Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What a delusional topic. If Gore had won, then most of the same thing would happen.
1. 9/11 would still happen. If it is really true that Democrats knew about this, then we know who to blame.
2. The spending boom and the drop in interest rates would also happen. Democrats and Republicans favoured lower taxes, but high incomes would not get a tax cut. Hence, we would still see inflated property prices.
3. Afghanistan would certainly happen
4. The main difference would be that US may not attack Iraq. But Saddam was no nice guy and he oppressed his people. Also, Syria would still collapse, hence ISIS are likely to be powerful in Syria.
The idea that a President can change everything is beyond stupid.
Imagine if Gore wasn't cheated out of his presidency by the Bush mafia...
ISIS would not exist. Saddam killed any extremists in his country. The economy would be thriving because debt levels would not have been inflated with trillions more. Unemployment would be in check. Thousands of US soldiers would still be alive, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians.
Yes, Bush gave us the gift that just keeps on giving... hello ISIS.
You should try to think things through rationally instead of ideologically.
Bush was not responsible for ISIS. Obama is responsible for ISIS. Obama was warned that he needed to keep a presence in Iraq and he didn't do it. Obama was warned that ISIS was gathering strength for a move and he didn't do anything about it. If you're going to go to the "but ISIS wouldn't exist if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq" way, then I'll just go the "but Bush wouldn't have invaded Iraq if Clinton hadn't let Osama bin Laden go and 9/11 never would have happened" route. You can't win there.
The economy would not be thriving because debt levels would not have been inflated. First, the Obama administration has increased it by 1.1 trillion per year. Second, the economic collapse was due to mortgage policies which were started during the Clinton administration and financial deregulation which was signed into law during the Clinton administration. Al Gore was Vice President during that time.
It is standard practice among liberals to blame their failures on conservatives. Just witness how liberals blame Bush for wrecking the economy when Democrats held majorities in both houses of Congress and then switched to blaming "obstructionist Republicans" for the economy not recovering once Obama was in office. You can't have it both ways. The responsibility for the economy doesn't just magically shift to wherever Democrats don't happen to be at the moment.
I think that's why Democrats are so incompetent. Fixing mistakes requires first admitting that mistakes were made, but Democrats don't do that as a general rule. Instead of seeing that something doesn't work and trying to determine how to fix it, they will just blame the nearest conservative for it and then do the same thing over again. And you're doing that right here. We're six years into the Obama administration and things aren't great. But instead of taking a hard look at why they aren't great, you'd rather just blame Bush for it. The reason why Obama's polices haven't worked isn't because of Bush being in office half a decade ago. It's because Obama's policies don't work.
You are truly delusional. Bush won fair and square. Gore would have been a disaster just like comrade obama is. Your entire premise is completely false, but dream on.
The country would be booming and in great shape had Mitt won, but people wanted a cool guy, no matter how corrupt and incompetent he may be...
Speaking of delusional, you didn't complete one fact filled sentence
The truth is, and it is very obvious to all who face facts, comrade obama is not on America's side in this war. Like a true Muslim, he puts on a good face and says what people want to hear as he does his dirty work waiting for his opportunity to completely destroy America and make everyone either convert or die.
It's a long slow proccess and he is doing an excellent job. Muslims cannot be trusted, and obama is a true Muslim. Their only goal is to take over the entire world. He is a good soldier and will gladly sacrifice his place in history for the good of the cause.
All who follow him are tools advocating the destruction of America but are too dumb to realize they are being scammed...
Wow, that there is some good stuff, kinda explains how people think Bush was a good president, thanks for explaining
And not invading Iraq mean that we would not destabilize the middle East and not polarized the Muslim world pushing many Muslims to support fanatics out of their disdain for the us. Domestically the trillions spent on war in Iraq would stay in the us changing our economic outlook dramatically.
That would be a huge difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camlon
4. The main difference would be that US may not attack Iraq. But Saddam was no nice guy and he oppressed his people. Also, Syria would still collapse, hence ISIS are likely to be powerful in Syria.
The idea that a President can change everything is beyond stupid.
Instead, we can all just thank him for his numerous contributions to society. Allow me to do the honors:
"Thank you, Al Gore, for inventing the Internet. For this, you deserve a Nobel Prize, but alas, it went to another non-deserving person. But hey, at least you shed 170lbs of ugly fat since losing the election. No, I'm not talking about your diet -- I'm talking about your divorce! May the lights in your mansion never dim."
Are you even aware that the bill that passed that initiated government funding, research, and initial construction of the infrastructure for the internet was called the Gore Bill? He did not invent it, but he sure as hell championed it when no one else would.
Imagine had a conservative been in power then. We'd still be writing letters to each other with feathers as pens.
And not invading Iraq mean that we would not destabilize the middle East and not polarized the Muslim world pushing many Muslims to support fanatics out of their disdain for the us. Domestically the trillions spent on war in Iraq would stay in the us changing our economic outlook dramatically.
That would be a huge difference.
The middle east is good at destabilizing themselves. Egypt never had their dictator overthrown by United States, it eventually got a revolution. Iraq under Saddam may experience the same thing. We don't know what would happen, but no matter what US does, there will still be problems in the middle east.
And really? The Iraq war would make a dramatic difference in US economic outlook. I think you have been smoking the same weed that the OP has.
The middle east is good at destabilizing themselves. Egypt never had their dictator overthrown by United States, it eventually got a revolution. Iraq under Saddam may experience the same thing. We don't know what would happen, but no matter what US does, there will still be problems in the middle east.
And really? The Iraq war would make a dramatic difference in US economic outlook. I think you have been smoking the same weed that the OP has.
Of course, you are omitting the ill-conceived Bush tax cuts which caused the deficit to balloon and which squandered the surplus. Remember we all received a $600.00 tax refund? I'd also remind you that Bush was the first president in history to cut taxes during war time. We're all still paying for Bush's mismanagement of fiscal and economic policy.
Of course, you are omitting the ill-conceived Bush tax cuts which caused the deficit to balloon and which squandered the surplus. Remember we all received a $600.00 tax refund? We're all still paying for Bush's mismanagement of fiscal and economic policy.
I am not forgetting about it, but it is irrelevant as democrats supported similar tax cuts. Their man disagreement is who will get how much, not if they are going to have tax cuts at all.
If democrats were so against the tax cuts, then why didn't they reverse them when they had the possibility to do so. They just reversed the part given to the rich.
Imagine if Gore wasn't cheated out of his presidency by the Bush mafia...
ISIS would not exist. Saddam killed any extremists in his country. The economy would be thriving because debt levels would not have been inflated with trillions more. Unemployment would be in check. Thousands of US soldiers would still be alive, as well as hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civillians.
Yes, Bush gave us the gift that just keeps on giving... hello ISIS.
The country has tried to go the fantasy route with Obama and even with the help of the media propaganda machine it turned out badly. So fantasizing about Algore and concluding an alternate reality is to part with sanity.
Obama gave birth to ISIS. GWB has an alibi and wasn't anywhere near Obama in the timeframe where he could have been the sire.
Obama said the economy is thriving under his administration and even Joe Biden declared the summer of recovery in 2010..... Oops! there we go fantacizing again.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
