Topic: time warp: Ross Perot

[benb61]

With the Trump win, I had pause to think of another election year.  It was 1992.  I remember it well, my choices in the presidential election were Bill Clinton (the libiot that was going to save the world from the warmongers), George Bush (running for term #2, coming off a successful Operation Desert Storm, but after promising "read my lips, NO NEW TAXES" his first term, while kinda correct, the existing taxes went up) and brash, nonpolitical multi-millionare business man Poss Perot.  Perot said what I wanted to hear, "government is wasteful" and who better than a successful business man to fix it and reign in some bureaucracy, lower overall costs and maybe make it start paying for itself.  He made some good points, and if I remember correctly, didn't suffer from political correctness.

Looking back at this election (2016), I see some interesting coincidences/intersections.  First and foremost, a nonpolitical business man and a Clinton.  You all may see some of the others, and feel free to point them out.

My question/point of discussion is...  What if Ross Perot challenged Bush for the Republican nomination and got it, then went on to winning the election.  Does anyone here think the America we have today would ever have gotten to the point that we needed Trump??

I believe that things over the last many years would have turned out a lot different.   Pros/Cons?

[Libertas]

Ahhhhh.....

Yeah, Perot, businessman...but his business was highly dependent upon government contracts...so not a complete outsider...but I don't fault a guy for legally profiting off of government for providing a service that by all accounts was not corrupt, was not serving a foreign master, was not fleecing investors, was not under constant investigation/indictment, was not a fly-by-night or otherwise unscrupulous or criminal enterpise.

But he did win just about every economic argument...his Veep was a hoot (Admiral "Why Am I Here?!" Stockdale...he put his money where is mouth was and stood up for Vets...but his foreign policy of disengagement was not ready for that point in time, though there too he had some foresight.

But the E-GOP blamed him for Clinton winning, not the fact that Bush was a lying two-faced POS who not only backtracked on his no new taxes pledge, but he purposely undermined the Reagan Revolution while lying through his teeth like he was still a loyal Reaganite!

There are some similarities to then and now...but I don't know if Perot had won in '92 and been reelected in '96 if we would have been free of Clinton's, Bush's or Obama's...it is likely that just as Reagan was betrayed by Bush that Perot would have been betrayed by successors and the same E-GOP was still there, the same DemonRats were still there, the same DMC Geobbels media was still there, etc etc.  It might have put a deeper crimp in the progressive march, but it would be a swing of a decade more of peace at best I fear.

Nice intellectual exercise...but I don't think it would have fundamentally altered the equation.  In fact it might have emboldened more third party action (for good or ill) that created more chicanery in that not having a clear winner would have kicked it into the House to decide winners...God knows all that horse-trading could have created untold horrific bargains...but maybe more gridlock...which would be good because usually these effers screw up everything they touch...but in the long run I still think only a little more time would have been bought.