Posted On: Saturday - June 17th 2017 3:00PM MST
In Topics: History Trump US Feral Government Deep State
Two months back, in wondering what is President Trump's problem, as far as keeping his campaign promises to us, Peak Stupidity had this post, Has Trump been Neo-conned?. That could have been called Deep State vs. Trump, as in the original definition of the Deep State, explained here.
In this excerpt, concerning the question of has the President been already neoconned, we said:
It could be that some threats were made to the effect of "Look what happened to JFK" or "We already put old Ronnie in his place the 1st year - we may choose a larger caliber than .22 this time". It makes me really wonder what happened during the Ross Perot campaign in summer of '92. To me, Mr. Perot was the closest thing we had to a Donald Trump in the recent past. I should say, Mr. Trump was the closest thing to a Ross Perot. Mr. Perot, if you recall, or bing it, dropped out of a fairly successful campaign due to concerns about the safety of his family. This was a business leader/entrepreneur with about the order of magnitude of wealth as Donald Trump. You don't seem to hear much about what really happened in July 1992, and Perot, after re-entering the race received almost 19% of the popular vote.
Yeah, now about the businessman Ross Perot (good short biography), you won't hear much about the guy anymore. His on-again/off-again presidential campaign has a lot of parallels to the successful campaign of Donald Trump. Both were called "populists", I suppose meaning they weren't political insiders (nothing wrong with that). They both had a lot of insight, being big-businessmen (Ross was not a big businessman, but he was indeed a big-businessman ;-} ), worried the coming devastation to American manufacturing from trade deals that were bi-partisan (meaning involving traitors on "both sides of the aisle"). Both these guys campaigned on behalf of middle class Americans, which you haven't seen in the major parties since, arguably, Ronald Reagan, maybe back to Carter/Ford or who knows how far back?
Ross Perot ran for a 3rd party ticket in 1992, eventually named the "Reform Party", but that name may have come later on. However, by 2016 primary time, or even 2012 with Ron Paul, the 3rd party option had almost been completely suppressed by the 2 wings of our red/blue = purple party with complicity of the Gov't Media, aka Lyin' Press.
From the www.biography.com link above on the 1992 presidential campaign:
His campaign seemed to gather momentum as the political race heated up. Perot promoted himself as a reformer, building on his success with the Texas Public Education system in the 1980s. But, in July, he dropped out of the race, later claiming that the Republican Party had plans to embarrass his daughter Carolyn before her wedding. According to The New York Times, Perot believed that the Bush campaign was going to start a rumor about his daughter's sexuality.
Perot returned to the race in October with only weeks left before the election. Despite this setback, he managed to garner nearly 19 percent of the popular vote. Perot was the first independent candidate since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 to receive this large of a share of the popular vote. Still the lion's share of voters chose Democrat Bill Clinton. Perot faced off against Clinton again in 1996, but his campaign failed to win over much public support.
Well, this writer was around, and let me tell you, the withdrawal in the summer of '92 was a real let down. In those years, even till about 1995, when I started to notice that every new change in every level of government from then on was always to the side of bigger government, a bigger police state, and less liberty, it seemed people were around who could and would change things for the better. Ross Perot was one such guy. Per the biography above, Mr. Perot rejoined the race, and did get that huge 19% of the vote, even after the (what I thought was) drama of the summer.
I ended up not voting for Mr. Perot based on what I read in the Lyin' Press with no more explanations than "basically his is a flake", and don't feel good about that. No, BTW, I absolutely DID NOT vote for the psychopath Bill Clinton**, nor did I vote for the CIA-endorsed George H. W. Bush. I voted Libertarian again... and again... and again (to no obvious effect!) The reason I wrote "(what I thought was) drama" above was due to my still great trust in the Lyin' Press - we didn't even call it the MSM yet at the time, just "THE NEWS". I think now that Mr. Perot was seriously threatened in some way. Possibly it was not just about his daughter, and definitely not just a threat to embarrass someone - that was possibly all he could say.
Lookit, George Bush was former CIA big cheese. If he wanted to win, he needed to get Mr. Perot out of the race. I'm sure Mr. Bush had the help on speed dial to take care of it. It doesn't really need to involve physical threats. That would be especially true now, as almost everyone in high position has many things in databases in a large server farm in UTAH (backed-up somewhere else, unfortunately) that he doesn't want known by everyone. This is the Deep State in action. As far as his rejoining the campaign goes, possibly Mr. Perot was powerful enough to get his threats removed or maybe just determined enough to ignore them. Who knows?
It's just a big possibility, and that brings us to Donald Trump's campaign, who made it all the way through. Was it that he's squeaky clean? No, I'm sure he has plenty of vices, but we know about the women, and some of what was disgraceful back in 1992 was completely normal by 2016! It's not like nobody tried to bring up scandals, but with the extreme distrust of the Lyin' Press now, many of them "won't take" for patriotic Americans. We are beyond that, if the guy's gonna be on our side even a little bit.
Donald Trump may just be getting the brunt of the Deep State treatment as President, which explain why he is letting us down only just now.
-------------------------------------
As an aside, there are plenty of articles out there that would argue about whether most of Mr. Perot's votes came from would-be Bush voters or not. I would bet on it (maybe in the 60% range, not all of them.) Hopefully, a few good links to this issue will be forthcoming. Gotta go though.
-------------------------------------
* At least Perot had a sense of humor, while Øb☭ma was all ears too, without one.
** "Psychopath" should probably be "psychopaths" and "Clinton" should probably be "the Clintons", as even back then, the idea was brought up (by the Hildabeast) that the Hildabeast would be a working first beast. She had made the comment back then that she wouldn't be just baking cookies like some housewife. I guess Bill couldn't put a stop to that feminism, as she probably knew about more people killed by him than she had had offed at that juncture. ("Hey, just shut your mouth, Billy, I could get you put away for 31 murder-ones and a few dozen manslaughters." "Oh, yeah, bitch, I know about 3 of yours, you'll get 3 life sentences, and I'll get 31 ... better hush up right now!")
Comments: