Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

If Gore would have won 2000...

Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:38:04 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Here is something liberals like to complain about: The 2000 Presidential Election

So, what if Gore would have actually won? What would have become of him? How would the 2004 Presidential Election turn out?

I personally think that if Gore was elected in 2000, and 9/11 would have happened as it did, he would have lost in '04. Think about it, what if, in 2004, the republicans offered up a McCain/Bush or McCain/Rice ticket?

I think that it is safe to say that after 9/11 Gore wouldn't have taken as tough of a stance against terrorism, and the war in Iraq would of probably not happened, and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.

Would McCain be able to get a war-wanting public to elect him? Of course, he would have to keep the public feeling angry and war-hungry, could he do it? Could the Republicans do it?

And if he won in '04, what would have become of '08?

Thoughts?
LB628
Posts: 176
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:54:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If Gore had won, the current political situation would probably be completely different.

That said, why does it matter? He did not, so it is not useful to speculate about it.
PoeJoe
Posts: 3,822
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

At 11/1/2009 6:38:04 PM, Republican95 wrote:
the war in Iraq would of probably not happened

Which is a bad thing because?

and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.

You're right. Had 9/11 happened anyway, Gore would have maintained focused and captured our enemies. So, again, why is this a bad thing?
Television Rot: http://tvrot.com...
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 6:56:02 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I suspect that if Gore won the 2000 election, and 9/11 occurred under his watch, the invasion of Afghanistan would have still taken place, and almost everything that occurred up until the stirrings about going into Iraq would have been similar.

If Gore had won, I'm willing to bet that the US would have never gone into Iraq, and considering Iraq was a major part of Bush's presidency, things would have been very different on almost every front: foreign policy would have been better and easier handled, the deficit wouldn't have ballooned so catastrophically because of it, Afghanistan would have had the proper resources devoted to it that it should have, possibly negating the movement of the Taliban into Pakistan and more stabilty there, which would have translated to an earlier pullout, which means less domestic issues back home... I can go on.

Gore would be re-elected in 2004 because if McCain was the candidate, it would have been no match, especially if Gore proved himself competent with foreign and domestic issues, which I'm sure he would have unless there is some discrepancy we're missing. This means that there would have been four Democratic terms in a row, which would be amazing.

But, regardless of whether or not the Democrats were in, I think the economic collapse would have occurred regardless, and then the Dems would be in trouble, since incumbents bear the brunt of blame. Of course, it depends who the GOP would have had to run as well, as well as the Dems.

Overall, it probably would have been better if Gore won. Too bad we can't go back in time.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 7:52:40 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
If Gore won in 2000, there'd be no 9/11, because all fossil-fuel-consuming, global-warming-contributing commercial vehichles would be outlawed.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:05:11 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 7:52:40 PM, mongeese wrote:
If Gore won in 2000, there'd be no 9/11, because all fossil-fuel-consuming, global-warming-contributing commercial vehichles would be outlawed.

That doesn't make any sense.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:17:12 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:56:02 PM, Volkov wrote:

Overall, it probably would have been better if Gore won. Too bad we can't go back in time.

Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart! Of course candidates are prepped hard core prior to the debates (even Sarah Palin held her own). However, Bush just didn't seem as generally DUMB not only with what he says but in his mannerisms and overall linguistics as well. I'd say look up the debate on YouTube, and I think it becomes quite obvious why Bush got elected in 2000 after Clinton. Also, keep in mind that Bush probably won because he was the social butterfly of the two; Gore was busy doing VP stuff and couldn't campaign enough. Regardless, Gore should have won. Actually, he DID win, technically :P
President of DDO
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:22:18 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 8:17:12 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart!

I've never seen them, actually. Wasn't interested in politics back then. I should look them up.

I watched 2004 though, and Jesus, how did Bush win? :| Basking in the glory of what was then considered the successful Iraq War, I suppose, plus Kerry's sad candidacy.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:24:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart! Of course candidates are prepped hard core prior to the debates (even Sarah Palin held her own). However, Bush just didn't seem as generally DUMB not only with what he says but in his mannerisms and overall linguistics as well. I'd say look up the debate on YouTube, and I think it becomes quite obvious why Bush got elected in 2000 after Clinton. Also, keep in mind that Bush probably won because he was the social butterfly of the two; Gore was busy doing VP stuff and couldn't campaign enough. Regardless, Gore should have won. Actually, he DID win, technically :P

I guess we could contribute it all to the hard core prep time prior, as you mentioned. He probably got lots of hours of practice :P. But when he became President, and you're expected to make a speech constantly, his true nature *coughcough* was shown.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:26:14 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 8:22:18 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 11/1/2009 8:17:12 PM, theLwerd wrote:
Agreed. But have you ever seen the debates between Gore and Bush prior to the 2000 election? Bush almost sounded... smart!

I've never seen them, actually. Wasn't interested in politics back then. I should look them up.

I watched 2004 though, and Jesus, how did Bush win? :| Basking in the glory of what was then considered the successful Iraq War, I suppose, plus Kerry's sad candidacy.

Bush did seem to kill him in the debates... it is on you tube... i checked it out
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:28:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
To be honest, I don't like it when candidates prep themselves for debates. It takes all the fun and legitimacy out of it. I remember comparing the debate for the 2000 election in Canada, to the most recent one in 2008, and I miss the days of off-the-cuff remarks calling your opponent a sheep in wolf's clothings and an idiot. XD

Plus, as illustrated with Bush, prepping gives the illusion of intelligence and maturity where none exists. Politics is so much more fun when people people are at each other's throats.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 8:33:27 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 8:28:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
To be honest, I don't like it when candidates prep themselves for debates. It takes all the fun and legitimacy out of it. I remember comparing the debate for the 2000 election in Canada, to the most recent one in 2008, and I miss the days of off-the-cuff remarks calling your opponent a sheep in wolf's clothings and an idiot. XD

Plus, as illustrated with Bush, prepping gives the illusion of intelligence and maturity where none exists. Politics is so much more fun when people people are at each other's throats.

So right!

The bush that ran on the principles given in the 2000 debate, is still the guy i would have voted for... to bad he did nothing of his promises in these debates.
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/1/2009 9:19:10 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 8:28:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
To be honest, I don't like it when candidates prep themselves for debates. It takes all the fun and legitimacy out of it. I remember comparing the debate for the 2000 election in Canada, to the most recent one in 2008, and I miss the days of off-the-cuff remarks calling your opponent a sheep in wolf's clothings and an idiot. XD

Plus, as illustrated with Bush, prepping gives the illusion of intelligence and maturity where none exists. Politics is so much more fun when people people are at each other's throats.

Well, surely some preparation is necessary. Not superficial talking points which are meant to, as you aptly say, create the illusion of intelligence. But NO prepping is a little extreme. They are ready with valuable points to make.

This is hillarious, by the way: http://www.hulu.com...
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 12:09:55 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:38:04 PM, Republican95 wrote:
Here is something liberals like to complain about: The 2000 Presidential Election

So, what if Gore would have actually won?

He did.

I think that it is safe to say that after 9/11 Gore wouldn't have taken as tough of a stance against terrorism, and the war in Iraq would of probably not happened, and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.


Or conversely we would have got a genuine war on terror, who knows.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 12:45:42 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

Right.

But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

Wrong. The stated reason that Osama Bin Laden gave for the attacks was the fact that there we American military bases in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim holyland, which he found to be a sign of American imperialism directly violating the sovereignty of a Muslim state. Don't forget, too, that Bin Laden was also behind the bombing of the U.S.S Cole, the first World Trade Center bombing and the bombings of American embassies in Kenyan and Tanzania.

At 11/1/2009 6:38:04 PM, Republican95 wrote:
and the War in Afghanistan would be vastly different.

You're right. Had 9/11 happened anyway, Gore would have maintained focused and captured our enemies. So, again, why is this a bad thing?

Right. It was actually under Clinton's administration that they tried to find and kill Bin Laden. He had amassed a huge portfolio on what their knew about Bin Laden's whereabouts and activities, but the Bush administration completely ignored it.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 6:19:25 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

no he didn't. and it's rather ridiculous and ignorant to claim he did.
If you don't like the system say that, but people who talk like you give rise to conspiracy theories and the like from stupid people.
Unless of course your not talking of the pop. vote vs. electoral college, and instead are alleging fraud.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 6:26:26 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
'But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy."

And I'm sorry but I can't quite remember Bush having done anything of import at all in regard to FP before 9.11, can you please explain to me how he, directly, caused 9.11.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 7:20:47 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 6:19:25 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

no he didn't. and it's rather ridiculous and ignorant to claim he did.
If you don't like the system say that, but people who talk like you give rise to conspiracy theories and the like from stupid people.
Unless of course your not talking of the pop. vote vs. electoral college, and instead are alleging fraud.

There were -huge- voting irregularity allegations in the 2000 and 2004 elections. This was the first time in history the supreme court (stacked mostly with George's dad's appointees) decided an election. There are statements from Diebold (a very big voting machine company) who said that they would deliver the election for Bush. There are many accounts of people who would press Gore's name on an electronic voting machine, only to have George Bush's name show up. Black voters were turned away en masse. A bomb threat was called in to a polling station so that the officers could count the ballots in private. Then there's Florida's hanging chads. When little old ladies went to the voting booth and tried to vote via punch-card ballot (basically a several inch thick piece of paper that one has to use a sewing needle to punch through) and only managed to dent them, which the courts decided did not classify as intent (despite a ruling by George W. while he was Governor of Texas to the opposite effect.)

This is not a conspiracy theory. I am not a conspiracy theorist. These wacko 9/11 'truthers' make up all these insane claims, then they bend reality to work with them. These allegations of voter irregularity come from court documents, voter statements and facts dug up by real investigative journalists.

Check this stuff out:

Very well done Rolling Stone article; http://www.rollingstone.com...
Wikipedia article about the issues in 2000;
http://en.wikipedia.org...
Issues in 2004; http://en.wikipedia.org...
Documentary 'Hacking Democracy.';
Also check out the HBO docu-drama 'Recount.' It's a very good overview of what happened.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 8:08:38 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Yes there were problems with the voting mechanisms, and there is almost always some kind of ridiculousness with people attempting to fraudulently affect outcome. And being that the 2000 race was so close I can understand people being upset that such mechanical voting problems could plausibly have affected the outcome, (though one would think they ought to similarly affect candidates fairly equally).
And, as I qualified, if people fraudulently affected the outcome, then that would be reason to claim that he didn't win.

But, from what I recall, when the court sat on the case the number of votes counted was already established and they simply ruled in favor of obeying the constitution in declaring Bush the winner.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 10:27:24 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 8:08:38 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
But, from what I recall, when the court sat on the case the number of votes counted was already established and they simply ruled in favor of obeying the constitution in declaring Bush the winner.

Hardly. The court voted to stop the recount that was already underway before it was finished.

Here are a few more fun facts that I just came upon;

http://www.shorttext.com...
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 11:21:12 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
Perhaps I should do more research the on the issue, though I still disagree with blanket statements without any specified reason(such as fraud), especially those that lend themselves towards conspiracy theories, or simple ignorance.
Especially when I have previously heard such a statement being backed up by no more than that: well he won the most votes
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 11:25:44 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
And as to your last troubling facts site,
I agree that most are troubling, though I think that constitutionally it's the individual state's responsibility and right to regulate how it is to process it's votes, excepting discrimination.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
MistahKurtz
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 11:48:52 AM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 11:21:12 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
Perhaps I should do more research the on the issue, though I still disagree with blanket statements without any specified reason(such as fraud), especially those that lend themselves towards conspiracy theories, or simple ignorance.
Especially when I have previously heard such a statement being backed up by no more than that: well he won the most votes

It's not a blanket statement. Again, it's not like I was disgruntled with the election, decided it was rigged then found sources to back me up. Rather, I accepted the conclusion based on all the evidence (pro and con) available. Furthermore, there is virtually no evidence opposing the things I've talked about. The only real argument I've heard is that the voter fraud could not have accounted for enough votes to actually sway the election, which was disproven (I believe in the Rolling Stone article I posted. Possible in another RS article.)

At 11/2/2009 11:25:44 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
And as to your last troubling facts site,
I agree that most are troubling, though I think that constitutionally it's the individual state's responsibility and right to regulate how it is to process it's votes, excepting discrimination.

Sure, but do you think it's prudent that the head of one of the largest vote-counting companies in the U.S contributed to Bush's campaign and promised to deliver the election for him?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 2:03:38 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
I wasn't quite clear in my last post.

By "blanket statement" I was referring to the post from Poejoe to which I was originally responding. Not yours.

And yes I find that piece of info. you spoke of troubling.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Republican95
Posts: 111
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 2:43:13 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

Really? Bush was inaugurated in Jan. 2001, 9/11 occurred that September. 9/11 had started to be sketched out by terrorists as early as 1993, it was going to happen regardless of who was in office. You can't plan the most complex terrorist attacks in the history of the world in 8 months.
ReganFan
Posts: 93
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 2:55:00 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
At 11/2/2009 2:43:13 PM, Republican95 wrote:
At 11/1/2009 6:54:11 PM, PoeJoe wrote:
First of all, Gore did win the 2000 election.

But had Gore not been gypped of the presidency, there never would have been a 9/11. 9/11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

Really? Bush was inaugurated in Jan. 2001, 9/11 occurred that September. 9/11 had started to be sketched out by terrorists as early as 1993, it was going to happen regardless of who was in office. You can't plan the most complex terrorist attacks in the history of the world in 8 months.

And within those 8 months the threat that Osama was placed as was down-graded and he refused to act even after reading a report entitle "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US" that stated "after U.S. strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington, according to a [deleted text] service. An Egyptian Islamic Jihad operative told [deleted text] service at the same time that bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative's access to the U.S. to mount a terrorist strike."

http://www.politico.com...
Do you like Mudkips?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2009 3:07:32 PM
Posted: 7 years ago
Reaganfan:
"after U.S. strikes on his base in Afghanistan in 1998, bin Laden told followers..." =/= 9.11 happened as a direct result of Bush's interventionist foreign policy.

I understand "he refused to act even after reading a report..." but thats not what Repub. was talkin 'bout
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."