Maximum Wage/Universal Basic Income
February 15, 2020
Lying About Science
February 29, 2020
Show all

The Making of a Predator

Ralph welcomes independent journalist, Monique El-Faizy, to talk about her book “All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator,” which chronicles 43 more women who have come forward with stories of the President’s sexual misconduct. Plus, Ralph, Steve, and David talk Trump’s pardons, Michael Bloomberg, electoral politics, and still have time to knock out some listener questions.

Monique El-Faizy is a freelance journalist and a fellow at the World Policy Institute. Ms. El-Faizy has written for a variety of publications, such as The New York Times, the Guardian, the Washington Post, GQ, The Financial Times, Marie Claire and Glamour. She is the author of God and Country: How Evangelicals Have Become America’s New Mainstream. And along with co-author Barry Levine she has written All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator.

“When Trump was thirteen his father sent him off to an all-male military academy. His classmates there said because there were no girls there, the only way they could learn about girls and women and relationships with the opposite sex was through Playboy magazine, that was kind of their bible and their guidebook… [Trump] seems to never have changed his view of women from that Playboy view that he developed at thirteen.”

Monique El-Faizy, co-author of All the President’s Women: Donald Trump and the Making of a Predator 

“[With Medicare-for-all] the US corporations will be more competitive with Western Europe, Japan and Canada, because none of these corporations have to pay for health insurance, and that’s a big deal. When General Motors doesn’t have to pay for health insurance, which costs them more than what they’re paying for steel and manufacturing their cars, they’re going to be more competitive.”

Ralph Nader

Ralph Nader Radio Hour Ep 311 Transcript (Right click to download)

12 Comments

  1. Reuben Yancey says:

    Dear Ralph, the problem has has been and continues to be that Pelosi is protecting her and her major donors wealth which is profiting hugely from Trump’s pro-corporate administration. Isn’t this obvious! .

  2. Afdal Shahanshah says:

    I remember what first tuned me in to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour around five years ago was talking about all sorts of interesting topics and issues that no one else was talking about. In this episode, another of a long line completely fixated on Trump, I feel like I have learned absolutely nothing useful or interesting. There’s so many important and politically relevant topics to cover but once again it’s all about the orange bad man, whom everyone already knows is bad. Once again I have found Ralph’s answers to listener questions more stimulating than the actual topic of the show. In particular…

    I’ve explained this in the comments before, but Instant Runoff Voting (IRV) is actually one of the worst of many other alternative ranked-choice voting methods and it is NOT a good enough voting reform to get third parties elected (or make more than two candidates competitive in a party primary, for instance). While it is better than plurality voting, IRV does not actually cure the spoiler effect and does not eliminate tactical voting to a high enough degree. In fact it invents several new election outcome pathologies that tend to cancel out many of its improvements over plurality voting. These outcomes can be so upsetting to the electorate that they choose to repeal it later. This has happened a number of times in US municipalities, including 2009 in Burlington, Vermont when some of the worst, most counter-intuitive pathologies of IRV manifested themselves in only the second election they tried it.

    3rd party advocates need to stop shooting themselves in the foot pushing IRV and look at the examples around the world where it has failed. Ireland, Malta, and Austalia for example. The Australian House has used IRV for over 100 years (happy centennial a few months ago!) for its single-winner House district elections and third parties still have almost non-existent representation in it. And this IN SPITE of having proportional representation in other areas of government where 3rd parties actually significant electoral representation. IRV is simply not good enough without also using proportional representation, and since proportional representation is generally a much more difficult reform to get than voting method reform in the United States, IRV is not the stepping stone to proportional representation that its proponents sometimes make it out to be.

    Now there are actually single-winner voting systems that can reliably get third parties elected. Two of the voting systems agreed to be the most expressive and least tactical by many voting method scientists are Approval and Score voting. Fargo, North Dakota became the most progressive place for voting reform in 2018 by being the first place in the country to move to Approval voting. It is extremely important that progressives get themselves educated on this topic because in a way IRV almost functions as a Trojan Horse of voting reform. Its passage and failure will greatly harm the voting reform movement for decades to come (“Change the voting system? We’ve tried that before with ranked choice voting and it didn’t work! It’s hopeless!”). That should be reason enough to attack IRV in favor for something better before the damage is done. Which fight do you want to pick? A marginal pseudo-victory just because IRV has more momentum right now due to better marketing by a misleading group (FairVote), or ACTUALLY solving the problem of Duverger’s Law by supporting the right alternatives?

  3. Mark Hughes says:

    During the opening discussion among Ralph, Steve & David, the problem with the Democrats isn’t that they’re in ‘disarray’, nor are mired in indecision or anything like that. As Paul Street told Chris Hedges on an episode of ‘On Contact’, the problem with the Democrats isn’t that they’re inept or incompetent; they’re just corrupt. Flat-out corrupt. The only visage of indecision when it comes to this cabal is that they can’t figure out how to successfully lie anymore to increasing numbers of those left-of-center. If they were increasingly successful, we wouldn’t even be seeing people like Sanders running for president on the Democratic ticket.

    And let’s be careful not to blame nonvoters for the actions of the Electoral College (a topic that direly needs discussion, with Bruce Fein or another constitutional scholar being interviewed, including what are Electors, who are they, what do they do, how do they become an Elector, etc). I flatly reject that. Hillary had nearly 3 million votes more than Trump yet the EC handed the latter the presidency. The EC wasn’t designed to supplant those who don’t vote; it was designed to overrule those who do. If 3 million votes don’t overrule the EC, exactly how many do? So it’s not that Bernie voters ‘believe’ that Hillary stole the nomination from Bernie; she in fact did. How much more evidence do we need to realize this?

    Interesting factoid: the 12th Amendment was passed/ratified right around the time slavery was outlawed in the North. Wonder if that has anything to do with it?

    ***

    On El-Faizy’s comment that Trump has “changed the rulebook so dramatically”, no he hasn’t. The rules weren’t there to begin with, not really. Trump just merely exploited them to no end. His exploitation is dramatic compared to those of other presidents. Why? Because he’s a capitalist, and that’s what they do best, the only thing they know how to do – exploit. Prior presidents have gotten away with quite a bit, going back decades. Any reticence one or another may have had was due to some conscience on their individual part, not because a rule prevented them from doing what they wanted. This idea that there were meaningful rules, and rules are only as good as their enforcement, flies in the face of what many presidents have done. When was the last constitutionally-legal war we had? WWII. So there we go. If anyone can hop around the rules doing what they want with no punishment whatsoever, you have to wonder whether those ‘rules’ are actually rules or just loose guidelines. This is what happens when Congress sheds as much Constitutional responsibility as possible over time.

  4. David Baum says:

    Dear Mr. Nader and Co, a very interesting show in the midst of a lot of talk regarding gender relations and gender equality. I have always been highly respectful of the show and with Ralph’s focus on issues and policy, and that he almost never seems to fall prey to the sensationalism that permeates all aspects of the mainstream media. I was highly dismayed therefore, when one of the co-hosts brought up Michael Jackson, not as another likely predator, but for his plastic surgery! I was listening to npr earlier, and the way the mainstream media jabbers on ENDLESSLY about the “white people’ vs the “people of color” an outsider might very easily assume we in fact live in an apartheid society. I applaud Ralph for his letter to congress and for taking meaningful action where real improprieties and likely violations of law have actually been present. In an environment where talk has become so cheap that its increasingly approaching worthlessness, this kind of action is especially laudable. Thank you Ralph, I’d likely vote for you every time you run for office!

  5. Bud says:

    Maybe E. Warren would prefer to be Treasury Secretary while Tulsi Gabbard serves as VP.?

  6. deborah says:

    Women conscious raising group on campus. AfroAmerican me maybe a biracial or gay women. The rest were of European descent. Woman said they wanted to stand but they didn’t want to anger the men. This one woman of European decent held up the group with this fear, not of physical harm, but of not getting a date. Fast forward 2004. Women tried to kill me for standing up against a senator who was pimping women for the major corporation here. They all put up with it who was I to complain. The senator said I should be happy a white man wanted to go to bed with me. He laughed and so did they.Go back to Sorjurna Truth who the womans movement did not want in their group bc men would respect them less. Less than fathering babies by slavewoman and telling their wives these were loose women when the babies were born and the women accepted this. Some women of European descent are complicit in their second class citizenship, that’s bad enough but they are blocking the ERA for their children and grandchildren. We wanted to consciously birth unapologetic women, and praise God they are here and Nancy tried to shut them down bc she has major Male supporters who are against them. Live long enough and the truth just shows up. Thank you for giving me a place to exercise my first ammendment rights.

  7. Rick Casey says:

    Why is Mr. Nader’s quote above ““[With Medicare-for-all]…” posted here? Doesn’t seem relevant…

    Second: Mr. Nader mentioned an open letter to women in Congress; is that available? I would like to use it to write my representatives.

    Thanks,
    Rick

    • Skro35 says:

      Hey Rick, doesn’t sound like you actually listened to the show. We talked about a few other things before the guest came on. For the letter, check out nader.org.

  8. Curt Hubatch says:

    Thank you for your insighful and inspiring podcasts. They’re a lifeline.

  9. Oksana Yonan says:

    Thank you for an excellent in depth report on the predators in our WH!
    Unfortunately i could not locate the letter you wrote to our elected women officials!

  10. Troy says:

    Until the United States learns to bring morals back into their society, it doesnt matter what you try, it will never work.

    The United states also needs to understand that the two parties work to eliminate the other party, but not solve any other issues.

    Troy*

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *