Didnt vote for Romney cause he was rich, but will vote for Clintons

[Hellion1999]

Originally Posted by dsjj251

You made 2 critical mistakes in your argument.

The first one is to point out that Perot isnt a liberal as if either Clinton or Bush was(but Perot himself isnt all that conservative). 1992 was the closest thing we have ever had to an Open Primary for President seeing as Bush Clinton and Perot were more ideologically similar than any grouping of Presidential nominees in more than 100 years.

Perot's electorate was 63% between the age of 18 and 44, 2/3rd of them in an exit poll calling themselves moderate(who Clinton won) or Democrats( again which Clinton won ).

Perot was Anti war, Anti NAFTA, Pro Choice, Pro central bank, pro higher taxes to pay for the republic, Pro gay marriage, Pro gun control, Pro Medicare expansion to all Americans, Pro college tuition credits/tuition cuts/ Pell grants.

That man sounds more like Joe Biden( who is left of Clinton by a Mile), than anything near George Bush.


Perot Voters Remain a Bloc - Skeptical About Clinton, Washington

notice my link is from 1993.

Ross Perot on the Issues

While these people werent in love with Clinton, they liked him far more than President Bush.

the second mistake of course was arguing percentage rather than electoral college.

Percentage of votes doesnt matter, Its the electoral college that does.

Clinton had 370.

You are arguing that without Perot, he(Clinton) would have lost at least 101 electoral votes to Bush. That path is very unlikely seeing his positions coupled with the actual electorate that gave him 18% of the vote and 19 million voters, as well as the geography of where he took votes.

in 1988, when Bush won in a land slide, Governor Dukakis won Wisconsin with 51% of the vote, Clinton won it with 41%.

You really think it was Bush that Perot was taking overwhelming chunk of votes from ????

If Perot wasnt there, i think this would have been about a 52/46 race with the other candidates getting the other 2 percent and Clinton winning by a smaller margin, but still winning the election.

opinions are not mistakes they are our opinions:



Ross Perot is a conservative. Look at his platform for 1992, its closer to a conservative/libertarian than a liberal democrat. He was PRO LIFE, LOW TAXES, for economic nationalism, , strengthen the war on drugs, PRO GUN and for small government and against NAFTA and against a national healthcare and for a strong military. He picked James Stockdale as VP, a conservative military admiral, which suggested how Ross Perot would run his administration and who he would have surrounded with. His model to run the country was Ronald Reagan and he mentioned that in his campaign.


You still doubt that that didn't hurt more Bush and helped Clinton in the general election?





If Ross Perot was the opposite with a liberal platform and PRO CHOICE, and raise taxes and limit the military and expand welfare and for a national healthcare he would have taken votes from Clinton and the democrats would have lost.



I don't know how you don't see that Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot.

[dsjj251]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

opinions are not mistakes they are our opinions:

They are mistakes when they are based on something that was untrue.

Ross Perot is a conservative. Look at his platform for 1992, its closer to a conservative/libertarian than a liberal democrat. He was PRO LIFE, LOW TAXES, for economic nationalism, , strengthen the war on drugs, PRO GUN and for small government and against NAFTA and against a national healthcare and for a strong military. He picked James Stockdale as VP, a conservative military admiral, which suggested how Ross Perot would run his administration and who he would have surrounded with. His model to run the country was Ronald Reagan and he mentioned that in his campaign.

You are telling me to look at his platform, but it is clear you never did.

The man was not pro life. Not only was he pro choice, he was actually an activist for its cause, my god, calling that man pro choice is proof you never even attempted to research his positions, believing that one stance shows how much of a farce your argument is.
here, i will help you out

My personal position on abortion is well-known, but I will restate it just to make sure there’s no confusion:
I support a woman’s right to have an abortion. It is the woman’s choice.
I support encouragement of adoption as an alternative to abortion.
I support federal funding of reproductive counseling and education that can help prevent unwanted pregnancies so that fewer women will have to face this difficult decision.
I support federal funding of abortions for poor women. Since these women have already made the decision, for public health reasons, we should ensure that the procedure is done safely.
I believe it is time for Congress to codify these positions into law. Each human life is a precious gift. We should not create a human life unless we’re willing to take responsibility for it. It is irresponsible for two people to create a human life they don’t want. For democracy to work, every single one of us has to take responsibility for his or her actions.
Source: United We Stand, by Ross Perot, p. 93-94 Jul 2, 1992

He also wasnt "pro low taxes" .

again, let me help you out.

On Tax Reform: Raise marginal tax rates on the wealthy

We should raise the marginal tax rate on the wealthy from 31% to 33%. In 1993, this change would affect individuals who make over $55,550 and joint filers who make over a total of $89,250. Therefore, less than 4% of the taxpayers in America will be affected, but we will raise $33 billion in five years. If other reductions I propose do not provide sufficient revenue, we should be prepared to raise the marginal rate to 35%.
Source: United We Stand, by Ross Perot, p. 43 Jul 2, 1992

Dont know what you mean by economic nationalism, Im going to tie it in with NAFTA and say Democrats were far more against it than republicans.

Here is a poll from September 10th, 1993.

http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/pub...n/51/51076.pdf

Perot also wasnt "pro guns"

again let me help you out

"I can’t believe the gun lobby wants the crazies to have machine guns "

Perot was also not against a national health care system,

On Health Care: Short term: cost containment & focus on prevention

The problem with our health care system is structural. Health care needs to be reformed. The political arena is the last place to expect a rational system to be developed. The political system, after all, is ingeniously constructed to allow different groups to push their own interests in the hope that the compromises that result will benefit the whole nation. That has worked fine in some areas. It hasn’t worked in reforming a public/private relationship as loaded with pitfalls and potential profit as our health-care system.
I suggest that we should adopt both short-term and long-term strategies. In the short term, a cost containment and prevention program should be developed immediately. Various health-care experts and representatives of affected groups should have a series of work sessions with government officials. A plan should be put into effect as quickly as possible. In the longer term, [we should have] comprehensive national health-care reform based on a public-private partnership.
Source: United We Stand, by Ross Perot, p. 89 Jul 2, 1992
On Health Care: Long term: comprehensive national health policy

In the longer term, comprehensive national health-care reform based on a public-private partnership should involve the following:
Establishing a national health board as an independent federal agency to oversee cost containment and comprehensive health-care reform efforts
Setting a national health policy
Encouraging problem solving by everyone involved
Reaching a consensus on a set of principles for reform
Determining a basic benefit package for universal coverage and appropriate tax treatment of health benefits
Asking states to submit comprehensive health-care reform proposals that meet agreed-upon principles and cost-containment targets
Changing federal rules to allow states the necessary flexibility to conduct pilot programs
It is only a failure of leadership that has kept us from solving this problem. As the problems mount, we begin to give in to the notion that nothing can be done. That’s baloney. Our health care and medical professionals are the best in the world.

At this point im not sure if you are trolling or if you honestly dont know that you are wrong. Everything I have posted was from my link( that you clearly didnt read) and are quotes from Perot's book and are easily confirmed by a simply google search.

You have no idea of the man you praise as a Conservative and did not even attempt to research him. You literally got everything wrong about him except NAFTA.

If Ross Perot was the opposite with a liberal platform and PRO CHOICE, and raise taxes and limit the military and expand welfare and for a national healthcare he would have taken votes from Clinton and the democrats would have lost.

He was, and that is exactly why you were wrong. Except Clinton didnt lose because Bush's base was just that small while Clinton's was much larger.

I don't know how you don't see that Clinton won in 1992 because of Ross Perot.

Thats easy, i took time to do my research where as you did not.