in 1992" has only been circulated recently. Back in 1992, nobody was saying anything about how Perot was helping either candidate. Most polls at the time showed at the time that he was pulling votes from both of them. Bush was the incumbent, so Perot probably hurt the non-incumbent more than the incumbent.

Of course, the cuckservative media loves to push the narrative that third parties hurt Red candidates, so I am not surprised they are pushing it for Perot now. Another lie that gets put out about 1992 is that Clinton was elected by young voters, when he actually did best with votes over the age of 60.

Post: #13

I just looked back at the election returns from 1992. It is interesting how the 1992 election shows the total absurdity of the electoral college. Bush or Clinton would get all the electoral votes from a state, and yet they only had to win about 40% of the vote in the state. Anybody can do math can see just how absurd the electoral college is. Perot got about 19% of the popular vote and got zero electoral votes. It also made an election that was actually pretty close look like a landslide.

Of course, it's also the main thing that keeps the ridiculous duopoly alive and well. Without the electoral college, the duopoly would have died a well-deserved death a long time ago.

Post: #14

< The 1908 election where a real anti-establishment candidate was running - William Jennings Bryan - is proof that the elite sometimes apply another party to sway the vote. In that case they trumped up Theodore Roosevelt to campaign heavily for Taft. They also had to fight him tooth and nail in the 1896 election.

Ross Perot may have been one of those true outside candidates - far more contrarian than Trump. With Perot you saw that he meant to torpedo not only NAFTA, but other globalist ideas. Obviously the electoral college virtually guarantees a two-party, but in reality a one-party system. Sure - the guys on the right, become more left later, but I can virtually guarantee you that the Republican party of 2050 will be the Democrat party of 2010. The pendulum swings ever more to the left where they intended to go with it anyhow. The goal is a mix between a cultural marxist system and a big-corporate economic one - that is before the fully engineered Brave New World comes around in the next century.

Post: #15

He was the true maverick. John McCain (good riddance)coopted that term in an abysmal way.
Rest in peace good sir. America lost an honest and honorable man.

Post: #16

(07-13-2019 07:47 AM)Simeon_Strangelight Wrote:  < The 1908 election where a real anti-establishment candidate was running - William Jennings Bryan - is proof that the elite sometimes apply another party to sway the vote. In that case they trumped up Theodore Roosevelt to campaign heavily for Taft. They also had to fight him tooth and nail in the 1896 election.

Ross Perot may have been one of those true outside candidates - far more contrarian than Trump. With Perot you saw that he meant to torpedo not only NAFTA, but other globalist ideas. Obviously the electoral college virtually guarantees a two-party, but in reality a one-party system. Sure - the guys on the right, become more left later, but I can virtually guarantee you that the Republican party of 2050 will be the Democrat party of 2010. The pendulum swings ever more to the left where they intended to go with it anyhow. The goal is a mix between a cultural marxist system and a big-corporate economic one - that is before the fully engineered Brave New World comes around in the next century.

I don't see how you can call William Jennings Bryan an anti-establishment candidate in 1908. It was the third time that he ran. He had lost all three times, with his percentage of the popular vote dropping every time.

You might have called him that back in 1896 though. Bryan was also nominated by the Populist Party in 1896. He came out of nowhere and was only 36 years old.

The election of 1896 was a big turning point though. It was when the Blue Team forever abandoned the free-market ideals of Grover Cleveland.

It is also significant that at the time the Blue Team nominee also had to get 2/3 of the vote at the nominating convention. Realistically, it's hard to call anyone who gets 2/3 of the vote "anti-establishment." If you can get that many votes, you already are the establishment. It took five ballots to nominate Bryan in 1896.