Ralph Nader interviewd by Pat Buchanan
Very interesting ideas being discussed here. At a minimum I thought it would be interesting to watch all the twitching going on as certain types here have to say information from American Conservative is valid and other fun stuff.
Give it a read and feel free to discuss..
Nick
EDIT: Added the f*cking link....
Pat does Ralph
Give it a read and feel free to discuss..
Nick
EDIT: Added the f*cking link....
Pat does Ralph
Comments
Originally posted by ColanderOfDeath
You gonna give a link or are we just supposed to imagine the conversation?
I wanted you to imagine it.
Nick
I use to dismiss Buchanan outright as lunatic fringe. However, with age he has mellowed somewhat and restrained his more vitriolic viewpionts. I give him this, he cuts to the chase and call it as he sees it. Unfortunately, he sees it through his particular brand of rose colored glasses. We're all guilty of this to greater and lesser degrees.
I admit that I find Nader's candidacy interesting and somewhat attractive. I'm just jaded enough to believe that IF he somehow won (somehow...) he and his vice president would both be pushing up daisies in short order after sufferring some kind of "accident"...
Originally posted by trumptman
I wanted you to imagine it.
Nick
It's hardly a wonder that Nader was disqualified from taking part in those pathetic "presidential debates" in 2000. He would have eaten both Gore and Bush for breakfast, 10 times over. Instead, he was threatened with arrest for even showing up as a legitimate, ticketed member of the audience. (!!)
This interview with Buchanan is standard Nader. I wish we had some form of proportional representation, or preferential voting system.....
Sigh....
Originally posted by hardhead
trumptman, this is interesting. First of all, what do YOU thik about it man?
I use to dismiss Buchanan outright as lunatic fringe. However, with age he has mellowed somewhat and restrained his more vitriolic viewpionts. I give him this, he cuts to the chase and call it as he sees it. Unfortunately, he sees it through his particular brand of rose colored glasses. We're all guilty of this to greater and lesser degrees.
I admit that I find Nader's candidacy interesting and somewhat attractive. I'm just jaded enough to believe that IF he somehow won (somehow...) he and his vice president would both be pushing up daisies in short order after sufferring some kind of "accident"...
What do I think about it? I find aspects of it pretty much in agreement with my own thinking. However there are parts, especially with regard to immigration and fair trade that he leaves a bit wide open or leaves to utopian views.
For example I've pounded plenty of people on the left about how illegal immigration drives down wages, unionization and disproportionately harms African-Americans and Latino/Hispanics. It also impacts our environment. However anyone who desires to put an end to illegal immigration is still labeled racist, including Pat Buchanan for example. You will notice that Nader completely ducked the question about what level/number of people he thinks would be acceptable for legal immigration per year.
Nader also ducks the deeper issues of free trade. He mentions for example. I myself am a fair trader so I wanted him to make some good points here. Instead he just goes on about how some farmers were hurt by cheap corn. I mean how can we protect an agricultural lifestyle in 2004? We are busy losing tech jobs to India and he wants to talk about how productivity gains are wiping out farmers. I mean that is just an endorsement of some sort of non-change no matter what. Obviously productivity gains still need a way to be harnessed, but telling us how farmers in certain countries that are still using less productive methods to farm in 2004 are going to somehow be protected doesn't light a fire under me.
Finally Nader talks about closing loopholes and not raising tax rates but when challenged about the lost revenue, doesn't truly address it at all. Pat mentions being able to shrink the military and our budget with what critics call "Fortress America" thinking, basically being much more isolationist with regard to our troops and policies. This is a very conservative position by the way. Ralph makes a sort of generalized statement about it with this...
RN: We are presently defending prosperous nations like Japan, Germany, and England, who are perfectly capable of defending themselves against nonexistent enemies.
He doesn't come outright and say he would bring them home. Nation-building and acting as the world's police force use to be very against conservative principles. It is expensive as well.
Lastly you have Nader claiming that both Kerry and Bush are corporatists. I would agree with him in that respect. I have been especially unhappy with Bush's growth of the government, disregard for immigration policy, and inability to keep spending in check. Kerry doesn't seem like he would be any different in that regard. Kerry also doesn't seem at all like a populist or someone who is not interested in working for monied interests. He is basically Bush who supports abortion and gay marriage. People wonder why that won't garner any enthusiam or convince any conservatives to change. For me it is easy to see.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
For example I've pounded plenty of people on the left about how illegal immigration drives down wages, unionization and disproportionately harms African-Americans and Latino/Hispanics. It also impacts our environment. However anyone who desires to put an end to illegal immigration is still labeled racist, including Pat Buchanan for example. You will notice that Nader completely ducked the question about what level/number of people he thinks would be acceptable for legal immigration per year.
How many is acceptable? I think that there should be 1,071,295 immigrants per year.
This looks like the left yet gain shooting itself in the foot, always making the racist charges first, on a kneejerk. Mass immigration is a space rather than race issue, (especially here in S. California), as well as being an economic impact. But it does put cheaper food on Americans' tables: who is willing to work in the fields at $3 an hour from dawn to dusk, 6 and 7 days a week?
Nader also ducks the deeper issues of free trade. He mentions for example. I myself am a fair trader so I wanted him to make some good points here. Instead he just goes on about how some farmers were hurt by cheap corn.
He was citing an example, he wasn't implying that cheap corn is the only issue!
I mean how can we protect an agricultural lifestyle in 2004? We are busy losing tech jobs to India and he wants to talk about how productivity gains are wiping out farmers. I mean that is just an endorsement of some sort of non-change no matter what. Obviously productivity gains still need a way to be harnessed, but telling us how farmers in certain countries that are still using less productive methods to farm in 2004 are going to somehow be protected doesn't light a fire under me.
Finally Nader talks about closing loopholes and not raising tax rates but when challenged about the lost revenue, doesn't truly address it at all. Pat mentions being able to shrink the military and our budget with what critics call "Fortress America" thinking, basically being much more isolationist with regard to our troops and policies. This is a very conservative position by the way. Ralph makes a sort of generalized statement about it with this...
He doesn't come outright and say he would bring them home. Nation-building and acting as the world's police force use to be very against conservative principles. It is expensive as well.
Lastly you have Nader claiming that both Kerry and Bush are corporatists. I would agree with him in that respect. I have been especially unhappy with Bush's growth of the government, disregard for immigration policy, and inability to keep spending in check. Kerry doesn't seem like he would be any different in that regard. Kerry also doesn't seem at all like a populist or someone who is not interested in working for monied interests. He is basically Bush who supports abortion and gay marriage. People wonder why that won't garner any enthusiam or convince any conservatives to change. For me it is easy to see.
Nick [/B]
It would be interesting to see what answers Bush and Kerry would have given, off the cuff, without rehearsal, to some of those questions. Kerry would have weaseled his way out and privided absolutely zero answers, and Bush would have said....ummm...uhhh....al qaida,..... ummmm, errrrrrr....errrrrrr.. ..ahhhhhhhhh,,,,,,,,.Saddam..... .....ummm....Iraq, ..........the war on terrorism is being won........errrrrrrrrr......
VOTE: Bush Kerry 2004.
Originally posted by shetline
Maybe Ralph will have Buchanan be his running mate. That would stir things up.
That would seriously interesting. Populist left and right together at last.
Nick
What sort of fool would say that they are the same thing, when I can see plain as day that they are not. It's like trying to compare apples to oranges for god's sake!
I'm voting Pepsi!
BTW, that interview was rad.
Originally posted by Aquatic
Why do you idgits keep saying Bush and Kerry are the same? That is just plain dumb. They have vastly different policies on a ton of important things. Heard of that thing called the environment? How do you think Bush will do in another 4 years? I can already taste the arsenic. I'm real glad the smog from Michigan is causing 15 legged 23 eyed purple people eater frogs over in my state. Saying Democrats and Republicans or Bush and Kerry are the same is at best a hyperbole or used for humor, at worst an egregious error of ignorance or disingenuity. Research the differences folks before making blanket statements. Sure I like Nader as much as you guys but come on. Get real. Sure Democrats, as the other major party, in an unfortunately 2 party tilted system, have become heavily lobbied, but not as heavily lobbied or influenced as the GOP. A hell of a lot more Democrats are in politics because they are standing up for what they believe is right, instead of just $. Why would you fight for the environment for example? It's not profitable. It's just right. A Kerry McCain administration is what this country needs. Some vitriolic, inspiring bipartisanship. Edwards/McCain would've been even better, although Kerry has a lot of experience he's a hardened politician, but nevertheless fighting for what's right, and the little guy (which is most of America.) He's not a Boston Brahmin!
I think you show exactly why the left does not have to address true populist sentiment. I mean there are statements in there you have bought hook, line and sinker.
Take the arsenic line for example. We have hashed that up several dozen times on here. No matter what you believe Bush never raised the level. In fact it is lower now than when Bush took office and lower than the whole 8 years Clinton was in office. I mean why would someone even try to work in this area when you would so readily believe a lie such as this?
I would love for you to show me how Republicans and Democrats were different there though. Clinton had to be sued into action and all he did in the end was issue an executive decision. He didn't lobby congress, he didn't propose legislation. He left that all up to his successor. (Bush)
Did Clinton avoid any wars that the U.N. wouldn't endorse? Sorry he didn't in Bosnia.
Did executive compensation stop growing disproportionately under Clinton? Did minority neighborhoods get better?
Clinton headed the DLC which is basically the corporate wing of the Democratic party. Kerry voted for NAFTA, WTO, and normalized permanent trade status for China. Kerry even voted for the war in Iraq before he was running for president.
Has Kerry proposed to lower immigration levels or enforce the border? Kerry proposes rewarding those who are here illegally but allowing them to become legal, just like Bush. Go to Kerry's website and the only statements I see about wage inequity is between men and women. I see nothing between bottom and top. You find for me a clear tax policy from Kerry that goes beyond just not making Bush's tax cuts permanent, but oh keep those middle class cuts.
You are welcome to find and post the differences in terms of corporations. I already said they would be different on some social issues.
Nick
Originally posted by groverat
It is a damned shame we're losing all of those valuable call center (a.k.a. - "tech") jobs to India. We'll probably all die soon.
Actually there are programming and designing jobs going to India as well. Intel's new upcoming processors were designed in India.
Intel India Chip
AMD is following as well...
AMD off to India
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Actually there are programming and designing jobs going to India as well. Intel's new upcoming processors were designed in India.
Intel India Chip
AMD is following as well...
AMD off to India
Nick
Intel, AMD, IBM, Motorola, HP, et al., had been designing and manufacturing their wares in various locations around the world for decades (some are quite subtle about it, others more obvious, as with products codenamed ?Baniyas? or ?Dothan?). Now India is also becoming more integrated in this array.
It indicates that India (and other countries) may well, in a few decades, achieve what Taiwan achieved in the late nineteen-eighties; consequently two things I am in favour of: wealth would become more evenly spread around the globe, and more wealth would be created as more people from more places would be involved with creating wealth, and enjoying it too.
As for Mssrs. Nader and Buchanan can keep barking at the passing caravans for all I care, qui se ressemble s?assemble.