NationStates Jolt Archive

If there was an election in the US for presidency, and there were three candidates, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore, who would you vote for?

Cite your reasons.

Personally, I'd vote for Gore. He seems more pro-active, enthusiastic, ait seems like he'd keep good international relations. He'd probably do a lot of environmental stuff and maybe crack down on a couple of corporate crimes and scandals.

Clinton, although did some environmental stuff started a quick war with Yugoslavia which was not very necessary.

Kerry sort of was a slave to the polls. I'm sure he didn't want to focus on security in his campaign, but it was what the people were most interested in, and it was what the Bush Administration wanted to be the focus. I'm not sure he would have been a very efficient leader.

William Jefferson Clinton did a fantastic job in his eight years as president and I trust neither kerry nor al gore.

What do you mean, the war in Yugoslavia wasn't necessary? We went in and got a bastard who was holding his country hostage. And we did it with a UN backing.

Of course I'd vote for Clinton.

What do you mean, the war in Yugoslavia wasn't necessary? We went in and got a bastard who was holding his country hostage. And we did it with a UN backing.

Of course I'd vote for Clinton.

Actually, we didn't get UN backing. Clinton knew that he wouldn't get it, so he didn't bother to try and just got NATO to help.

Okay, maybe you're right about Yugoslavia. I'm 15 now, so i was pretty young when it all happened. I just think wars in general are bad. I made an awkward assumption. How exactly was the country being "held hostage" anyway?

Actually, we didn't get UN backing. Clinton knew that he wouldn't get it, so he didn't bother to try and just got NATO to help.


Oh yeah, it was NATO. My bad.

Nadar all the way. Clinto was good, but still not far enuff. Gore was PATHETIC, and kerry three words "worst campaign ever".

If i had to pick a democrat i would choose kuchinich.

I agree, Left foot. I would have voted for Kucinich too, but i want to keep this thread simple. I love that guy.

I voted - Clinton.
I think he did a marvelous job as president and did a lot of good things for this country.

and kerry three words "worst campaign ever".

If i had to pick a democrat i would choose kuchinich.


Non sequiteur!

I'm not voting, but I think that Clinton would do the least damage, so I'd go for him.

I voted - Clinton.
I think he did a marvelous job as president and did a lot of good things for this country.


Then we see eye-to-eye on the issue.

I'd have to say Clinton. He was the only other president besides Bush I consciously experienced (I was five when he got elected). Kerry disappointed me a lot of times. If he supported the War on Terror, he was little better than Bush, minus some of the moronity. If he did not support it and said so just to secure his polls, he was a spineless liar. The only reason I ever supported him was that he was running against Bush.
I'm not sure about Al Gore, but I'm willing to guess that Clinton would be better. If the only fault most people can find with him is his controversial use of a cigar, then he must have been one heck of a good president.

And to think a conservative was the one who threw this idea out in the original forum where it first appeared...

If there was an election in the US for presidency, and there were three candidates, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore, who would you vote for?
:p

I'd have to say Clinton. He is a known and turned out to be pretty ineffective and harmless. Kerry is an unknown and too beholden to foreign opinion and Gore is just strange. The kissing of his wife in a public and akward display scared the hell out of me and I could never look at him the same again.

Clinton, because he is the one most likely to not be allowed to take office (term limits), get impeached (again) , or die (heart disease).

Clinton; the evil I know.

Kerry and Gore might have made perfectly good presidents; but the issues we face now as a nation might be better addressed by a president who's methods we already know.

I never agreed with Clinton's handling of the Balkan's war, but I knew what he was doing when he did it. Clinton's term was based almost entirely on ignoring our military. Gore never showed how he would handle the military, so I cannot support him really. Kerry did not impress me with his knowledge of military affairs, he would likely be as bad as Clinton.

And to think a conservative was the one who threw this idea out in the original forum where it first appeared...
shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh you're not supposed to tell them...

Yes, it was Aveous who came up with this idea in the first place, and if you want to see the original thing, you can go to the region of Neptune III and check the message board out... but it's not as interesting as this.

I'd vote Gore. He invented politics, you know :P
Naw, obviously Clinton. He's just a good balance, I think, and he knew what he was doing and was able of gaining a lot of confidence from the people. Besides, the guy was a hard worker - even when he was getting sexual favours, he never left his deks.

I agree, Left foot. I would have voted for Kucinich too, but i want to keep this thread simple. I love that guy.

He is oh so lovable, and i feel a special bond to him because he represents my district. Unfortunatlely, i live in a rather conservative suburb (attendence at my school dropped to about 30% the day of a bush rally) and you don't hear too much good stuff about him.

It's gotta be Billy-Jeff the way. A presidency that was both entertaining and prosperous.....gotta love it!

All right, I wouldn't vote for any of 'em, but I chose Kerry anyway and I'm the only one! WHOOOOOOO-HOOOOOOOOOOO! PARTY ON!!! :D

:p

What's that supposed to mean?

ummm...Kucinich? You know that the bill he's most famous for pushing in Congress? The one to BAN MIND CONTROL SATELLITES. The guy's crazy.

On the subject of this thread; Clinton. The man. The US economy was in the best state it had been in the history of the country under him (it began as a train wreck), the rest of the world at least moderately liked us, his Supreme Court appointments were solid, and besides the (big exception) Defense of Marriage act forced no odious social policies on the country and actually did a lot of good. That whole sex thing...overblown.

Bill has shown himself to be a moderate somewhat capable of compromise. Not all the time of course, but he was fairly good. I'd pick Clinton over Kerry and Kerry over Gore (Gore just frightens me) any day.

Clinton all the way. Kerry is a unknown, but chose him over Gore. Gore is either boring or scary or both....haven't figured that out yet.

Clinton; the evil I know.

Clinton's term was based almost entirely on ignoring our military.

WOW! I guess you don't really know.

Clinton called up our military more than any other president in history. He completely remade the mlitary in his 8 years: look at the Iraq war conducted with the miltary Clinton constructed - instead of 10% of our bombs being "smart" at a cost of 1 million bucks each, 85+% of our bombs were "smart, at 1 hundreth the cost! (satellite guided, cheap, dumb bombs, with simple strap on guidance sytems.)

That's just 1 of many examples. Rumsfield even said that they were fighting this war with Clinton's military.

Stop reading Sean Hannity. He is a plant designed to muddle the facts and confuse you. Look in depth at the issue.

[QUOTE=Shasoria]I'd vote Gore. He invented politics, you know[QUOTE]

I know you're joking, but I wanted to point out that Gore never said he invented the internet. That was a lie told by pundits, and repeated by the media again and again.

In fact, Gore was instrumental in creating the legislation which expanded the internet and brought it to all of us. Gore has such a weak personality, but the guy is really a genius, and focused on things like the environment and technology.

If we could get past his exterior, we'd see that he would be a fantastic president.

Plus, he won anyway. A TOTAL recount of Florida showed Gore the winner by ANY method that you chose to use to count the votes. Unfortunately, that count wasn't conducted for more than a year after Bush was sworn in.

WOW! I guess you don't really know.

Clinton called up our military more than any other president in history. He completely remade the mlitary in his 8 years: look at the Iraq war conducted with the miltary Clinton constructed - instead of 10% of our bombs being "smart" at a cost of 1 million bucks each, 85+% of our bombs were "smart, at 1 hundreth the cost! (satellite guided, cheap, dumb bombs, with simple strap on guidance sytems.)

That's just 1 of many examples. Rumsfield even said that they were fighting this war with Clinton's military.

Stop reading Sean Hannity. He is a plant designed to muddle the facts and confuse you. Look in depth at the issue.

And the fact that we're extending deployments because we don't have enough people in the military? When the military underwent a huge downsize under Clinton?

I know you're joking, but I wanted to point out that Gore never said he invented the internet. That was a lie told by pundits, and repeated by the media again and again.

In fact, Gore was instrumental in creating the legislation which expanded the internet and brought it to all of us. Gore has such a weak personality, but the guy is really a genius, and focused on things like the environment and technology.

If we could get past his exterior, we'd see that he would be a fantastic president.

Plus, he won anyway. A TOTAL recount of Florida showed Gore the winner by ANY method that you chose to use to count the votes. Unfortunately, that count wasn't conducted for more than a year after Bush was sworn in.

You into conspiracy theories or something? Who did that recount? Why would they wait that long? Why did every other recount (3 or 4, I forget) say that Bush won?

I voted Clinton. I actually liked the guy, he was OK for a Democrat. I disagreed with him on abortion and his atrocious marital life. But his fiscal policies were good. And he really WANTED to be a good example, he just...couldn't.

And the fact that we're extending deployments because we don't have enough people in the military? When the military underwent a huge downsize under Clinton?

I think we have over 1 million troops in the military, though I'm not certain of the number.

May have something to do with 3 years of occupation of a foreign nation, with over 100k troops. Along with presence in 50 or so other countries around the world at the same time.

Your point is well-taken though - we've gotta limit our military involvement around the world, and protect our ports, nuclear plants, and bridges here at home.

Know how to fix this? Use a Clinton idea that is CRUSHED by conservatives - madatory conscription of all 17 year olds. 3 years in the military, then we pay for college.

Know why conservatives are against that? It would divert too much of our 450 billion dollar military budget away from the huge defense contracts that make Bush's friends so much money.

What's that supposed to mean?
http://www.iii.co.uk/common/icons/discussions/emoticons/laughing-ani.gif

You into conspiracy theories or something? Who did that recount? Why would they wait that long? Why did every other recount (3 or 4, I forget) say that Bush won?

There were no recounts, much less 3 or 4!! That is the conspiracy theory that you are repeating without looking into it.

A number of counties did an initial machine recount, as required by their law. Only TWO counties did a manual recount, as directed by the Florida supreme court. 2 more counties tried, but they were prevented by organized mobs (pictures show republican senior aides shaking their fists and shouting at the recounters) and a corrupt State Secretary (also head of the Florida RNC!).

That's just 2 (nearly 4) out of 63 counties!

The ENTIRE STATE was never recounted. Until a consortium did so 1 year later. They almost could't, because the RNC attempted to STEAL THE ACTUAL VOTING CARDS! (They claimed it was to "protect" them.) But fortunately the courts prevented it.

The votes were finally recounted, and then the various recount strategies applied to them - including the type the republicans wanted, as well as the type that Bush had put into law in Texas.

No matter WHICH STRATEGY YOU APPLY, Gore won a close election.

This is really a fact. It was published in all the newspapers, though the truth was actually buried deep within the articles! The NYTimes headline said "Bush Wins Recount", and then says that if you recounted the whole state, Gore actually won! But that info is buried deep within the article. So much for the myth of liberal media. All the other papers were similar.

This is all acurate - you should look it up. The neocons have subverted your noble party.

FROM THE CONSERVATIVE DRUDGE REPORT
A vote-by-vote review of untallied ballots in the 2000 Florida presidential election commissioned by the nation's main media outlets shows Al Gore edged ahead of George W. Bush "under all the scenarios for counting all undervotes and overvotes statewide," the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

You into conspiracy theories or something? Who did that recount? Why would they wait that long? Why did every other recount (3 or 4, I forget) say that Bush won?

A place to start your research!

http://www.drudgereport.com/mattv.htm

What do you mean, the war in Yugoslavia wasn't necessary? We went in and got a bastard who was holding his country hostage. And we did it with a UN backing.

Of course I'd vote for Clinton.
Actually, Clinton went against the UN for that one. It saddens me that you support that death-penalty-loving, corrupt, warmongering, welfare-slashing, corporatist Reagan clone.

Actually, Clinton went against the UN for that one. It saddens me that you support that death-penalty-loving, corrupt, warmongering, welfare-slashing, corporatist Reagan clone.

Which one? And what's wrong with Reagan?

Ralph Nader:

Why? Bill Clinton already served his two terms... to put him back on the ballot would open GW Bush for a third term.

Kerry... sorry, but the President has to be a leader... not someone who cares more about what the other countries thinks we should be doing.

Gore... he just scares me... his book is really an insight into his way of thinking.

Actually, Clinton went against the UN for that one. It saddens me that you support that death-penalty-loving, corrupt, warmongering, welfare-slashing, corporatist Reagan clone.


Whoa whoa whooooooa, wait a minute --- I never said anything about supporting Reagan!

In fact, my day was improved when I heard that he died. I celebrated by playing a marathon of Ramones songs.

And the fact that we're extending deployments because we don't have enough people in the military? Clinton was not interested on invasion or occupation.
Clinton was smart.

Whoa whoa whooooooa, wait a minute --- I never said anything about supporting Reagan!

In fact, my day was improved when I heard that he died. I celebrated by playing a marathon of Ramones songs.

And again,


What do you have against Reagan?

And again,


What do you have against Reagan?

I'm against his whole schtick. "Dismantling the Beast" really pissed me off.

But then, you're somewhat Authoritarian, so it's no wonder you're in love with Reagan.

personally, I don't care, so long as it's not bush. That's simple enough, isn't it? He's the KING of needless wars, am I right?

And again,


What do you have against Reagan?Well for starters, the unholy alliance he made with the Religious Right in order to 'buy' his way into the White House.

Then there's the whole voodoo economics and the incredible increase in the national deficit during his two terms.

And the beginning of the corporatization of the US.

Just to name three.

If there was an election in the US for presidency, and there were three candidates, Bill Clinton, John Kerry and Al Gore, who would you vote for?
If there were only those three running, and "None of the above" wasn't an option, I wouldn't vote!

You can't go wrong with a surplus and a decently stable world temperature. He was certainly one of the best democrats in office and while he did *lie* his abilities in office and what he did during his tenure surely outweigh that error in his judgment.


A part of me wants Bush to somehow get the term length appealed so we can have a Bush Vs Clinton race in 2008, I'd love for Clinton to mop the floor with Bushy.

I'm a Republican who backed Gore in 2000. Clinton may have done some good things, but I can't agree with him on moral grounds for the obvious reasons as well as the more obscure (such as his draft-dodging). I absolutely despise Kerry; he's a commie. So, Gore it is.

You can't go wrong with a surplus and a decently stable world temperature. He was certainly one of the best democrats in office and while he did *lie* his abilities in office and what he did during his tenure surely outweigh that error in his judgment.


A part of me wants Bush to somehow get the term length appealed so we can have a Bush Vs Clinton race in 2008, I'd love for Clinton to mop the floor with Bushy.

I'd love to see it, but for me it is not worth the risk of Bush lying&smearing his way into a third term.

bump

Though I'm not American, If I were American, and based on the issues we face nowadays, I'd go with Gore.

I'm not happy with Clinton for the wars during his era.

I don't like Kerry. He's a zombie in disguise. :p He's wishy washy in my eyes.

Anyway, honestly, currently you'll need somebody who would stand firm on his beliefs and his words is final. Scare dictators and terrorist shitless.

Not talk it out to some of the dictators or arabs, where they'll agree with you in front of your face but stab your back when you turn around.

I'd vote Clinton.

Not only did he make peace in the Balkans, he played a Key-part in making sure that India and Pakistan didn't blow themselves, as well as half of the world, to bits using n00ks(It's in the book I'm reading, Engaging India, by Strobe Talbott, the Deputy Secretary of State during Clintons later years in office). Not to mention(and I hate to admit it), Clinton has done the best job with the economy out of the last 3 presidents.

Clinton.

At least he had the balls to drop 20,000 Marines in Somalia while the UN just stood there and had to watch how their own men were fired upon without being able to do anything.

Gore would have possibly stood there "I don't know what to do", and Kerry would have surrendered to them.

I don't like Kerry. He's a zombie in disguise. :p He's wishy washy in my eyes.


Hey, that rhymes.

Anyway, I was quite young when the war in the Balkans happened, so could someone who had conscious critical logical thought at that time explain to me the goings-on(s?) that occurred there?

I wouldn't vote for any of them.

bump again