Donald Trump and Ross Perot?


#1

If Trump campaigns as an independent it is likely the Republican vote would crumble. Clinton would not need a majority at that point and that would make her President. I wouldn’t put anything past her that her husband did, too.
Dosen’t that sound familiar?


#2

[quote=“Americarnage, post:1, topic:47708”]
If Trump campaigns as an independent it is likely the Republican vote would crumble. Clinton would not need a majority at that point and that would make her President. I wouldn’t put anything past her that her husband did, too.Dosen’t that sound familiar?
[/quote]Trump says he won’t run as an independent and I believe him. Unlike Trump (who got in as another form of self-promotion in my opinion) Perot was serious about the whole thing.


#3

Oh I believe Trump is serious and if he is smart he will not change at the last minute from running as a republican to independent. Trump and Perot are similar in that both are money makers and know business and how to accomplish things unlike politicians who decide on politics and do not care about their constituents, The goal for them is power. Perot and Trump already have power and they are not in it to make money.

Where Perot failed was his last minute dropping out because he said his daughter was in danger. Perot could have protected her and continued. As it was, Perot threw the election


#4

[quote=“samspade, post:3, topic:47708”]
Oh I believe Trump is serious and if he is smart he will not change at the last minute from running as a republican to independent. Trump and Perot are similar in that both are money makers and know business and how to accomplish things unlike politicians who decide on politics and do not care about their constituents, The goal for them is power. Perot and Trump already have power and they are not in it to make money.Where Perot failed was his last minute dropping out because he said his daughter was in danger. Perot could have protected her and continued. As it was, Perot threw the election
[/quote]You think Trump is serious when he says he knows more than the generals about ISIS? He didn’t even know what the Quds are. If he is serious he is dangerous and a mental case. I think he drifts between seriousness and intentional (I would hope) buffoonery and never really thought he would get so far in the beginning.


#5

So what you are saying is that our current position of equipping our soldiers with airsoft guns(rules of engagement) and telling our military they are under suspicion for daring to hold christian views as well as not wanting to be buggered by a gay man or transsexual is wrong as opposed to a strong military that actually goes after the "right"enemy.

Russia has done more bombings than we have and ISIS is more fearful of them. We drop weapons to ISIS. Yeah I think Trump has the right idea and we need to purge those generals and replace them with generals who are fighting for our nation.

If we get any more weak toward "fighting " terrorism the conspiracy nuts may be right in obama’s is wanting to take over this country. They do have a case with the military exercises lately and the buildup of arming agencies which should never have such armament or authority. Privacy is a joke. Search warrants, who needs stinking search warrants?

While I am not a Trump supporter he has momentum because he says what most people are thinking. The latest fray with Carson and attacking what he wrote is expressing disbelief in what he wrote about his aggression and if his demeanor now is just a fasade and he will be another obama if given the presidency.

Others here have noted your distaste for Trump but look at the big picture and realize we are still seeing someone being forceful. can you tell me that the generals are actually accomplishing much except targeting individuals with little actual major blows against ISIS? obama and the democrats with the willing help from the GOP want to destabilize Assad and help further the damage in the region. Talk about American imperialism.

Why is it we train fighters who once on the field join ISIS or other alphabet groups opposing us? Could it be they really are working for us? obama is working to undermine this nation.


#6

Perot ran for only one reason, to prevent Bush 41 from winning.

Trump is not running with the goal of effecting the race for or against anyone else, Trump is effecting the arguments, topics and media strategy that the GOP is too stupid and nefarious to figure out.


#7

[quote=“samspade, post:5, topic:47708”]
So what you are saying is that our current position of equipping our soldiers with airsoft guns(rules of engagement) and telling our military they are under suspicion for daring to hold christian views as well as not wanting to be buggered by a gay man or transsexual is wrong as opposed to a strong military that actually goes after the "right"enemy.Russia has done more bombings than we have and ISIS is more fearful of them. We drop weapons to ISIS. Yeah I think Trump has the right idea and we need to purge those generals and replace them with generals who are fighting for our nation.If we get any more weak toward "fighting " terrorism the conspiracy nuts may be right in obama’s is wanting to take over this country. They do have a case with the military exercises lately and the buildup of arming agencies which should never have such armament or authority. Privacy is a joke. Search warrants, who needs stinking search warrants?While I am not a Trump supporter he has momentum because he says what most people are thinking. The latest fray with Carson and attacking what he wrote is expressing disbelief in what he wrote about his aggression and if his demeanor now is just a fasade and he will be another obama if given the presidency.Others here have noted your distaste for Trump but look at the big picture and realize we are still seeing someone being forceful. can you tell me that the generals are actually accomplishing much except targeting individuals with little actual major blows against ISIS? obama and the democrats with the willing help from the GOP want to destabilize Assad and help further the damage in the region. Talk about American imperialism. Why is it we train fighters who once on the field join ISIS or other alphabet groups opposing us? Could it be they really are working for us? obama is working to undermine this nation.
[/quote]I think you are confusjng what the generals know with the policies of Obama. Trump said he knows more than the generals about ISIS. Cruz or Rubio would never say something so stupid and both of them know more about ISIS than Trump has forgotten.


#8

[quote=“Skeptic, post:2, topic:47708”]
Trump says he won’t run as an independent and I believe him. Unlike Trump (who got in as another form of self-promotion in my opinion) Perot was serious about the whole thing.
[/quote] Perot NEVER expected to be elected. He ran ONLY to split the conservative vote and allow his good friend, Bill, to win with a “plurality.” Everyone with an IQ above room temp knows that. I’m pretty much convinced that THAT’S behind Trumps campaign, too.


#9

[quote=“Pappadave, post:8, topic:47708”]
Perot NEVER expected to be elected. He ran ONLY to split the conservative vote and allow his good friend, Bill, to win with a “plurality.” Everyone with an IQ above room temp knows that. I’m pretty much convinced that THAT’S behind Trumps campaign, too.
[/quote]I’m pretty sure I have a respectable IQ and it sounds like conspiracy theory to me. I think Perot was a man with a giant ego who bought into all the “why can’t they all just get along” stuff and believed he could straighten it all out.


#10

Nothing “theoretically” about it, Skeptic. FACT: Perot, had he been serious would have run as either a Republican OR a Democrat. FACT: He admittedly despised George H.W. Bush for cancelling a billion-dollar computer contract Perot’s company had been given by the DoD. FACT: Perot was an occasional houseguest of the Clintons at the Arkansas governor’s mansion in the days prior to the 1992 election filing dates, which Perot denied several times during the campaign, but admitted to after the 1996 election. FACT: His “campaign” in 1996 was half-hearted–at best–and only run to again help out the Clintons. After 1996, he became a virtual recluse and was never heard from again. FACT: The Clinton’s bogus claim that Perot took as many votes from him as from the GOP was provably wrong–based merely on exit polling after both elections. Conspiracy? Perhaps, but nonetheless factual.


#11

Then you know nothing about the long standing conflicts that Perot had with Bush 41 and Perot’s interest in a Democrat victory since he made his money by “winning” government contracts to manage Social Security data.

It is not a matter of “IQ”, it is a willingness to learn about things before you form opinions about things; or a matter of character in other words.


#12

[quote=“RET423, post:11, topic:47708”]
Then you know nothing about the long standing conflicts that Perot had with Bush 41 and Perot’s interest in a Democrat victory since he made his money by “winning” government contracts to manage Social Security data.It is not a matter of “IQ”, it is a willingness to learn about things before you form opinions about things; or a matter of character in other words.
[/quote]There’s different kinds of character RET. I might be wrong but it says nothing about my character. On the other hand your response says a lot about yours but I’ll chalk it up to internet garbage.


#13

I looked up Perot. He is worth billions and is 85 and as far as politics he disappeared completely which should tell you he had an agenda.


#14

[quote=“samspade, post:13, topic:47708”]
I looked up Perot. He is worth billions and is 85 and as far as politics he disappeared completely which should tell you he had an agenda.
[/quote]Suits me. I never gave a damn about Perot. I had no idea there were so many Bush 41 defenders here.


#15

Perot’s business, or a large chunk of it, was data processing for the Federal government. Nothing wrong in that, per se. But even assuming there was nothing fishy in the contract awards, it does create an interest in government staying large and growing. The Rs have not been angelic, but the Ds have long been the party of government growth and intrusiveness.

But it’s quite a leap from Perot having had an interest in growing government - and probably having diverted more votes from GHWB than from WJC - to Perot having been a Clintonian red herring. It would not surprise me if he was, nor would it shatter my world if he were just a blustery independent.


#16

I don’t think anybody was actually defending G.H.W.B.


#17

Not at all, FC. Merely that we’d have been marginally better off with him as our President in 1993 than we were with Clinton. On the other hand, we may not have been able to take control of the House after 42 years of exclusive Democrat rule in 1994 had GHWB won, because it’s doubtful that the Dems would have tried that “Hillarycare” nonsense.