Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions he ran for president in 92 and 96. He said the giant sucking sound you hear will be jobs being sucked out of the US if NAFTA gets passed. Do we need a rich man with a concience today. We are thick with thieves taking all.
Ralph Nader was against NAFTA. He’ll probably run again.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/Ralph_Nader_Free_Trade.htm
This statement, in a post that appears to be promoting the candidacy of Perot, (or even someone like Perot), just broke every irony meter on the continent of North America.
Perot wouldn’t be more successful today than he was 15 years ago; third parties usually fade after one major election result. Nader’s high-water mark was in 2000, and he wasn’t nearly as successful in '04.
Not Perot he is politically gone,but someone like him might be an option. Nader doesnt get the financing or play. When he was preching his presidency ,thinking people had to see his viewpoint had some logic.
I do not like what corporations have done to America. There are some corpoprate leaders with honesy. I am looking for one.
Jim Sinegal, the owner of Costco isn’t a bad guy.
You did say “h. ross perot time is now” in the title. 
There’s something that bothers me about the way you’re saying America needs a rich guy to come along and save it. Why does it have to be someone like that?
[QUOTE=gonzomax]
Answers - The Most Trusted Place for Answering Life's Questions he ran for president in 92 and 96. He said the giant sucking sound you hear will be jobs being sucked out of the US if NAFTA gets passed./QUOTE]And he was wrong.
Come on Marley. Poor people can’t afford to be saviors. How would they be able to keep buying liquor/child support/lottery tickets?
[QUOTE=Askance]
Eh? Haven’t we lost a lot of jobs to outsourcing since NAFTA was enacted?
We have lost tons of jobs. Most of them requiring skills or education. NAFTA didnt enforce any wage or environmental rules. It allowed India and later China to take over our industries. (automotive,steel,textile) The unemployment stats are bs. Once unemloyment runs out you are no longer counted. I know all admins have found ways to underreport the rates ,but this one has done it the best.Check with Ohio,Mich,Illinoois and Indians to see what has happened.
China uses prison labor .How do we beat that.
You do realize, don’t you, that neither India or China are in North America and thus cannot be part of the **North American ** Free Trade Agreement?
That is false.
You can easily read more here: http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_faq.htm
What the hell does NAFTA have to do with China and India? Please explain this wonderful piece of logic to us all?
I actually would love to curtail outsourcing overseas, but you cannot pin this on NAFTA.
I do not completely agree. Many that voted for Nader in 2000 (like me) were scared shitless by Bush’s first term and voted for Kerry despite not liking him in '04. I would have voted for Nader again, like many of my friends, but we were assuming every vote for Kerry would help. It was not enough, but I think it hurt the green party in '04.
Jim
That describes me also, although I didn’t dislike Kerry (some of which I blame on Stockholm Syndrome). Nader isn’t with the Green Party anymore, so he now has no infrastructure and is running on name recognition. He basically lost 90% of his votes between 2000 and 2004, which is what happens to third parties after they make an impact. In 2000, he seemed like a viable protest vote; by 2004 he seemed like a self-centered dick. It hurt both him and the Green Party, since the Democrats and Greens became so hostile.
God forbid we do business with India. The world would be a much better place if the USA never did any trade with them and let them all starve to death.
Hey, wait, I’m in Canada. Fuck us too, I suppose. How silly for the USA and Canada to do business. Everyone would be so rich if they just closed the borders.
Wait, so it’s time for a new anti-NAFTA candidate? A position that won 18% of the vote in 1992, 9% of the vote in 1996, 3.2% of the vote in 2000, and 0.5% of the vote in 2004?
Yeah, ridin’ the wave of the future, there.
I’m going to trot out a theory that I’ve held for quite a while now: while major 3rd party movements prior to the Great Depression in many cases heralded the direction of the future (from the Free Soil party heralding the Republican anti-slavery movement to the Progressive movement being split up between Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson), every major third party run since then has been a defeated movement taking one last run for relevancy.
1948: Strom Thurmond runs on a straight segregationist platform in an attempt to keep Democrats from continuing to move desegregationist; the next twenty years is practically defined by a destruction of segregation.
1948: Henry Wallace runs on a leftist platform stating that Stalin and the Soviet Union would be true allies for world peace if we just left them alone. We know how well that turned out.
1968: George Wallace runs on a platform trying to convince conservative Southerners to stay out of the Republican Party and possibly to roll back desegregation. Neither occurs.
1980: John Anderson runs on a platform trying to make a place for liberal Republicans in what is becoming more and more Reagan’s party. That worked well, didn’t it?
Given that, and given how quickly Perot’s political support got pissed away, it seems to me likely that his runs in 1992 and 1996 were pretty much the last gasp of the protectionists. Hell, even Gephardt got shellacked in the 2004 primaries.
The only thing I haven’t decided yet is whether the Green and Libertarian parties fall into this mold. It’s tempting to say they don’t because they’re not big enough to really have gotten attention, but at that same point, they’re not getting the attention of the major parties, either.
NAFTA doesn’t have anything about trade with India or China. Did you mean to say Canada? Or maybe Mexico? Jobs lost to Canada or Mexico might be blamed on NAFTA. But, see, India and China are not members of NAFTA. What ARE the members? The US. Canada. Mexico.
Flat out wrong. Total urban legend. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Please retract this statement.
While some factories in China use prison labor, the vast majority of them don’t. I don’t have a problem prohibiting the import of goods produced by prison labor. Once we do that, what are we going to do about the 99% of Chinese goods that are NOT produced by prison labor? Refuse to trade with China? Refuse to trade with India?
The economic development of China over the last twenty years has been the largest sustained decrease in human misery for the largest number of people in human history. The best thing for the planet since the Allies won WWII. We benefit slightly, they benefit greatly. If cutting off trade with China would benefit the US slightly then we could argue about it…but the reality is that trade with China enriches the US.
We do not benefit.
Period.
Our economy gets worse all the time, & neither China nor India abides by the terms of our trade agreements. Currency manipulation & intellectual theft are the least of those violations.
China uses their growth to build a dangerous military force. And we see our strength vanish.
American GDP is decreasing? Really? When did this happen? Why wasn’t this in the Wall Street Journal?
Can you back up any of this with some valid cites? Especially the portion about our economy getting worse all the time. It is an interesting statement, but much of it appears quite false.
Jim