• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Will 2012 be an incredibly cynical election?

Ross Perot won exactly 0 electoral votes and finished second in only two states. George H. W. Bush who lost the election collected twice as many votes. If that's doing "very well" then I guess you're right.
Didnt get the a lot of the popular vote?

You said Perot did "Ross Perot did very well despite being fringy". Which when measured against the runs of other independents for president, it's true.

But let's take a look at the vote count:

44,909,806 - Clinton
39,104,550 - Bush
19,743,821 - Perot

That totals 103,758,177 votes cast. Perot drew less than 20% of the popular vote or less than 1 in 5 people voted for him.

Nineteen million votes looks to be an impressive number until you realize more than one-hundred million votes were cast.

Paul is also popular with independents because of his foreign policy views.
I see no foreign policy views except withdrawing troops from every hot spot they're currently involved.

I see no foreign policy views except withdrawing troops from every hot spot they're currently involved.
__________________
What are US troops doing in Afghanistan anyway?
So, BillJ shows you're utterly wrong and you start with the pointless questions rather than deal with the point. Typical.
 
Kodos:
So, BillJ shows you're utterly wrong and you start with the pointless questions rather than deal with the point. Typical.
_______
I think 20% is pretty darn good, but he is right.

What do you mean typical?

What does it matter to a guy sitting in Romania?

We are on Bzerzinskis Chessboard too.
 
We are on Bzerzinskis Chessboard too.

You realize that was published in 1998? The world has changed quite a bit since then.

As long as you guys aren't protecting fugitives who ram airplanes into civilian targets, I'm sure you'll be fine.
 
The oil is still there the gas is still there so US strategy did not change.

See... now we're getting to the reason for the Ron Paul hard-on. Yevetha is waiting for the U.S. invasion of Romania.

Here's a clue. If Ron Paul is president and things get that bad, he will be leading the charge to take your oil. If he refuses, he'll be removed from office by either impeachment or a bullet.
 
See... now we're getting to the reason for the Ron Paul hard-on. Yevetha is waiting for the U.S. invasion of Romania.

I dont think that would happen but they would to see us a proxyes against Russia.

Here's a clue. If Ron Paul is president and things get that bad, he will be leading the charge to take your oil.

The US army is way to overstreched and he keeps his word unlike Obama.

If he refuses, he'll be removed from office by either impeachment or a bullet.
Lets assume a cabal inside the CIA and the private sector wants to do that. Lets assume the same thing happened to JFK. The blowback would be much bigger and they would be much more scrutinised in the Internet Age.
 
If he refuses, he'll be removed from office by either impeachment or a bullet.
Lets assume a cabal inside the CIA and the private sector wants to do that. Lets assume the same thing happened to JFK. The blowback would be much bigger and they would be much more scrutinised in the Internet Age.

Won't do much good once Romania is the 52nd state, right after Iraq! :guffaw:
 
Kodos:
So, BillJ shows you're utterly wrong and you start with the pointless questions rather than deal with the point. Typical.
_______
I think 20% is pretty darn good, but he is right.

What do you mean typical?

What does it matter to a guy sitting in Romania?

We are on Bzerzinskis Chessboard too.
You're almost as obsessed with Bzerzinski as you are with Ron Paul.

Is there something you can point to that identifies Bzerzinski as the mastermind behind Obama's foreign policy?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top