Replies

"Most people, who aren't political naifs, or purer than thouers knew that Perot wasn't an alternative answer to Bush the elder and Bubba-bentone."

Historical Correction: The Perot movement was not "pure." The Little General attracted a polyglot of both left and right, Republican and Democrat. He convinced his followers of all stripes that he was "on their side." Peroism has nothing to do with any form of philosophical consistency.

Logical correction: Your use of the derogataion "naifs" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You believe that if you relegate your opponents to an inferior class by namecalling right off the bat, you discredit any argument that they may have. All you have done is post an irrelevant statement.

"The simple, historically proven fact is, that third parties do NOTHING but hand an election over to the candidate, the person going fringe, most despises/fears."

Historical Correction: No, that is not an "historical fact." The GOP was a THIRD PARTY that ultimately displaced the Whig Party. They failed to win their first election, but won their SECOND election. Your argument is undoubtedly rooted in the single election of 1992, and is therefore the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the universal.

Logical Correction: That it is a "simple proven fact" was a mere assertion on your part. You offer no evidence of your claim that it is "proven," "historical," nor a "fact."

"Politics is not now and never has been about only voting for a candidtae who is THE exemplar of one's ideal and positions. Those who rant & rave about this one and that not being whatever and just how more Conservative , or Liberal one is, doesn't mean that one shouldn't accept the possible ... instead of rejecting, out of hand, what one can get. Those people go through life NEVER being satified and never shall be."

I guess all the arguments that conservatives should "vote Republican so they can hold the feet of the Republicans to the fire" to get them to implement conservative policies is now no longer operative.

"The dog-in-the-manger/ cut of one's nose to spite one's face whingers here, refuse to see reality. They go from thread to thread claiming that they'll stay home or why everyone else should vote for some fringe candidate who, if elected, couldn't give them what they imagine he could. That's just delusional, on their collective part and they need to either wake up, or to forget utterly about politics; a subject they don't understand and never shall."

First you condemn people for staying at home instead of voting for candidates that they have concluded will not support any of the policies they desire to have implemented. Then, you demand that they all just forget about politics completely, which, I assume, would have to include voting. So, which is it? Should they stay at home, or vote? On another reply, you stated that it is the people who want "all or nothing" who want a dictator, yet here you are declaring that those who disagree with your position should simply "forget about politics," and, in essence, be DISENFRANCHISED from the vote and have nothing whatsoever to say about public policy. That sounds like DICTATORSHIP to me.

Politics is not the totality of government. You confuse politics with campaigns and election cycles in this country. Political campaigning is the means through which elected leaders are chosen. Politics isn't even just about voting or political parties. Politics is a branch of PHILOSOPHY. It deals with the nature and purpose of government in human society, and is not just about election campaigns in the United States of America. Election campaigns are just POLITICAL PROCEDURES to chose those who will hold elective office, in this case, in the United States of America. Politics is much, much more than just that, however, I shall not advocate that people who don't know or understand that should just shut up about politics, and refrain from voting at all.

Peroism has nothing to do with any form of philosophical consistency.

And that's irrelevant to the fact that he had a meaningful impact on the election and the aftermath to this day and beyond.

Your use of the derogataion "naifs" is the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem. You believe that if you relegate your opponents to an inferior class by namecalling right off the bat, you discredit any argument that they may have.

At least he was upfront about it. You, on the other hand, imply that he's a logical "naif" in an underhanded way as if it gave you more credibility.

Your argument is undoubtedly rooted in the single election of 1992, and is therefore the logical fallacy of arguing from the particular to the universal.

Yes, he was correct about 1992 which negates your logical fallacy argument and counters "historical fact".

Politics is not the totality of government. You confuse politics with campaigns and election....

Nice, but that stuff deserves a separate dedicated thread that deals with that stuff, IMO.