NationStates Jolt Archive

Most of the libs here say that things would have been better under Gore.

Why?

9-11 still would have happened and the economy still would have tanked. Gore had access to more of the intel that is proving an Iraq-AQ connection (hell, it was written under the Clinton admin) and the same WMD evidence that Clinton used to bomb Baghdad (deny it all you want-there is a connection, though not an Iraq-9/11 connection (yet)).

We would have gone to war in Afghanistan, the twin towers would be down, the economy would suck, we would have gone into Iraq.

How would things have been better under Gore?

PS the first vote for Bush both was mine, you know my stance.

I already know how the poll will turn out. There's too many left-wingers who refuse to look reality in the face and acknowledge Gore couldn't have done any better under the circumstances. I guess it's just a formality.

I would take Gore over Bush anyday...especially New Gore (from the MoveOn videos and such). Gore had respect for the rest of the world, a sensible tax cut proposal, and, as a bonus...has never driven drunk into a hedge. Especially not in his 30s.

The FBI under Bush tried to warn Ashcroft about the impending Al-Quada attack. He dismissed the FBI agent. Ashcroft says it did not happen and brought two witnesses to back his story. One is his right hand man who agrees with him, and the other who is very close to Ashcroft said he could not recall the meeting ever taking place. The FBI agent has six witnesses to support his story. All those things might of happened if Gore was the President, but at least we would have had the truth instead of the lies put forth by Bush's cronies.

I'm talking about what state our nation would be in economically and securityly (it's not a word, you get the point). Not what you think of them. I'm talking events, not finger-pointing. Does that FBI agent's "comments" (note there was no source) effect the job situation? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Where would our country be, if Gore had been president when the WTC fell? The exact same spot. Don't try to turn this into another Bush flame thread.

I'm talking about what state our nation would be in economically and securityly (it's not a word, you get the point). Not what you think of them. I'm talking events, not finger-pointing. Does that FBI agent's "comments" (note there was no source) effect the job situation? That's the kind of stuff I'm talking about. Where would our country be, if Gore had been president when the WTC fell? The exact same spot. Don't try to turn this into another Bush flame thread.

Source was a story on FOX News, that was also carried on CNN and CNBC

I voted for "Gore for foreign issues and the economy". While I don't think Al Gore would have been a great president, anyone could do a helluva better job than GWB.

Ten votes besides mine, fewer explainations. I think I have no choice but to declare the poll as spun in Gore's favor. Surprise, surprise.

I voted Bush on both Economy and Fornegn policy. I think the Eco situation of it tanking was more caused by the intangables of 9/11 then anything else. Evey thing I've been reading shows that the economy is growing and changing. The changing part is why the 1 thing we use to judge if it's going up or down is a really bad indicator. And Finally someone is showing that the international comunity is willing to do something more then talk.

I think the US should tell the UN to kiss off. What the UN stood by and watched and to some degree help happen in Rawanda was comparable only to what some of the Vichy France officials did in world war II.

Gore would have easily been the better of the two.
Gore would most likely have continued Clintons economic policy.
You know, the one that was responsible for one of the greatest periods of economic growth the country had ever seen...yah..that one.

Secondly, Gore would have been MUCH better at foreign policy since he would not have entered a war with Iraq, over personal matters.
Therefore, would not have squandered the global support after 9/11.

and the same WMD evidence that Clinton used to bomb Baghdad (deny it all you want-there is a connection, though not an Iraq-9/11 connection (yet)).



we would have gone into Iraq.



I already know how the poll will turn out. There's too many left-wingers who refuse to look reality in the face and acknowledge Gore couldn't have done any better under the circumstances. I guess it's just a formality.the first statement quoted is correct, but Clinton and Gore didn't consider Iraq to be as much of a threat after the remaining suspected WMD sites and a hospital had been bombed. It's silly to imply that Gore would have invaded Iraq to capture suspected WMD sites that had already been destroyed.


The second quoted statement is wrong. Gore spoke out in favor of the war in Afghanistan but he spoke out against Bush's war in Iraq from the beginning.


The third statement doesn't take into account the two bits of reality that I just mentioned

Here's how I imagine the differences.

Economically speaking, there was a slowdown coming into 2001, but it could have been eased if the tax cuts that Bush pushed through had been targeted toward those who would have spent the money immediately, just like Clinton got passed in 1992. Bush targeted the wealthiest instead and the result was a deepening of the economic slowdown.

As far as security was concerned, here's all I can say. 9/11 may have been prevented, maybe not, but eventually we were going to be hit hard on our own soil. It was inevitable. So we ought to stop wasting time arguing about whether or not Gore would have prevented it or not--we were going to get hit because it took a hit to force us to realize the danger.

That said, had Gore been President when 9/11 occurred, I can reasonably claim this much--we wouldn't be in Iraq now and we would be in Afghanistan in far greater force and with more help from NATO. We'd be rebuilding and extending Karzai's influence (assuming he was the guy in charge) beyond Kabul. And if at some point we found it necessary to go into Iraq, it wouldn't be on the basis of faulty intelligence stretched beyond the bounds of reason, and we wouldn't be in there without enough troops to do the job.

Yes, 9/11 would still have happened under President Gore and the US would still have gone into Afghanistan and dismantled the Taliban but I don't think there was any way an invasion of Iraq would have taken place. Gore would probably have continued Clinton's strategy of keeping the pressure on Saddam with the occasional air strike at military targets. Certainly the US would be far better thought of around the world with Gore in the White House as Bush seems to go out of his way to alienate America.

Economically speaking, there was a slowdown coming into 2001, but it could have been eased if the tax cuts that Bush pushed through had been targeted toward those who would have spent the money immediately, just like Clinton got passed in 1992. Bush targeted the wealthiest instead and the result was a deepening of the economic slowdown.

Interesting. Got something to show me that its true?

From the Tax Policy Center : http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=212
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/Content/GIF/egtrra_distribution_cut.gif

Sure do--your graph shows exactly what I was talking about. What percentage of the country do you imagine makes more than $50K a year? It's less than half, because 50% of the population in the US makes less than $26K a year. So more than half the tax cuts went to that segment of the population that makes more than $50K a year, with almost ten percent going to those who make more than $200K a year, that percentage almost doubling by 2010. That's targeting the wealthier at the expense of the poorer no matter how you slice it. It gets worse when you factor in payroll taxes that disporportionately hit the poorer, since there's a cap at $87K of earnings. You don't really want to get into this with me, Kwangistar--I'll humiliate you.

I think things would have been SOL if either were elected.

Gore!

Gore!

Why?

I guess I wasn't clear enough...

I was asking if you think Bush or Gore would have done better, not to vote Gore because you don't like Bush.

Bush's approval wouldn't be tied with Kerry if he was that bad.

If an incumbent president is looking at less than a 50% approval rating this late into his first term, he's in big trouble. Kerry just needs to make the election a referendum on Bush and it's lights out for Dubya.

In any case, Bush and Gore, realistically, would have come out about even on the economic scale. Gore likely wouldn't have run up an insane deficit, but Bush likely is pumping a bit more money into the economy. So Bush has the economy itself better than Gore would, but he's pretty irresponsible about it, and he doesn't appear to care or have a plan of any kind for the deficit. Oh yeah, and I doubt Gore would be ENCOURAGING outsourcing. It's one thing to sit back and say that outsourcing is natural and things will get better over the course of the next few decades because of it, and that we should let this take its course. It's quite another to actively encourage outsourcing. It's a direct slap in the face to the workers here in the U.S. Gore might say to them, "Businesses are shipping jobs overseas and I can't or won't do anything to stop them," but I doubt he would say, "Businesses are shipping jobs overseas, and I am encouraging it. I want the jobs out of the U.S." No union person in their right mind would go for that.

As for foreign issues? Iraq is not Gore's baby. We wouldn't be in Iraq. While that means that Saddam would still be in power, it also means that the world wouldn't be pissed off at the U.S. for flipping them the bird when they went in to take him out. Bush has a lot to learn about diplomacy. Gore may have a few things to learn, but there's no way he would be that bad.

If an incumbent president is looking at less than a 50% approval rating this late into his first term, he's in big trouble. Kerry just needs to make the election a referendum on Bush and it's lights out for Dubya.

In any case, Bush and Gore, realistically, would have come out about even on the economic scale. Gore likely wouldn't have run up an insane deficit, but Bush likely is pumping a bit more money into the economy. So Bush has the economy itself better than Gore would, but he's pretty irresponsible about it, and he doesn't appear to care or have a plan of any kind for the deficit. Oh yeah, and I doubt Gore would be ENCOURAGING outsourcing. It's one thing to sit back and say that outsourcing is natural and things will get better over the course of the next few decades because of it, and that we should let this take its course. It's quite another to actively encourage outsourcing. It's a direct slap in the face to the workers here in the U.S. Gore might say to them, "Businesses are shipping jobs overseas and I can't or won't do anything to stop them," but I doubt he would say, "Businesses are shipping jobs overseas, and I am encouraging it. I want the jobs out of the U.S." No union person in their right mind would go for that.

As for foreign issues? Iraq is not Gore's baby. We wouldn't be in Iraq. While that means that Saddam would still be in power, it also means that the world wouldn't be pissed off at the U.S. for flipping them the bird when they went in to take him out. Bush has a lot to learn about diplomacy. Gore may have a few things to learn, but there's no way he would be that bad.

Are you guys serious? You would rather have that maniac Gore in place of Bush? Come on, which is better, a guy who says words wrong like "subliminable" and "nookular" or a guy who is constantly yelling and screaming stuff like a preacher like "HE BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!!!" and "HE SOLD HIS SOUL TO THE DEVIL!!"

Are you guys serious? You would rather have that maniac Gore in place of Bush? Come on, which is better, a guy who says words wrong like "subliminable" and "nookular" or a guy who is constantly yelling and screaming stuff like a preacher like "HE BETRAYED THIS COUNTRY!!!" and "HE SOLD HIS SOUL TO THE DEVIL!!"

Gore is fully aware that he can get away with being a fiery little SOB because he isn't President...or any other office holder, for that matter. If he were President, he would behave himself a bit more.