1992: What if we elected Ross Perot?

[enjerth]

So here we are, 20 years after Ross Perot's campaign in 92, and looking back I wonder what things might look like today if we hadn't taken the path we did. What if we elected Perot instead of Bush?

What if we had someone fiscally conservative enough to use war as a last resort? How far in debt would we be today?
What if the first Iraq war was averted and we found peace through diplomacy? What would the middle-east conflicts look like today?
What if, instead of the partisan political war that many of us have grown tired of, we had elected a leader who has little political affiliation? What would the political landscape look like today?

I was not old enough to vote in 92, but looking back I can't help but think we would likely be in a much better situation if we had elected Perot in 92. I was 15 then, but I understood what Perot spoke about back then.

Now you might say that hindsight is 20/20, and that it's easy to say that today, but this isn't about lamenting the past. This is about considering our future.

I know that I would rather vote for Perot today than Romney, Gingrich, Santorum (who suspended his campaign already) or Obama.

My daughter is going to be 6 this year. In 20 years, when the world we have created for our children is covered by a greater cloud of darkness and doubt, she may wonder how much better the world would be if we had elected Ron Paul.

It's a very rare opportunity to have the chance to vote for someone like Ron Paul. The question you have to ask yourself is, is it worth passing up? Is it worth the regret in 20 years down the road to dismiss Paul today?

Everyone in this race except Ron Paul represents more war, more deficits, more taxes, bigger government and diminishing freedoms. It's the direction we've been going, pretty steadily, since 1992.

I want a drastic change of direction. I will vote for nothing less than that. Perot isn't on the ballot, but I think with Paul's record, steadfastness, and how accurately he predicted America's changes over the last 10 years, Paul would be a better candidate than Perot anyways.

No one but Paul.

-----

Feel free to edit and repost this as you please in promoting Ron Paul.

[Pericles]

Would have been similar to RP, but less libertarian. The question would be how much of the reckless spending that you see from Congress could be stopped. The main differences is that the Debt would have been down to $3T or less by the time Perot left office, and a much reduced regulatory environment - which would have been a big contribution to making the country better off.

[Brian4Liberty]

Hard to say. Perot was one man. The establishment is vast and powerful. If he could achieve anything, you would have to figure that there would be less debt and that the US Economy would be in better shape.

Would Perot go to war? Would he bail out bankers? Hard to say what would really happen.

[phill4paul]

More than anything I believe it <might> have heralded the demise of the two party system. And that would be a big plus.

[Pericles]

Hard to say. Perot was one man. The establishment is vast and powerful. If he could achieve anything, you would have to figure that there would be less debt and that the US Economy would be in better shape.

Would Perot go to war? Would he bail out bankers? Hard to say what would really happen.

Perot said he would not have fought the first Gulf War - if the problem is because of one man, well ......

If he let the brokerage he owned that was losing money get liquidated, rather than subsidize failure ......

[TroySmith]

More than anything I believe it <might> have heralded the demise of the two party system. And that would be a big plus.

While I don't think it would have literally destroyed the D's and R's, it might have destroyed the false paradigm that there is any significant difference between the two. It would have forced them to reform, while also getting rid of the whole "I don't want to waste my vote" mentality and "Anyone but X" lesser of two evils, etc.

[enjerth]

Hard to say. Perot was one man. The establishment is vast and powerful. If he could achieve anything, you would have to figure that there would be less debt and that the US Economy would be in better shape.

Would Perot go to war? Would he bail out bankers? Hard to say what would really happen.

Ron Paul is only one man. And that's actually part of the appeal in my opinion.

But this isn't about Perot. This is just one way I'm trying to reframe the political question, Why Ron Paul?

Why? Because if you're politically an informed and thoughtful kind of person, you'll likely regret not having voted for Ron Paul 20 years from now, if we continue the direction we're headed.

At least in my opinion. Do you regret not supporting Perot, if you had the chance to back then?

[GeorgiaAvenger]

He was independent but he wasn't great or anything.

Pro-choice
Pro-drug war
Anti-gun
Pro-EPA
Pro-tariffs

[PierzStyx]

He was independent but he wasn't great or anything.

Pro-choice
Pro-drug war
Anti-gun
Pro-EPA
Pro-tariffs

Better than either Bush Sr. or Clinton. That isn't saying much, but it is something.

[thoughtomator]

I voted for Perot as a means of registering my dissatisfaction with the one party system.

[Deborah K]

I voted for Perot mainly because he was an alternative to the crap being handed to us, i.e. Clinton and Dole. But I also liked him because he was adamantly opposed to NAFTA and we all know that NAFTA was the first step toward pulling the U.S. into the global governance agenda.

There is going to be a collapse - with or without a Paul presidency. We would be better off with a Paul presidency because with him we would recover much, much quicker, and freedom would be restored. God only knows what we will collapse into with these other creeps.

As an awakened people, we need to be doing two things: working diligently to change the hearts and minds of the unknowing enslaved, and we need to prepare a back-up system within our communities so we can survive a collapse.

[Aratus]

our budgetary mess would have benn half the mess it is now
becuz able admiral stockdale would have run and won next?

[Brian4Liberty]

Do you regret not supporting Perot, if you had the chance to back then?

I did support Perot, and actually attended a rally where he spoke during his first run. It was similar to the Ron Paul phenomenon. I may have some old Perot campaign material stashed away somewhere...

[Brian4Liberty]

Better than either Bush Sr. or Clinton. That isn't saying much, but it is something.

Yep, he was the alternative to those evils.

[danda]

I wasn't old enough to vote in 92 either, but I convinced my mom to vote for Perot, and then Harry Brown in '96. :-)

[John F Kennedy III]

We wouldn't have had a "Giant Sucking Sound"

[shane77m]

If Ross Perot was elected, Saturday Night Live might have went in a different direction and not totally suck as it does now. Dana Carvey as Ross Perot= FUNNY

http://www.hulu.com/watch/4266/satur...-for-president

[enjerth]

I didn't really intend this to be convincing you folks, I'm not supporting Perot, I'm providing talking points for you to use when you talk with someone about politics. Ask them how they think the country might have gone in the last 20 years had we elected Perot instead. Then point out that this is a more dire time than it was then and the only one offering substantial solutions is Ron Paul. In 20 years, are they going to regret not supporting Ron Paul today?

[Aratus]

i voted for perot and yes, this
all is like preaching to the choir