• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What WOULD be different if Gore had won?

Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Well I thought you were supporting Kyoto and as for the left wing socialist propoganda, I didn't say you stated it but you obviously do believe it hence your backing of the myth of global warming.

Hrmm....
Since when are the findings of scientists "left wing socialist propaganda"
If what you say were true, and its not, all public schools are spreading "left wing socialist propaganda" then. Because they are having discussions about global warming in science class. I think it has even managed to make it to science text books.
Do you think we would teach our students stuff based off of "political propaganda" with no actual science involved?

Of course, your going to have something ignorant and contradictory to say, but Im just going to ignore it, you'll probably act childish again.
 
Ahem.....

I re-iterate that this is a stupid thread that consists of nothing but a bunch of whiney people cursing and accusing someone of stuff when they have NO EARTHLY IDEA what would have really happened.

Bush won, Gore lost. Stop whining over what you think Gore would have done because you dont know anything.
Every post I have seen is completely ignorant opinion, and not even worthy of being debated.

Especially that Scarekrow dude....
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
We would have signed Kyoto just like the Chinese and the Socialists of Europe wanted and it would have destroyed our economy and while we would have been subject to the most stringent aspects of the treaty the Chinese and Indians being undeveloped nations yet the second and third largest consumers of oil, quickly surpassing the U.S., would not have been subject to these same conditions, so, while our economy would have atrophyed their's would have grown stronger still and good by U.S. hegenomy and hello balance of power alla WW1 and WW2 with many even nations each vying for domination and power leading to an inevitable world conflict but this time with nukes so the environment wouldn't have mattered because we'd all be enveloped in nuclear holocaust by the end of the decade . . . **** Gore! he's an idiot with no sense of what is right for this nation or for this world for that matter.


No, Gore supporters don't have the balls nor the intellect to respond to this one do they?
 
Last edited:
Caine said:
Hrmm....
Since when are the findings of scientists "left wing socialist propaganda"
If what you say were true, and its not, all public schools are spreading "left wing socialist propaganda" then. Because they are having discussions about global warming in science class. I think it has even managed to make it to science text books.
Do you think we would teach our students stuff based off of "political propaganda" with no actual science involved?

Of course, your going to have something ignorant and contradictory to say, but Im just going to ignore it, you'll probably act childish again.

See here man how's this for childish twwwwwwwwwwwww <(tongue out and spitting), but really man here's the deal, global warming has been so blown out of proportion at this point that it has become nothing more than political fodder, the truth is is that the majority of scientists have reevaluted the significance of CFC's in the atmosphere, umm, you know what CFC's are right? Well no matter I've studied this subject in depth and believe me when I tell you this that the movie Water World is fiction and nothing more, a nice story but I'll stick to reality my friend, maybe one day you'll join me.
 
Last edited:
democraticandidate said:
I think that Israel and the Palestinians would be at a peace, perhaps a temporary one, but nevertheless, a peace. That would certainly be more desirable than the administration's "hands-off" approach which only lead to more deaths in the region. I believe that we wouldn't have a strict bankruptcy bill passed which favors creditors over consumers. I also believe that we would have seen a more vigorous approach to pursuing white collar crime(i.e.-ENRON) than what is going on now. We'd also be in talks with other nations about military treaties, as well as negotiations on environmental standards. As of now, things have stalled and come to a grinding halt on these issues due to the president. 911 would've still happened and Gore would've not allowed us to get sidetracked in a quagmire that is known as Iraq. With that being case, a good number of the 1,900 some odd casualties in Iraq would stilll be alive.





You can keep dreaming too. If Palestinan behavior still has not taught you a damn thing by their very nature of their "acts", ...then nothing ever will!

Have you seen that even more "palestinan" terror groups are flourishing in gaza since Israel puled the people out of gaza, ...exactly what the Palestinians wanted Israel to do, ..that is leave Gaza, & STILL the terror bastard Palestinians are trying to launch rockeet attacks & the like on Israeli's?

when you have young muslims being taught in muslim schools that jews are evil, liars, thieves, murderer's, & that it is perfectly permissible to kill them in the name of allah, ...THAT is exactly where, & why they have the mindset that they do.

No, ...Israel does NOT teach its own children in likewise fashion either, but Israel DOES teach its children to be on guard for those that live to terrorize them!

Gore would have had NO impact whatsoever, ...period! If anything he may have even made Israel sign more treaties that the palestinians refuse to live up to.

Those new Terror groups in Gaza are even defying the new palestinian authority, & disobeying the laws that the palestinians have that are trying to instill peace. (at least on paper because we know that "most" muslims actually do not want peace with Israel, ..rather they seek the total destruction of Israel), & I believe most HONEST, reasonable people already KNOW that! Having a palestinian state is actually a secondary goal, ...the first of course is the successful slaughter of Israel as a people, IF they could pull it off! THe palestinians COULD have had their own state long ago, ...as Israel attempted to help set one up w/Bi-sexual Arafat, ...but he had to balk, how else could he justify killing jews, & keeping the hate going except by tying insane, & suicidal other demands on the state that Israel was willing to help them create?
 
If Gore had been elected we would of had 5 or 6 more terrorist attacks by now...............
 
If gore won we would never had been attacked and would have world peace.
 
Caine said:
If gore won we would never had been attacked and would have world peace.
Yeah...

And Karen Carpenter died from obesity...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
Yeah...

And Karen Carpenter died from obesity...:roll:

If you haven't noticed, Im just going to throw the same assumptions right back out there, because nobody knows jack about what he would have done.

Heck, If Bush has COMPLETELY changed his plan between 2000 and 2004, nobody knows what Gore would have done either.
 
Caine said:
If you haven't noticed, Im just going to throw the same assumptions right back out there, because nobody knows jack about what he would have done.

Heck, If Bush has COMPLETELY changed his plan between 2000 and 2004, nobody knows what Gore would have done either.
A) It's a pure opinion poll...EVERYTHING is subjective...

B) It's not out of the realm of possibility to hypothecize outcomes based on past evidence...

Don't believe me?...Maybe you should try to believe your own words...

tryreading said:
Caine said:
This entire article is another reason why I am against Harriet Miers.

Pfffft..... And her religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.....

Through your "religious beliefs" comment, you seem to be absolutely, unequivically sure of something...even though you don't know jack about what she will do...You've made a hypothesis...

And yet you chastize those who do the same for Gore...
 
cnredd said:
A) It's a pure opinion poll...EVERYTHING is subjective...

B) It's not out of the realm of possibility to hypothecize outcomes based on past evidence...

Don't believe me?...Maybe you should try to believe your own words...




Through your "religious beliefs" comment, you seem to be absolutely, unequivically sure of something...even though you don't know jack about what she will do...You've made a hypothesis...

And yet you chastize those who do the same for Gore...


The difference here is, Im not really talking down on Harriet Miers.
Im just stating that I believe her religion will get in the way of her judicial abilities.

Here, the debate isn't really civil. For alot of these people's posts they are just bashing Gore. Gore hasn't even done anything yet they curse him AND make ignorant assumptions. A good example is the post made by Octavian where he is bashing Gore on his assumptions and then states..
**** Gore. Or something like that. Its not civil and replaces debate with angry disdain for someone who has already moved on from the political scene.
 
Caine said:
Gore hasn't even done anything yet they curse him AND make ignorant assumptions...........

Why are they "ignorant assumptions" when they are based on his specific statements. Now it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the 9/11 attack would have happened had Gore been elected. The planning for the attack all took place during the Clinton/Gore administration. It was not carried out BECAUSE Bush was elected.

So we can safely assume it would have happened and Gore has been clear on what he would have done, nothing. He would have handled it like a police action and tried to arrest those who carried it out, since they were all dead there was nothing left for him to do.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I say that if Al Gore would have won, that he may have been more on top of things, 9/11 may have been completely thwarted like other plots were during the 90s, and we might be sitting here talking now about how the the last 5 years had largely been a continuance of the peace and prosperity that were the hallmark of the Clinton / Gore Administration.
Let's see...plots that were not thwarted and ignored by that dynamic duo:
* World Trade Center Attack 1993
* Khobar Towers
* Embassies bombed in Africa
* USS Cole

Yeah, they were really on top of things weren't they? Al-Qaida was at war with us, yet we weren't at war with them. Anyone who makes the insinuation that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore had won is so filled with blinding hate for GWB they can't see the forest for the trees. To ignore the fact that these events listed were treated in a half-ass manner as law enforecement matters, and not as national security issues, demonstrates the lack of perspective needed to protect this nation from foreign aggression. Not to mention, had Clinton taken up the Sudanese on their offer to capture and turn over to the US Bin Laden we might not even have the debate over 9/11.
 
Last edited:
Red State Sage said:
Let's see...plots that were not thwarted and ignored by that dynamic duo:
* World Trade Center Attack 1993
* Khobar Towers
* Embassies bombed in Africa
* USS Cole

Yeah, they were really on top of things weren't they? Al-Qaida was at war with us, yet we weren't at war with them. Anyone who makes the insinuation that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore had won is so filled with blinding hate for GWB they can't see the forest for the trees. To ignore the fact that these events listed were treated in a half-ass manner as law enforecement matters, and not as national security issues, demonstrates the lack of perspective needed to protect this nation from foreign aggression. Not to mention, had Clinton taken up the Sudanese on their offer to capture and turn over to the US Bin Laden we might not even have the debate over 9/11.

Not to mention Al-Qaeda planned attacks against U.S. troops in Somalia.
 
Caine said:
If gore won we would never had been attacked and would have world peace.
In earlier posts you stated that all comments on this topic are through ignorance and not worth commenting on. Yet, you continue commenting.

Please reference my last post before this one, and explain to me how these events took place while Gore was VP. To make some baseless statement that 9/11 wouldn't have happened had Gore been in office you must ignore some things:
* Terror attacks of the 90's on U.S. targets with little to no response in the way
of preventing more.
* The fact that al-Qaida cells were in the U.S. and preparing for attack on our
soil while Clinton / Gore were still in office.

So, I'm not quite sure how one arrives at the conclusion you did...or was it just directionless rhetoric?
 
Red State Sage said:
Let's see...plots that were not thwarted and ignored by that dynamic duo:
* World Trade Center Attack 1993
* Khobar Towers
* Embassies bombed in Africa
* USS Cole

Yeah, they were really on top of things weren't they? Al-Qaida was at war with us, yet we weren't at war with them. Anyone who makes the insinuation that 9/11 wouldn't have happened if Gore had won is so filled with blinding hate for GWB they can't see the forest for the trees. To ignore the fact that these events listed were treated in a half-ass manner as law enforecement matters, and not as national security issues, demonstrates the lack of perspective needed to protect this nation from foreign aggression. Not to mention, had Clinton taken up the Sudanese on their offer to capture and turn over to the US Bin Laden we might not even have the debate over 9/11.

I was being tongue in cheek in my post. Who knows what would have happened if Gore would have won. The guy who started this thread seems to think he knows, but I think he is just full of **** as usual. It is safe to say that if Gore would have won, that we probably would not have went into Iraq. Other than that, who knows. Maybe things would be going great. Then again, maybe things would be going terribly. There is just no way of knowing. Arguments could be made either way, but in the end its all unfounded speculation.
 
The difference here is, Im not really talking down on Harriet Miers.
Im just stating that I believe her religion will get in the way of her judicial abilities.

How the hell do you know that? I expect every Supreme Court Justice is religeous.........
 
Stinger said:
Why are they "ignorant assumptions" when they are based on his specific statements. Now it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the 9/11 attack would have happened had Gore been elected. The planning for the attack all took place during the Clinton/Gore administration. It was not carried out BECAUSE Bush was elected.

So we can safely assume it would have happened and Gore has been clear on what he would have done, nothing. He would have handled it like a police action and tried to arrest those who carried it out, since they were all dead there was nothing left for him to do.

Did you have no idea that our current administration was warned several months before the attack, and took no action?

Im not saying that Gore would have acted upon it... My one sentence post earlier saying that the attacks wouldn't have happened were just posting ignorant retardedness to **** you conservatives who keep making ignorant assumptions off.

Honestly, this thread is stupid, so im going to leave it alone, and let all you neo-cons argue about how Gore would have screwed everything up amonst yourselves, if it makes you feel any better about how badly Bush has screwed things up.
 
galenrox said:
thus the "I believe" part.....

Well using your thinking I believe Gore is a whacked out nut who has no clue about anything..........
 
Did you have no idea that our current administration was warned several months before the attack, and took no action?

Yeah and according to the Able Danger group your hero Clinton knew about it in 1999 but he was to busy getting BJs in the oval office to pass it on.........
 
The whole argument of the left that had Gore been elected this wouldn't have happened is preposterous. Also too, is the notion that all attacks and preparations by terror groups were thwarted in the 1990's, and that warnings given to Bush by Clinton ignored. Clinton / Gore hardly made mention of al-Qaida, or even terrorism in general. Only when it reared its head did they note the threat, only to let the issue fade away off the front pages in order to pursue the more lofty goal of legacy building.
 
Red State Sage said:
The whole argument of the left that had Gore been elected this wouldn't have happened is preposterous. Also too, is the notion that all attacks and preparations by terror groups were thwarted in the 1990's, and that warnings given to Bush by Clinton ignored. Clinton / Gore hardly made mention of al-Qaida, or even terrorism in general. Only when it reared its head did they note the threat, only to let the issue fade away off the front pages in order to pursue the more lofty goal of legacy building.


Exactly and Congress will be conducting hearings on Able Danger in a couple of weeks and that will blow "Slick Willie" that thief Sandy Berger right out of the saddle and show how corrupt and inept they really were.......

I can't wait...........
 
Navy Pride said:
Exactly and Congress will be conducting hearings on Able Danger in a couple of weeks and that will blow "Slick Willie" that thief Sandy Berger right out of the saddle and show how corrupt and inept they really were.......

I can't wait...........
I hope the Able Danger investigation bears some fruit. Having heard those involved interviewed I believe they have many things to say that are worth hearing. It's funny, though, how the press has barely made notice of this group and their work. I guess they are too busy taking pictures of Karl Rove walking to a courthouse or waiting with baited breath for Cindy Sheehan to utter her next statement of worldly ignorance.
 
Red State Sage said:
I hope the Able Danger investigation bears some fruit. Having heard those involved interviewed I believe they have many things to say that are worth hearing. It's funny, though, how the press has barely made notice of this group and their work. I guess they are too busy taking pictures of Karl Rove walking to a courthouse or waiting with baited breath for Cindy Sheehan to utter her next statement of worldly ignorance.


Clinton has skated on almost al the corruption he was involved in during his presidency....They don't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing............Hopefully this Able Danger investigation will show this country what a scumbag he really is..........
 
Caine said:
Did you have no idea that our current administration was warned several months before the attack, and took no action?

What specific and actionable warning are you claiming they had?


Im not saying that Gore would have acted upon it... My one sentence post earlier saying that the attacks wouldn't have happened were just posting ignorant retardedness to **** you conservatives who keep making ignorant assumptions off.

What ignorant assumptions? What is your premise to declare them so?

Honestly, this thread is stupid, so im going to leave it alone, and let all you neo-cons argue about how Gore would have screwed everything up amonst yourselves, if it makes you feel any better about how badly Bush has screwed things up.

Gore's statements have been quite clear. I can understand how they are hard to defend, but your blaming that on the rest of us is silly.

Why not take what he has said and tell us how that would have been the better course to take.
 
Back
Top Bottom