User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:41:15 PM EDT
I'm pretty sure this has been rehashed here several times, but did Clinton win because Ross Perot split the Republican party in 1992?
I'm in a debate with a liberal friend of mine and any help would be greatly appreciated! Nightmare 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:46:20 PM EDT
[#1]
I have to say:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:46:56 PM EDT
[#2]
DUPE
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:46:59 PM EDT
[#3]
No shit Sherlock. The MSM playing up a ridiculously mild recession and painting Bush as insensitive or clueless didn't help. But even so with all that Clinton SQUEAKED by in his 1992 victory.
OTOH, he pounded the challenger in 1996. Cant argue with success. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:46:59 PM EDT
[#4]
yes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:47:28 PM EDT
[#5]
yes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:48:00 PM EDT
[#6]
yes, I know this, and yes, I'm pretty sure it's a dupe, but I also need some sort of statistical proof ;-)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:49:01 PM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:49:23 PM EDT
[#8]
Absolutely. I voted for Perot, I got Clinton. I'll never waste my vote again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:50:23 PM EDT
[#9]
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:50:49 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:51:48 PM EDT
[#11]
Bush made a deal with the Dems in Congress: he'd reneg and raise taxes if they'd reciprocate and cut the spending. He kept his end, they lied, and whom did the voters punish? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:54:56 PM EDT
[#12]
So you are saying that he kept his promise to not raise taxes by rasing taxes, and that the Democrats are at fault for his rasing taxes because they didnt cut spending?  He should have vetoed a tax increase and forced congress to override it, atleast that way he could say he kept his promise. But hey I guess its normal for us to expect politicans to break thier word. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 9:55:39 PM EDT
[#13]
Fellow Jarhead Adair, can you please post a link to that dupe?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 10:58:41 PM EDT
[#14]
yes
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 11:01:13 PM EDT
[#15]
Without a doubt.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 11:03:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Perot had a personal beef with President Bush. It was a Texas business mens disagreement. Perot ran for no other reason than to steal conservative votes from GHWB.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 11:25:16 PM EDT
[#17]
And his own monsterous ego 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2006 11:54:22 PM EDT
[#18]
YES
And - most unfortunately - from the things many people here have said, we are gearing up to do it all again. It is you people that refuse to vote/vote "third party" that are going to bring us down. Don't like the Republican candidate for 2008 president? Too bad, it's called the lesser of two evils. Like it or not, we DO live in a two-party government system. Ignoring this fact can be very dangerous. The next president WILL be either a Republican or Democrat. You cannot change that. All you can do is to help decide which one it will be. Abstaining from voting for a WINNABLE candidate will not "send a message," nobody cares if some no-name third party loser gets 3% of the vote. What people DO care about is that 3% got a super-liberal into office instead of a moderate conservative. Refusing to vote for a realistic candidate in "protest" is stupid, and it will only serve to hurt us. It got Clinton in, and it can bring...well, another Clinton in if we allow our emotions to take over our brains' "common sense lobe". Fortunately, the liberals have plenty of idiots as well, and their Green party idiocy stopped Gore from getting into office. The trick is to prevent conservatives from making the same, stupid mistake (again). We MUST chose to learn from history, not to repeat it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:27:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Yes, but I beleive that it couldn't have been so unless there was dissatisfaction within the GOP.
Other parties run all the time, Green, Libertarian, etc. They don't receive huge blocks of votes if the voters of other parties are satisfied with their party. It only becomes a factor when people become dissatisfied with their own party and look for an alternative, however small, to make their views heard. Ronald Reagan didn't have any problems with third parties siphoning off votes, because the Republican voters were solidly behind him. Yes, Perot took away votes from Bush I, but if those voters beleived that Bush I was the answer they would have voted Bush. Obviously the voters didn't think Bush was the answer, or they wouldn't have voted Perot. So I don't think a third party "spoiler" can exist unless there's a reason that voters are not satisfied with the current party. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:37:52 AM EDT
[#20]
No. Clinton won and then won again because he is the greatest politicain we have ever seen in our lifetime. His charisma is undeniable. If you're a woman, you want to give him skull, and if you're a guy, you want to be just like him (or give him skull-you never know these days!)
Clinton joins the ranks of several well-known charasmatic leaders-David Koresh, Jim Jones, Hitler, Manson, etc. Deep down, everybody knows he was always full of it, and nobody would ever trust their daughter with him,but people just ignore all that because of his charm. If he ran for President right now, he would win in a landslide, and you all know it. Don't try to make excuses to make yourselves feel better. No Republican stood a chance against Clinton. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 12:41:13 AM EDT
[#21]
You must not have been alive during the Regan years. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 1:06:00 AM EDT
[#22]
Obird, some of us have a conscience in the voting booth. A vote is a seal of approval from you, even if it is because he isn't a Dem. You just endorsed whatever he has said in the past, and what he will do for the next 4 years.
Sorry, but some of us like sleeping at night with a clear conscience knowing we voted for someone that represented our views. But it is useless to argue that point to someone who is GOP/DNC no matter the cost...people like that don't see the Turd Sandwich/Giant Douche arguement. In anycase, have a good one. *Back to the thread subject...* Yes, Perot got votes that may have gone to GHWB if he had lived up to his promises and hadn't shot himself in the foot. Perot had enough ammo against Bush 1 with so much going for him that he really shouldn't have lost, but his own history came back to override his overwhelming strong points, argued by Perot who could spell it out simply and concisely. Clinton was a throw-away by the DNC in '92, like Dole was in '96. Clinton's mastery of the political landscape and Perot's ability to argue his points well, then implode after a bit of conspiratorial ranting (something about an assasination plot on his daughter perpetrated by GHWB) kinda lost him the lead, and put Clinton on top, where he stayed. About half-way through '92, IIRC, Perot was forcasted as the winner by about 5%. He could have kept it, IMO. Instead, what Bush learned was that he screwed over the American Public and got screwed himself, no matter how great he was from 89-91 and in GW1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:24:29 AM EDT
[#23]
Clinton won for two reasons. The Vulcan, Perot, drew conservative and centrist votes away from Bush. Two, the press piled on in favor of their darling, ignoring as usual all his major faults. During one Clinton and Bush debate, President Bush asked the moderator to ask Clinton what he was doing in Moscow in 1970. The moderator completely ignored the question. Bush made a digusted kind of smirk and just let it go. He knew it was all over then. Clinton certainly is a politician in the style of Hitler in that he uses the big lie. Tell it big enough and often enough and usually some people will believe it. Democrats it seems, will believe anything they're told if the right person tells them. Certainly President Bush could have been more aggressive, but that was not his style. Clinton on the other hand, is somewhat like toenail fungus in that once he gets established, it's hard to get rid of him. He is the worst kind of socialist, second only to his wife and a dedicated enemy of the bill of rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:30:00 AM EDT
[#24]
I think those statements warrant a loss of YOUR first amendment rights. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 3:45:15 AM EDT
[#25]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:10:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Any conspiracy nuts here ever hear that Perot ran to spite Bush because his CIA front company (Perot's) didn't get funding or was shut down? Just curious, as I had heard that before...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:17:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Only by understanding where “world” power comes from can one understand WHO makes up the power behind the presidency of not only the United States of America, but EVERY country on planet.
The answer to your question is YES. Ever hear of the CFR, Jekyll Island or Mayer Amschel Bauer? As early as January of 1913 when thanks to the help of Teddy Roosevelt and the “Bull Moose” party (yes, I ain’t making this shit up), Woodrow Wilson stole the presidential election from William Howard Taft. As Teddy (being a Republican, same as Taft) drew enough votes away from Taft to put Woodrow in the WH. Woodrow (being a Democrat) had already cut a deal with those who met on Jekyll Island to establish a central bank for the US, which Taft was going veto, hence the need to oust him from the Oval office and get someone who would go along with the banking interests of J.P. Morgan and the Rothschilds (meaning the five sons of M.A. Bauer mentioned above who ran the 5 Rothschilds banks in London, Paris, Frankfurt, Vienna and Naples). This central bank BS back then is known today as the Federal Reserve System, ever hear of it? This tactic of dividing the votes of the expected winner so that a minority candidate can be elected by the “high-cabal”(as they are referred to by old Winston Churchill) has been used in the elections of 1972, 1980 and as you have noted in 1992. Any denying these facts has not done their homework and needs to get back to their history books. Want to know who pulls the strings on our puppet presidents look to the bankers and groups like the CFR for lets face it when they have your country by the balls their hearts and minds will follow. Have ya taken a look a the Nation Debt lately, it’s $8,267,418,391,249.97, which is a lot of leverage toward making the puppets dance and a serious problem for our children and their children to make up. Welcome to the New World Order.  Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 4:31:56 AM EDT
[#29]
In reality this is how I vote, but in principle I disagree with you. The liberals go so far off to the left that they drag the republicans down along with em. We need to kick the GOP in the butt every once in a while to make sure they know that they need to represent conservative issues, not just be an alternate big-government party. The fact that Perot got such a large portion of the vote for a third party forced the GOP to change directions and become more conservative. They lost the 92 election because they strayed too far. I predict the same thing will happen in the near future. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:32:03 AM EDT
[#30]
Regardless, you also can't argue with the fact that Clinton was never elected to national office with a MAJORITY of anything. It can be argues that the results may have gone either way if both races hadn't been 3 party races, but such goes history. We would do well to learn from it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:36:56 AM EDT
[#31]
Of course he should have vetoed a tax increase. No one is suggesting he was CORRECT in signing it. Raven is merely suggesting that to offset any budget defecits, Bush struck a deal with Congress. He was hoodwinked (stupidly so) because congress knew that BUSH would get the blame for both the defecit and the tax increase. Obviously Bush was wrong in making the deal in the first place, but Congress was devious as well. I blame both. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:38:23 AM EDT
[#32]
BS. He never even won a majority vote. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:43:05 AM EDT
[#33]
Yes,
However unlike some people here I recognize that something needed to slap the republican party in the face and say "WAKE UP!!!" and it wasn't going to be people just voting for them because Clinton was worse. People were getting pretty unhappy with them. Clinton brought the party together and actually gave it something to contrast against and to fight. I was impressed with them in those days and it brought me over to this side pretty solidly. Now it seems like we are back on the crapper this year and another slap is about to be given if they can't find their conservative side and start working to implement it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:45:08 AM EDT
[#34]
Ditto. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 5:45:15 AM EDT
[#35]
No, Clinton won because Bush was out of touch with his voters. He was not addressing the issues that the majority of voters were interested in. At that time, the 18-25 vote was completely ignored, especially by George Bush. Bill Clinton came in, addressed their concerns, and WON their votes......
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:05:14 AM EDT
[#36]
And who did Perot appeal to? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:06:22 AM EDT
[#37]
Of course.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:19:29 AM EDT
[#38]
I would just like to say that if George HW Bush hadn't been a complete SCHMUCK then he would have been able to defeat both Clinton and Perot without a problem. Bush I lost because Bush I was a shitty president. He was fine as a commander in chief but he sucked otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:37:46 AM EDT
[#39]
You're right. We do live in a two-party system. One of our major parties is in the decline and will likely never be in power again. Now is the time for a third party to unify and take over. I would never vote for any Republicrat. Talk about a waste of a vote..... The only way to reclaim our liberty is to stay away from the major parties until the Dems are gone from the political climate of this country. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:41:22 AM EDT
[#40]
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:41:24 AM EDT
[#41]
No. Clinton won because Bush the Elder was a disaster.
1992 was a wakeup call to the GOP, and it paid off in 1994. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:47:49 AM EDT
[#42]
+2. I deeply regret voting for Perot, and I honestly thought I was doing the right thing and making a good decision at the time. Not that it mattered in my super-GOP majority state, and I was 18 at the time, but I'll vote for a crappy GOP candidate just to keep the Dems out, they're that bad. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:50:27 AM EDT
[#43]
Also to note, Aaron Burr shot Alexander Hamilton back in 1804. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:51:35 AM EDT
[#44]
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 6:52:18 AM EDT
[#45]
This site would be so much more enjoyable to read, if I could get through a single thread without some toolbag yelling "dupe," even in jest. hinking.gif |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:04:55 AM EDT
[#46]
Think what you want. The dems are on the decline all on their own. We don't have to do anything. They've lost touch with the American people. 2004 should have been a wake up call for them. Many voters couldn't identify with Kerry the rich elitist, even though they hated Bush #2. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:11:47 AM EDT
[#47]
hell yes
TXL |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:14:48 AM EDT
[#48]
So lets NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN! The 30% dedicated liberals will win all the elections if the 30% who are conservatives stay home. You are falling for the LIE. Democrats are as appealing to their audience as ever, and with the way society is heading, it doesn't appear that their audience is shrinking. Eternal vigilance is key, and staying home just takes good people off the battlefield. I'm sorry you don't understand this, but a 80% conservative may be all you can expect right now, but that sure beats the 80% liberal as far a potential damage. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:23:49 AM EDT
[#49]
Only 21% of the US Population consider themselves, "Liberal." I am neither conservative nor liberal. I am a Libertarian. Libertarians have both "Very conservative" and "very liberal" viewpoints. The Republicans are definitely not solving our problems. Fortunately for you guys out there that are Republicans, despite the fact that Bush is a fucking moron, the next President will definitely be a Republican because the Dems don't have enough unity to even put up a canidate. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2006 7:31:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Yes, because of Perot.
And because the Haliburton vote-stealing machine wasn't perfected yet.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
