Ross Perot endorses Mitt Romney

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,973
Reaction score
2,156
Red is twitching

Ross Perot, the businessman who mounted the last major challenge to the two-party political system, said Tuesday he is backing Mitt Romney for president this year.​
Mr. Perot's 1992 campaign elevated the budget deficit to the forefront of politics, and six years later the federal government notched its first surplus in decades.​
"At stake is nothing less than our position in the world, our standard of living at home and our constitutional freedoms," Mr. Perot said in a statement released by the Romney campaign. "That is why I am endorsing Mitt Romney in his quest for the presidency. We can't afford four more years in which national debt mushrooms out of control, our government grows, and our military is weakened. Mitt has the background, experience, intelligence and integrity to turn things around. He has my absolute support."​
Click to expand...
​
 
the_leander said:
Who is Ross Perot, and why should I care?
Click to expand...

Ross Perot was the last true 3rd party candidate in the USA. Ross Perot was leading the polls in 1992 before he shot himself in the foot. He quit the race citing "Republican dirty tricks against his family". He later reversed and rejoined the race but never recovered. I voted for Ross Perot in 1992.

Classic "giant sucking sound" speech:



Long watch debate:

 
Interesting! Cheers for that Red.

Has he ever gained as much traction since then?
 
the_leander said:
Interesting! Cheers for that Red.

Has he ever gained as much traction since then?
Click to expand...

IIRC he also ran in 1996, but his political star had fallen by then. He never recovered from pulling out and returning to the race in 92. People started to see him as a bit kooky. Personally I always loved the guy. He's 82 now so his political days are likely over.

While I remember him for that political race, he was a billionaire businessman and is likely most well known with people older than me for the rescue of employees arrested in Iran.

In December 1978 two EDS executives working in Tehran are arrested on suspicion of bribery. Bail was set at 12.75 million dollars. When Ross Perot, head of the Dallas-based company hears about it, he decides to get his people out no matter what. While the firm's lawyers are trying to find a way to pay the bail, he also recruits a team of volunteers from his executives, led by a retired United States Army officer, to break them out by force, if necessary.

Their well-rehearsed plan to break the two out of jail fails because of a prison transfer, and the team has to figure out another way to rescue their colleagues, culminating in a harrowing overland escape to Turkey. Meanwhile, riots and violence dominate the streets of Tehran more and more each day, culminating in the Iranian Revolution led by Khomeini against the Shah, endangering the other EDS employees as well.
Click to expand...

He is also known for his active involvement in the Vietnam POW/MIA issue.

I put a lot of weight into what Ross Perot says.
 
I put a lot of weight into what Ross Perot says.
Click to expand...

Yeah, me too. H. Ross Perot was the first person I voted for. (I turned 18 a couple months before the 1992 election.) I'm puzzled why he'd come out with strong support for Mitt. I really am.
 
Makes sense to me. Perot made lots of his money from Big Business and Big Government contracts, not unlike Mitt. Perot wanted to run government like a business, again not unlike Mitt. Perot was a multi-millionaire a few times over, again not unlike Mitt. I can see where Perot might easily identify with Mitt.

As for the idea that government should run like a business - it's crap and not well thought out. The vast majority of businesses in the USA (and world) are dictatorships that funnel money to the top. Neither in any way is a good form of government.
 
Perot made lots of his money from Big Business and Big Government contracts, not unlike Mitt. Perot wanted to run government like a business, again not unlike Mitt. Perot was a multi-millionaire a few times over, again not unlike Mitt. I can see where Perot might easily identify with Mitt.
Click to expand...

Yeah, superficially, I see what you're saying, there. But Perot ran businesses that did things. EDS was a leading technology company in the 70's and 80's under Perot. Perot Systems was one of the better technology contractors to work for in the early 90's. (I had a couple co-workers who worked there.) For the most part, he was pretty good to his employees, and he believed in keeping things American.

Compare that to the vulture that is Bain Capital and get back to me.

As for the idea that government should run like a business - it's crap and not well thought out. The vast majority of businesses in the USA (and world) are dictatorships that funnel money to the top. Neither in any way is a good form of government.
Click to expand...

Perot wanted to run the government with the efficiency of business, rather than as a private business. There's a pretty big distinction there.
 
Perot wanted to run the government with the efficiency of business, rather than as a private business. There's a pretty big distinction there.
Click to expand...
EnRon was fairly efficent, just saying.
 
The best thing about Ross Perot was that he was an outsider. Romney isn't an outsider. The big deal with Perot was that if elected he'd give the establishment a massive wake up call. Not sure his policies on the economy would have been better than what Clinton did though. Perot probably would have also faced a united congress - united against him. But maybe not, hard to say. It's a shame that the presidency is tied to political parties.
 
faethor said:
EnRon was fairly efficent, just saying.
Click to expand...

??? Enron wasn't efficient, at all. It was a scheme. They traded in energy they couldn't generate, buy, or store. The entire thing was a shell game to take advantage of an already broken energy policy.

It also had basically nothing to do with H. Ross Perot. Yes, Perot Systems did some technology consulting for Enron. Of course, he had already turned the company over to his son several years before they did that work. And, really, do you want to go down the guilty-by-association path of everything one of your customers does is your fault?
 
ilwrath said:
Perot wanted to run the government with the efficiency of business, rather than as a private business. There's a pretty big distinction there.
Click to expand...
Government DOES run with the efficiency of a business. Or, conversely - big businesses run with the efficiency of a government. Running a big corporation requires that the business have a government by which it may govern the activities of the business. In the case of a business it is governed to the benefit of the owners. The same is true of a nation's government. Who are the owners? In the case of private industry it is the people who, by the rules and regulations of the nation in which they live are duly registered by the government as the owners and so can call upon the state to protect their recognized rights as owners. Who are the owners of the government? Those who speak the loudest (and since the supreme court decided that money was speech ...)
 
ilwrath said:
??? Enron wasn't efficient, at all. It was a scheme. They traded in energy they couldn't generate, buy, or store.
Click to expand...
Worse then that, ENRON traded in energy that they asked carriers not to carry. They made huge amounts of money while hurting consumers and producers. In moving energy about they were INefficient. At making money they were VERY efficient as measured by the amount of man hours required to bring in the income - and that's what they call the bottom line.
 
ilwrath said:
??? Enron wasn't efficient, at all. It was a scheme. They traded in energy they couldn't generate, buy, or store. The entire thing was a shell game to take advantage of an already broken energy policy.
Click to expand...
And efficently made money hand over fist. Illegal immoral? Yes. Efficent? Sure.

It also had basically nothing to do with H. Ross Perot.
Click to expand...
True enough. Though it's also true I never stated it did. I simply was picking an efficent company.
 
FluffyMcDeath said:
Worse then that, ENRON traded in energy that they asked carriers not to carry. They made huge amounts of money while hurting consumers and producers. In moving energy about they were INefficient. At making money they were VERY efficient as measured by the amount of man hours required to bring in the income - and that's what they call the bottom line.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Carbon Credits.

Wash, rinse, repeat.
 
redrumloa said:
No it wasn't, it was a scam.
Click to expand...
Just about all big companies can be described that way - many of them WOULD be if you got a good look at their marketing/engineering/financial practices or their executive compensation and their margins. A perfectly efficient market (in economic terms) is one in which everyone makes a profit infinitely close to zero. Only by introducing economic inefficiencies can anyone make a profit (especially information inefficiencies - making sure you don't know what they know).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top