Yea really they made a big deal of selling US products then it just kind quietly of went away.
1 Like
Sadly I was one of those fools that voted for Anderson on my first presidential election. But hey Iâve since checked and Carter and Anderson combined wouldnât have beaten Raygun. I really think Carter losing had more to do with him putting solar panels on the White House and the big issue Raygun and all his henchmen going behind his back getting the hostages held up till after the election. Fucking treasonist.
3 Likes
See all this shit against Hillary from âBernieâ folks and I almost never see it on TPM or even Huffpost, the only sites I really look at.
Or are they plants posing as Bernie folks to bash Hillary?
[also to @feathered_head, just for the record] Sorry, but youâve hit one of my long-time pet political peeves, that Perot cost HW a second term. Imagine my elation when, in discussing Trumpâs third-party threat months ago, Rachel Maddow set the record straight for her viewers:
Yes, contrary to what even the New York Times continues to report, the âPerot gave the election to Clinton!â line is a myth. Itâs kind of the original âzombie lieâ (a GOP disinformation campaign so successful that not just the media but most Democrats believe it) and has been one of my obsessions since it was first uttered. And not just because it was a lie, but because this little piece of GOP disinformation has been cited ever since that election in order to: 1) initially, help the GOP paint Clinton as an illegitimate president whose agenda therefore the GOP would do everything they could to block (yes, cuddly old Bob Dole said that publicly at the time); and 2) over the longer term, help the GOP drum into everyoneâs (mostly the mediaâs) heads that weâre a right-leaning country and hence that any Democrat, not to mention any liberal, who happens to sneak through our anti-lefty defenses and actually assume office is clearly there only by fluke or fraud, which means the GOP is justified in preventing him/her from carrying out his/her nefarious program.
If youâre still skeptical, the best documentation I could find online the last time I looked is this â http://www.pollingreport.com/hibbitts1202.htm â which is a data-rich look back at that election written in 2012. Worth reading and spreading around; but in brief, from the time Perot dropped out of the race until the time he dropped back in, Clinton never polled at less than a healthy double-digit lead over Bush. And exit polls on election day showed that Perot voters were roughly evenly split between those whoâd have voted for Bush and those whoâd have voted for Clinton (a bunch would have just stayed home). The lovely E.J. Dionne wrote a few Washington Post pieces noting the same right after the election; canât find them at a quick search, but theyâre referred to here: http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062905.shtml. The bottom line: Perot made no difference â none â to the election results. Indeed, far from costing Bush the election, Perot cost Clinton the ability to claim a mandate. And weâve been paying for the GOPâs ability to convince people otherwise ever since.
1 Like
Isnât what I said a reasonable paraphrase of what RandyAbraham implied?
I am not a Bernie plant, and if I sound negative about Hillary, it isnât that I wonât support her. I like her personally. I just think the Democratic party has lost its way. It has become a bunch of surrender monkeys talking about being pragmatic and not making any waves ever. I agree with TR we should speak softly but carry a big stick. If we surrender the big stick at the outset we will lose.
No.
This:
RandyAbraham: Agree, it was a much different dynamic back then, and Obamaâs anti-war and reformist stances resonated. And opposition to the Iraq war was very motivational in 2006 and 2008.
Today, we have a record to defend â and policies to protect â and as you noted, our party is in a relatively weak position â minorities in Congress, and most state governments overseeing the elections under Republican rule.
We canât leave anything to chance, and a quixotic call for revolution seems more than rash â itâs insanely reckless considering the stakes.
Does not equal this in any way:
ronbyers: Your right, Americaâs best days are behind us. We have to protect the slender gains we have made. We all have to hunker down and take what Wall Street gives us. The stench of failure in her advisers pragmatic message is overwhelming. Clinton deserves a better message. So do the rest of us.
Interpretation, elected Democrats surrendered most of the country to Republicans while focusing exclusively on protecting their constituencies and some hard won programs benefiting those constituencies. Once upon a time, not many years ago lots and lots of America was purple (competitive) but somewhere in the past Democrats decided that they only needed the Presidency. When that happened they figured out which states they needed and which they could surrender. The act of surrender brought us a sea of bright red. Today every hard fought gain is in jeopardy or has been diminished. We canât take any chances or the sea of red will overwhelm us. .
Reasonable interpretation, we canât do anything bold. We have to play defense or some of our elected officials might lose their cushy jobs.
The problem with playing prevent defense is sooner or later your defense breaks down and you lose. Anyway all the time you all are playing safe protecting some slender gains a lot of people in the real world are watching the American dream slip away, all the while they are hurting.
You need to figure out just what is the purpose of electing people to office anywayâis it to give some favored people cushy jobs protecting the establishment or is it to advance the interests of the majority of the people. If it is the former Clinton must look pretty damn good. If you really think all Americans are equal, then you have to wonder if ârevolutionâ isnât something we should at least be discussing.