Why did Ross Perot withdraw from the 1992 Presidential Campain?

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ipsedixit
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

I agree with you. I don't have your sources but I know that when he was looking into the issue of MIA's from the Vietnam War on behalf of President Reagan, he eventually found the fence around the playground and found out that he wasn't allowed outside of that fence.

I'm sure he had a very good awareness of the shadow government and it's power.


This is definately one area that got him the wrong type of attention. This is because that any soldiers still in Vietnam are seen as a liability according to all politicians on Capitol Hill, because they failed in their jobs in bringing all of our boys home.

They should be ashamed of themselves sitting in their luxury, ignoring the people who's only crime was to serve their country and become captured. Now they rot and are basically are seen as non-existent.

When I heard Ross Perot actually got the ball rolling on saving those men, it made me think just how corrupt our government is, and that he actually wanted to make a change, but Washington does not want to change it's corrupt tactics and tacit agreements to ignore the public in every possible way while abusing it's power.

[edit on 30-3-2009 by SpartanKingLeonidas]




posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Jim Marrs
 





Even the Secret Service, FBI, CIA and the U.S. military cannot stand up to the power of the military-industrial complex, Wall Street and the International bankers.

True, and in fact, of the three, it is International Banking Cartel that is the fuel that drives the other two.
Over the last year, this manufactured financial "crisis" has strengthened the hand of these bandits, who have used this as an opportunity to consolidate their death grip on the world economy, by taking over many of the banks for a song. This is a tactic that they have used, ever since Rothschild manufactured panic regarding the outcome of the Battle of Waterloo, forcing panic selling, which he then used to buy at distressed prices.
Somewhere, in the run-up to the 1992 Presidential Election, there is a trail that leads directly to the bankers. My guess is that Perot's wealth was threatened, as there are numerous ways to destroy it, when you control the entire financial system.
As always, one need only follow the money.



posted on Mar, 30 2009 @ 11:37 PM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 

From the point of view of the shadow government, getting elected president could be thought of as a potential first step in the infiltration of the shadow government.

All the more if you were someone who had not first been carefully processed and acculturated (assimilated into the Borg, so to speak) by the party machinery of the two major parties as a candidate.

A person like Perot or Ron Paul would be looked upon like a visiting case of bubonic plague. Steps would be taken. Steps were taken.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   
Basically, Perot did not want his shady dealings found out. He was just like the other two politicians running, except he used his "folksy" charm. The man is an egomaniac, and a very narcissistic individual. The reason I saw this was when he could not answer the questions asked by the moderator of a Sunday News show. He had no answers, and kept giving his same old speech rhetoric. He sounded just like Bush and Clinton.

I also hate to burst peoples' bubble, but Ron Paul would be perfect for the military industrial complex and bankers. He is opposed to any types of regulation, and the big industries would love that. The companies would remain global, as to outlaw that would be against Rep Paul's philosophy of government intrusion. Rep Paul can talk about the common man all he wants, but his policies are perfectly in line with the global elite.



posted on Mar, 31 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
I also hate to burst peoples' bubble, but Ron Paul would be perfect for the military industrial complex and bankers.


I don't think so. He wants America to close military bases abroad, bring the troops home and take care of business at home. They want the reverse of all that.


He is opposed to any types of regulation, and the big industries would love that.


I think you may be overstating this. Even the global elite understand the need for some kinds of rules for corporations. But remember, under Paul, corporate and financial institution bailouts would be much tougher, if they ocurred at all.


The companies would remain global, as to outlaw that would be against Rep Paul's philosophy of government intrusion.


One of the reasons they can remain global is the threat of US military interference to guarantee good deals overseas. If Paul retracted America's global military reach, the whole dynamic of how the bigs do business would change. Wages would rise overseas and jobs might start migrating back to the US.


Rep Paul can talk about the common man all he wants, but his policies are perfectly in line with the global elite.


No. Paul wants America to free itself from dependance on foreign supplies of oil, and spend a greater portion of the military budget on infrastructure at home.

The big thing though is that he wants to turn control of issuance of money over to the treasury, i.e., do away with the Fed. That is the single most important thing that distinguishes him from the global elite.

[edit on 31-3-2009 by ipsedixit]



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by ipsedixit
 


I am more a fan of Gov Jesse Ventura, who was a Populist long before it became popular. I do not trust Ron Paul, even though the fringe crowd seems enamored with him. I do agree with Rep Paul's civil libertarian views, although he should clear up some of his thoughts on social issues. I think the government should stay out of a woman's body and not get involved with the gay marriage issue.



posted on Apr, 1 2009 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by kidflash2008
reply to post by ipsedixit
 

I am more a fan of Gov Jesse Ventura, who was a Populist long before it became popular.


Nicely put. I'm a fan of the governor myself. There's a very low B.S. quotient with him, which I like a whole lot.


I do not trust Ron Paul, even though the fringe crowd seems enamored with him.


I'm with you there. Don't trust politicians. That's how we got into the current mess. People have to keep holding their feet to the fire.


I do agree with Rep Paul's civil libertarian views, although he should clear up some of his thoughts on social issues. I think the government should stay out of a woman's body and not get involved with the gay marriage issue.


These kinds of issues are often hot button ones out of proportion to their importance to the country. A candidate with a great program for the nation can be kept out of office by powerful special interest groups.

Personally, I think governments, particularly federal ones should steer clear of the arbitration of moral issues. Maybe there should be some kind of "civil union" which provides the legal framework for marriage and other family matters, overseen by government agencies and sex independant, and then matters of marriage as a sacrement would be left to religions or people's own creativity.

I have to say that I am not familiar with Dr. Paul's platform in detail. My own interest in him is based on his statements about the Fed and about the need for America to pull back from meddling so much overseas.





top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join