President Pat Buchanan

Probably not, and if he had he wouldn't have been able to govern.

He wrote of AIDS, "the homosexuals have declared war upon nature, and now nature is extracting an awful retribution." He referred to the U.S. government as the "Zionist Occupation Government" and Capitol Hill as "Israeli Occupied Territory" on more than one occasion. Buchanan stated that Hitler and Nazism were "no physical threat to the US." He called for a halt to ALL immigration, legal and illegal, which, while popular in some quarters, would spell economic disaster. No conceivable America would elect somebody with those views, barring ASB-type events.
 
Could Pat Buchanan been elected President in 1996

More plausible that he could have been elected in 1992.

If Bush I dropped out in 1992, Buchanan would have been best positioned to win the GOP nomination, whereas if Dole dropped out in 1996, most of his support would probably have gone to Alexander. And Clinton was much more beatable in 1992 than 1996.

and what would his administration look like?
Formidable border fence constructed, major cutbacks in legal immigration, trade protectionism, no interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo. If elected in 1992, would have appointd conservatives to the Supreme Court instead of Ginsberg and Breyer, so Roe V. Wade might have been repealed by now.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Buchanan is not a nutjob. Being protectionist, anti-immigration, pro-life and anti-Isreali is not nutjob.

Might be incorrect, but not crazy.

What about him stikes you as crazy?


Well, first of all he doesn't see any difference in legal and illegal immigration, and there's a HUGE difference. While you can bash illegal immigration many times if you want, no nation could ever grow without legal immigration, and the US is a nation of immigrants, not even the conservatives denies that.

Secondly his hatred for Israel is just mad. He call everything he doesn't like Sionist, and his remarks about Hitler and Nazism are just outright mad.
 
Well, first of all he doesn't see any difference in legal and illegal immigration, and there's a HUGE difference. While you can bash illegal immigration many times if you want, no nation could ever grow without legal immigration, and the US is a nation of immigrants, not even the conservatives denies that.

Depends how you look at it. If you're talking about the demographic impact on the population/culture then the differance is un-important.

And plenty of countries grow without immigration, if you want population growth, which is not the only sane opinion.


Secondly his hatred for Israel is just mad. He call everything he doesn't like Sionist, and his remarks about Hitler and Nazism are just outright mad.

Disagree. From what I have seen he seems very bitter about the cost of supporting Isreali for the US, but that does not translate to hatred or maddness. Hell, I have seen similar denoucations of Isreal from Jimmy Carter and the UN and liberals on this board

Do you consider them mad?

Hitler? Which remarks?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Depends how you look at it. If you're talking about the demographic impact on the population/culture then the differance is un-important.

And plenty of countries grow without immigration, if you want population growth, which is not the only sane opinion.




Disagree. From what I have seen he seems very bitter about the cost of supporting Isreali for the US, but that does not translate to hatred or maddness. Hell, I have seen similar denoucations of Isreal from Jimmy Carter and the UN and liberals on this board

Do you consider them mad?

Hitler? Which remarks?

He has several times remarked that a Europe dominated by Hitler would not have presented a threat to the US. He also blame Roosevelt for having pushed Japan into a war with US. Is it just me or is that complete lunacy??

IN 2002 he called the population growth of Asians, Blacks and Latin Americans in the US for a threat against civilization. That's such a sane statement.
 
He has several times remarked that a Europe dominated by Hitler would not have presented a threat to the US. He also blame Roosevelt for having pushed Japan into a war with US. Is it just me or is that complete lunacy??


Not at all.

I don't know what he assumed the end game of WWII would have been but I can imagine many senerios where Nazi Germany is in no position to threaten the US.

Hell many on this board insist that the sovs could have won without us. Are they insane? A post war Germany with a strong SU on one side and a shaken but strong UK on the other would not a threat to the US.

Did you read his book? What was his assumption on the post-war Europe?

Japan? The embargo was a very strong saction. I have heard many say that the Japanese felt they had no choice at that point but to attack or surrender.



IN 2002 he called the population growth of Asians, Blacks and Latin Americans in the US for a threat against civilization. That's such a sane statement.

It is certainly a alarmist statement. Worst case senerios could be bleak.

Search the forum. THere must be hundreds of grim TLs that would be made more likely by the political results of such a change.

A more divided, more socialist, less powerful US that could result from such changes could reasonably be feared as making some of them more likely.

China-wank? Resource depletion? UN-wank?
 
Well, first of all he doesn't see any difference in legal and illegal immigration, and there's a HUGE difference. While you can bash illegal immigration many times if you want, no nation could ever grow without legal immigration, and the US is a nation of immigrants, not even the conservatives denies that.

Britain never saw anything but net emigration throughout the Industrial Revolution and near continuous 19th century growth... Much the same applies to most European countries (or the vast majority of Asian, African and South American ones today). Granted mass immigration can be a big boost to population (for example in the surprising calculation that such a situation, plus high fertility rates partly attributable to immigration, will probably leave Britain as the most populous country in Western Europe by the mid 21st century) , labour market flexibility and hence growth, but there is no doubt that an economy, even the American economy, would keep ticking over without it.

Do I see a President Buchanan as a possibility? Absolutely not. Frankly the suggestion that the man is doolally is one which would not be rejected by me (a relatively conservative person) out of hand.
 
Last edited:
More plausible that he could have been elected in 1992.

If Bush I dropped out in 1992, Buchanan would have been best positioned to win the GOP nomination, whereas if Dole dropped out in 1996, most of his support would probably have gone to Alexander. And Clinton was much more beatable in 1992 than 1996.

Formidable border fence constructed, major cutbacks in legal immigration, trade protectionism, no interventions in Bosnia or Kosovo. If elected in 1992, would have appointd conservatives to the Supreme Court instead of Ginsberg and Breyer, so Roe V. Wade might have been repealed by now.

Why would Bush drop out in '92? He was the incumbent President then.
 
Disagree. From what I have seen he seems very bitter about the cost of supporting Isreali for the US, but that does not translate to hatred or maddness. Hell, I have seen similar denoucations of Isreal from Jimmy Carter and the UN and liberals on this board

he wouldn't have been running against Carter.
 
Top