PDA

View Full Version : Ross Perot is ALSO "undecided."




wgadget
10-01-2012, 01:33 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81850.html

God bless him.

Pericles
10-01-2012, 03:04 PM
He realizes that neither of those two will fix anything.

VoluntaryAmerican
10-01-2012, 04:13 PM
That man deserved to be president. Maybe we still had a chance to turn it around at that time.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-01-2012, 04:25 PM
I don't get what was so great about the substance of his plans, other than a balanced budget.

I mean, what comes to mind is that he was strongly for gun control and the drug war, and against free trade.

RickyJ
10-01-2012, 04:31 PM
Ross Perot was never really serious, he was in it because he had a personal grudge against Bush. The guy is a owner of a company that is a major outsourcer, he is a major hypocrite and would have been a disaster for this nation if he won. He was in it to make sure Bush lost, no other reason.

FrancisMarion
10-01-2012, 05:48 PM
So was Perot polling at 15% when he was allowed in the debates?

Chester Copperpot
10-01-2012, 05:55 PM
So was Perot polling at 15% when he was allowed in the debates?

he was polling 33% at one point.... But it was after Perot that the PDC took over the debates and put in their 15% plan

Lovecraftian4Paul
10-01-2012, 05:57 PM
So was Perot polling at 15% when he was allowed in the debates?

No, but he had polled into the 30s in the summer before. This rule didn't exist then, nor did the Presidential Debate Commission. They set that up with their ridiculous rules after Perot got in and scared the establishment with his high vote total in '92.

Just a reminder: this year will mark twenty years since there's been a third candidate allowed to debate. Twenty years!

LibertyEagle
10-01-2012, 06:59 PM
I don't get what was so great about the substance of his plans, other than a balanced budget.

I mean, what comes to mind is that he was strongly for gun control and the drug war, and against free trade.

He was against NAFTA and the WTO. He warned of the giant sucking sound that would happen as jobs left the country. He was right.

Dr. Paul was against these too.

LibertyEagle
10-01-2012, 07:01 PM
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/81850.html

God bless him.

Yeah, he was recently interviewed on CSPAN. I just got through watching it. It was good.

KevinYeaux
10-01-2012, 07:03 PM
Actually, correction on the two posts above: it's commonly said that the CPD was formed in retaliation to Ross Perot's inclusion in the '92 debate, that's not actually true. The CPD began hosting the fall debates in 1988 and did, in fact, host the debates that Perot participated in during the 1992 election. It was, however, designed to give the two parties more control over the debates and attempt to prevent third-party access. There was just no way they could avoid giving Perot a spot given his polling.

dbill27
10-01-2012, 07:05 PM
I don't get what was so great about the substance of his plans, other than a balanced budget.

I mean, what comes to mind is that he was strongly for gun control and the drug war, and against free trade..


This. Perot was awful

dbill27
10-01-2012, 07:06 PM
he was polling 33% at one point.... But it was after Perot that the PDC took over the debates and put in their 15% plan

he got to 39% in the summer, beating both candidates at that point

GeorgiaAvenger
10-01-2012, 07:29 PM
He was against NAFTA and the WTO. He warned of the giant sucking sound that would happen as jobs left the country. He was right.

Dr. Paul was against these too.

This is not about trade agreements. Though both were opposed to those agreements, Paul IS and WAS for free trade, while Perot is not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_PthsFFEw

wgadget
10-01-2012, 08:11 PM
I like Ross Perot because he was such a successful third party candidate (as far as They would allow his "success), and because he was RIGHT about that giant sucking sound.

I understand They threatened him, which is why he called it quits.

Tod
10-02-2012, 08:59 PM
Ross Perot and David Walker interview on CSPAN (over an hour long)

http://www.c-span.org/Events/Ross-Perot-Interview-with-USA-Today/10737434517/

Pericles
10-02-2012, 10:38 PM
This is not about trade agreements. Though both were opposed to those agreements, Paul IS and WAS for free trade, while Perot is not.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sM_PthsFFEw

When you have a week with nothing to do, read the NAFTA treaty. I'd suggest to you it does not take 1000 pages to agree that anything made in one treaty country may enter another treaty country duty free, any person legally entitled to work in one treaty country may work and reside in any treaty country, and any business permitted to operate in one treaty country may operate in any treaty country.

Perot was in favor of a free trade agreement with Canada, but opposed to an agreement with Mexico due to the difference in standards of living in Mexico at the time. Perot's position was that free trade agreements among countries with similar standards of living and legal systems make sense. Agreements with countries that have widely different standards will cause the countries with higher standards of living to decline.

acptulsa
10-03-2012, 06:18 AM
Actually, correction on the two posts above: it's commonly said that the CPD was formed in retaliation to Ross Perot's inclusion in the '92 debate, that's not actually true. The CPD began hosting the fall debates in 1988 and did, in fact, host the debates that Perot participated in during the 1992 election. It was, however, designed to give the two parties more control over the debates and attempt to prevent third-party access. There was just no way they could avoid giving Perot a spot given his polling.

Reaction to, and retailation for, inclusion in the debate are two different things. It could be a reaction to inclusion of independents and/or third party candidates and still include some. Remember, this was at a time when everyone still remembered League of Women Voters debates, and were still questioning what was wrong with them. And nothing was wrong with LWV debates at all.

angelatc
10-03-2012, 06:27 AM
So was Perot polling at 15% when he was allowed in the debates?

The League of Women Voters ran the debate back then. After John Anderson made a show of it, the two parties got together and drafted up a set of rules designed to keep third parties out, but the LoWV refused. They even made an announcement that they would have no part in the ruse, iirc.

So they Replicrats created a new "bipartisan" group to oversee things. http://people.howstuffworks.com/debate4.htm

Pericles
10-03-2012, 11:04 AM
When the debates started, Perot was polling at about 4%. Right before the election, various talking heads were asked how much vote they thought Perot would get, and they all said 4% to 5%, except for David Gergen, who predicted 10%. The rest of the panel looked at Gergen like he had said that he had just returned from Mars.

That is why the 19% he actually got was such a shock to the system. (Perot actually finished 2nd in Maine) Too many people went to an alternative to the two party system, and that had to be stopped. The appropriate mechanisms are now in place to make what Perot did in 1992 next to impossible.

GeorgiaAvenger
10-03-2012, 04:57 PM
When you have a week with nothing to do, read the NAFTA treaty. I'd suggest to you it does not take 1000 pages to agree that anything made in one treaty country may enter another treaty country duty free, any person legally entitled to work in one treaty country may work and reside in any treaty country, and any business permitted to operate in one treaty country may operate in any treaty country.

Perot was in favor of a free trade agreement with Canada, but opposed to an agreement with Mexico due to the difference in standards of living in Mexico at the time. Perot's position was that free trade agreements among countries with similar standards of living and legal systems make sense. Agreements with countries that have widely different standards will cause the countries with higher standards of living to decline.

Okay, so he's a fair trader then, but not a free trader.