Anyone Else Think We Might Be Better Off If Gore Had Won?

Status
Not open for further replies.
JuanCarlos said:
Yes, a lying, half-retarded wannabe cowboy is much better.
Click to expand...

I know the temptation is strong to fall back upon Bush Derangement Syndrome insults to the president but you should consider carefully what George Bush has accomplished... indeed, if not for Iraq I would venture the president's popularity to be much higher... his domestic achievements and his growth of the economy, his development of jobs, his tax cuts, his improvements to education: all real accomplishments. Yet the Iraq issue his single downfall and that could have happened to any president, even Gore... Don't forget that the issues that 09/11/01 presented had never been addressed by any president previously...the whole spectre of terrorism is a new issue for Americans.... I doubt Gore would have protected this nation as safetly as Bush has and when you boil down the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan and War on Terror, it all yields how well we have been protected from more terrorism since 09/11/01 and Bush has done a very good job there...
 
I know the temptation is strong to fall back upon Bush Derangement Syndrome insults to the president but you should consider carefully what George Bush has accomplished... indeed, if not for Iraq I would venture the president's popularity to be much higher... his domestic achievements and his growth of the economy, his development of jobs, his tax cuts, his improvements to education: all real accomplishments. Yet the Iraq issue his single downfall and that could have happened to any president, even Gore... Don't forget that the issues that 09/11/01 presented had never been addressed by any president previously...the whole spectre of terrorism is a new issue for Americans.... I doubt Gore would have protected this nation as safely as Bush has and when you boil down the issues of Iraq and Afghanistan and War on Terror, it all yields how well we have been protected from more terrorism since 09/11/01 and Bush has done a very good job there...
Click to expand...

While I do often insult the president, in that particular case I was responding to somebody's witty one-liner regarding another politician, to show that equally witty one-liners apply to our President.

And while you may doubt that Gore would have protected this nation from terrorism, I do not. We'll never know. But this idea that Bush is the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to national security is about as irrational as the idea that everything he's done has been by its very nature horrible. The way I see it is this: we assume that everything he does was either misguided or a failure, because he himself appears to be an unintelligent and irrational person. You assume he must be keeping us safer, because he projects an aura of strength of determination. Again, both are irrational. I call yours "Bush Fellatio Syndrome."

As far as all his economic achievements and tax cuts, as a member of the lower-middle to lower class I honestly haven't seen much benefit from them. I have, on the other hand, lost a year and a half of my life to Iraq. So yeah, I guess I might judge him a little more harshly than some.

If Gore had won we'd be all speaking Arabic so as to be "PC".
Click to expand...

HAHAAHAHAHA!!!1!!1! OLOLZ!!!1!1!!!
 
Ah. Another Bush-bashing thread. The same old, tired attacks.

Would we have been "better off"? Who knows? But one thing is certain:

Gore lost the election in 2000.
 
JuanCarlos said:
...But this idea that Bush is the best thing since sliced bread when it comes to national security is about as irrational as the idea that everything he's done has been by its very nature horrible...
Click to expand...

This war we are in, this War on Terror, is very hard to win and very hard to gauge progress since no president has ever fought this particular type of war. Therefore the only real way of measuring success (and whether he has been better than if Al Gore was president) is ask whether we have been successfully attacked since 09.11.01 by terrorists, since that is the main reason we went to war. On that basis George Bush has been a complete success in his War on Terror. Now you can skowl at that fact, criticize it, condemn it, cry about it, castigate it, even reject it, but you can't deny it...
 
To quote desert heat:
"There were about a dozen Jewish women shot, some killed, in front of a Temple by an Arab from Pakistan. (Washinton State)

Also (SanFrancisco) an Arab, from Suadi I believe, ran down a bunch of people in his SUV killing lots.

There was also a guy who set some nuns on fire in a church by an arab.

There are a few more but I don't remeber the details.

Also, the arab who fired 50 rounds into the people who were waiting in line for an Isreali plain at LA X.

The whole Anthrax thing that everyone forgot too."


You can not have a "War on Terror" it is like having a war on machinegun fire. Terror is a tactic, not a tangible enemy.
 
Ah. Another Bush-bashing thread. The same old, tired attacks.

Would we have been "better off"? Who knows? But one thing is certain:

Gore lost the election in 2000.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but we like talking about it and pondering it sometimes because another thing is for certain: more people voted for Gore in 2000.

EDIT: And another thing is less than certain, which is whether a recount in Florida, depending on the standards, might have resulted in Gore not losing the election. Bush won in 2000 largely by decree. He never received a mandate from the people until 2004.

This war we are in, this War on Terror, is very hard to win and very hard to gauge progress since no president has ever fought this particular type of war. Therefore the only real way of measuring success (and whether he has been better than if Al Gore was president) is ask whether we have been successfully attacked since 09.11.01 by terrorists, since that is the main reason we went to war. On that basis George Bush has been a complete success in his War on Terror. Now you can skowl at that fact, criticize it, condemn it, cry about it, castigate it, even reject it, but you can't deny it...
Click to expand...

See last page regarding flawed logic. I'm not denying that we haven't had any successful terrorist attacks since 9/11...just denying your logic in asserting that that must be due to anything Bush has done. It's flawed logic, period. It has happened many times before. Five years with no terrorist attacks is not an impressive accomplishment.

Especially if you've had to lose 3000 soldiers and get us stuck in the middle of a civil war to do it.

Also, perhaps no president has tried to fight a "war" like this before because declaring a war on an ideology is, at best, unwise (at worst it's flat-out stupid). How do we win the "War on Terror?" When "Terror" no longer exists? When "Terror" surrenders? When we sign a ceasefire with "Terror?" Perhaps "Terror" undergoes a civil war, and the people choose a democratic government for "Terror." But uh-oh, what if some people (namely the other side in that civil war) aren't happy with that government, and decide to start a terrorist campaign against "Terror." Then we can have "Terror's War on Terror!" Yay!

Or are you actually happy with the idea that we'll always be at war with Eastasia?
 
There have been terrorist attacks since 9/11, look at my post at the top of the page.


Also, there is a reason there are so many Bush bashing threads, because MOST of the people don't want/like him.

To respond to the person who said that W helped the economy; the economy sucks right now. The so cald tax cuts only apply if you are in his bracket, not for the normal blue collar folk. If the economy is so good the how come we are in record debt of over 500 billion dollars, the highest ever. Just print more money, sure, now the dollar is worth nothing. THe cost of living is skyrocketing and the pay is still the same. SUppllies are twice as much and pay is the same.

If you are a small business owner than you guys are familiar with the REAL state of the economy. THe dollar is tanking and it is not all his fault, but he is partly to blame. If he would stop outsourcing and selling of our country things would be better. Stop selling our country to China W! Stop being bed buddies with Saudi A.

How about making products here in America! How about creating more jobs for Americans and not ilegals!
 
JuanCarlos said:
Or are you actually happy with the idea that we'll always be at war with Eastasia?
Click to expand...

This thread is not about "Eastasia" but instead about whether Gore would have been a better president than Bush...

Therefore, as I have previously stated, Bush's domestic achievements have been significant (economy et al.). Bush's main failing seems to be Iraq and I submitted that he has protected us, thus far, from terrorism since going to war...

In a very real sense, I can't think of a single issue to fail Bush on, if you accept the idea that the War on Terror is a new type war where success is hard to gauge...Therefore Bush is a measurably better president than Gore!
 
Define 'better off' -

Just RKBA
Handling 9/11 aftermath
Economy
Attacking basic civil liberties

- too vague a question that just elicits rants, sorry to say IMHO.
 
Who would be the new Supreme Court Justices right now if Gore had been elected ?

Not Roberts and Alioto, I'll bet.

More like Schumer and Feinstein, if they're interested.
 
Roberts was sworn in in 2005 and Alito in 2006.
My contention that 4 years of Gore would have ushered in a true conservative in 2004 makes the Supreme Court appointments you mention moot.
Who knows? Maybe a conservative would nominate Alan Keyes and a Ron Paul type to be justices.
 
This thread is not about "Eastasia" but instead about whether Gore would have been a better president than Bush...
Click to expand...

Either you didn't get the reference, or you're just trying to be difficult. You're talking about his successes in fighting the "War on Terror," and I'm pointing out that this new kind of "War" is the kind that will never end, and cannot be won. The only reason to declare it as a "War" is so that you can use it to justify actions that would not fly during peacetime, hence the reference.

1984, in case you didn't get it.

Therefore, as I have previously stated, Bush's domestic achievements have been significant (economy et al.). Bush's main failing seems to be Iraq and I submitted that he has protected us, thus far, from terrorism since going to war...
Click to expand...

Bush's main failing had a very real and direct impact on my life. Forgive me for considering his "main" failing to be a huge one.

In a very real sense, I can't think of a single issue to fail Bush on, if you accept the idea that the War on Terror is a new type war where success is hard to gauge...Therefore Bush is a measurably better president than Gore!
Click to expand...

Well, Gore never had a shot as president...for all we know he could have handled the economy equally well (though differently...oddly that can be hard to gauge as well) as Bush. He also might not have gotten us stuck in Iraq. And I do not accept that the "War on Terror" is some new type of war...it's just a construct used to rally people to his cause. Because as I pointed out (and you ignored) we are not going to "defeat" "Terror"...it simply isn't possible. "Terror" (and terrorists) will always exist, and some of them will always hate the US and attempt to attack us...so the "War on Terror" is just a war without end.

Hence, we'll always be at war with Eastasia. Or was that Eurasia?

Wrong-o. We'll never know if we would have had more terrorist attacks.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're making excuses in advance. Voter's remorse?
Click to expand...

Man, what? A poster said that whether or not we will have more terrorist attacks after a hypothetical Democrat gets elected in 2008 will be a good indicator of whether we would have had more attacks under Gore had he won in 2000. I pointed out that, due to the effects of Iraq and Gitmo (which Gore may or may not have handled differently), that would not be a fair indicator of what would theoretically have happened since 9/11 had Gore won.

How is that "making excuses in advance?"
 
There is no way to tell - the country is 50/50 and I think it a touch of fantasy that the country is awaiting a true conservative. Each election is a tight squeak for whomever wins.

I can easily seeing Gore being competent enough to win another term if he played his cards correctly. Bush won because Kerry was such a loser as a campaigner. I could easily see a better Dem candidate having sent the 'decider' back to Crawford.
 
The fact that Bush barrows from China daily doesn't bother people? That is where the money for the war has come from. There isn't enough American tax dollars to pay for 1/10 of the war. We owe China our lives basically and when China calls in our debt, the dollar will go down, but it is for the troops so it is ok:rolleyes:

He sold off the airlines to Suadi A. He was going to sell them the ports too, oh I'm sorry, the rights of authority and securtiy of the ports, to them too.
What is the debt up to now because that is what we owe China. Sorry, the economy is doing great what do I know
 
Who knows? Maybe a conservative would nominate Alan Keyes and a Ron Paul type to be justices.
Click to expand...
I've got no big issue with Alan Keyes (conservative) or Ron Paul (libertarian) as politicians in general (except for the extreme pacifism of Paul, but that's my ONLY knock against him), but as far as being SC justices they both face the same huge hurdle: Neither of them have backgrounds in law. Keyes is an economist/diplomat. Paul is a physician. Neither of them have demonstrated abilities in jurisprudence. That being the case, they would not and should not pass Senate confirmation hearings.

Keep in mind also that the reason why Roberts and Alito made it to the bench in GWs second term is because the vacancies only came about then, and not in the first term. Why was that? Speculation has been that the openings did not come about during Bush's first term because the outgoing justices saw what was happening pertaining to the partisan "Borking" of the appeals court justices during Bush's first term, and may have been waiting for a less confrontational period in the next round of Congress. Would that have been any less should it have been Algore at the helm? Probably so, but then again there wouldn't have been any real conservatives, libertarians or other form of strict constructionists make it to the SC -- they would have been "living law" leftist activists instead, and we'd have been stuck with them for who knows how long.

No, I'll take Roberts and Alito any day over the alternative that we would have probably have gotten should Algore have won in '00.
 
No, I'll take Roberts and Alito any day over the alternative that we would have probably have gotten should Algore have won in '00.
Click to expand...

Have Roberts and Alito actually heard any cases?

badbob
 
It boils down to this...

If I had to vote all over again, today, between Bush vs. Gore I would happily choose Bush...

Bush has kept my family safe from terrorism, ran up the stock market and made me a bunch of money, appointed two solid conservative judges, and cut my taxes. I'm happy as a clam...

Meanwhile Gore has predicted that I might get my feet wet from a melting iceberg. Has he done anything else I missed?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top