i mean, essentially all democrats are like republicans with different hats on, but do you think there'd be a major difference in what is going on now (i.e. us being very close to getting our asses blown to pieces) ?
what do you guys think would be different if gore were in office rather than bush?
- Thread starter minxnim
- Start date
azal
love is the answer
not really.
presidents are just puppets and figure heads anyway.
both are equally stupid and fake.
nothing would be different.
except a slight variation in SNL skits.
presidents are just puppets and figure heads anyway.
both are equally stupid and fake.
nothing would be different.
except a slight variation in SNL skits.
see, i'd like to think otherwise. i'm just not sure. i mean, everyone says gore is so spineless, but he kind of gets sassy sometimes. and he is a total bleeding heart environmentalist and tries to cover it up, but it sneaks out sometimes. so i can't be sure! i did hear of an interview with clinton this morning on the today show where he was like 'we'd have done it differently!'
but who knows....
but who knows....
azal
love is the answer
If Clinton was in office it would be different HE has sass.
even though he bombed the fuck out of my beutiful city and is to blame for the worst and most traumatizing three weeks of my life.
even though he bombed the fuck out of my beutiful city and is to blame for the worst and most traumatizing three weeks of my life.
azal
love is the answer
you are such a softie.
i think if i was over there when it was bombed i'd be a shell shocked wreck with only a small semblence of my original self intact. so i mean, i give you credit.
i am always amazed also that clinton never gets called out on letting the shit hit the fan in bosnia while he just ignored it for so long. it was so much worse than what bush will let happen in afghanistan!
but anyway, yea clinton wouldnt have gone for this preemptive crap. he's too laid back.
i hate thinking about this! i want to give up on politics and this threat of fucking BOMBS will not let me do it.
i think if i was over there when it was bombed i'd be a shell shocked wreck with only a small semblence of my original self intact. so i mean, i give you credit.
i am always amazed also that clinton never gets called out on letting the shit hit the fan in bosnia while he just ignored it for so long. it was so much worse than what bush will let happen in afghanistan!
but anyway, yea clinton wouldnt have gone for this preemptive crap. he's too laid back.
i hate thinking about this! i want to give up on politics and this threat of fucking BOMBS will not let me do it.
azal
love is the answer
I wasn't there prep, I was here...which was 100000 times worse.
It was watching the TV all day, coming home early from HS everyday to comfort my crying mother.
calling Belgrade everyday and freaking out every time there was a busy signal.
watching a city you love burn to the ground.
seeing bombs hit 2 miles from your little cousins.
etc..etc....
I would have given anything to be there with them at that moment.
It was watching the TV all day, coming home early from HS everyday to comfort my crying mother.
calling Belgrade everyday and freaking out every time there was a busy signal.
watching a city you love burn to the ground.
seeing bombs hit 2 miles from your little cousins.
etc..etc....
I would have given anything to be there with them at that moment.
azal
love is the answer
xfer
I JERK OFF TO ARCTOPUS
all right, i think that domestically things would be FAR FAR better--better environmentally, meaning we'd be closer to ditching Arabian oil, Bush's stupid hydrogen cars notwithstanding...fewer draconian civil liberty measures...better stuff to make poorer Americans' lives better. the recession wouldn't be as bad without the tax cut and crap either.
internationally, we'd be fucked. gore would've been exactly as iraq-hawkish as bush--until iraq became a GOP issue, he was all for blasting and crashing--but he would have caved to republican "Stay out of iraq" pressure (yeah, the GOP would be anti-war-in-iraq, citing the need to avoid "nation-building") and we wuoldn't be QUITE as close to war. this isn't a good thing, because we wouldnt avoid the war; it just would have been a longer, more painful process with mad concessions given to the GOp and the country even more divided about it, as the serpentine Republican tongues seem to talk sense...gore would be unpopular as fuck.
gore would approach north korea with diplomacy, but he wuoldn't have a secret plan to war the crap out of it at the first available opportunity like Bush does. this is bad because little does everyone know yet but north korea will be our nuclear downfall if something drastic isnt done soon.
gore would have totally fucked up afghanistan, attacking it, but in a half-assed way (think Clinton's half-assed rocketing of terrorist camps). the war would have lasted 4x as long and would have caused MANY more deaths, not from US bombs or anything, but from the humanitarian crises of starvation, etc. that prolonged conflict leads to.
but we might have osama. seriously. i actually dont care, but for those of you with eagle-biting-osama's-head tattooes: should've voted for Gore.
internationally, we'd be fucked. gore would've been exactly as iraq-hawkish as bush--until iraq became a GOP issue, he was all for blasting and crashing--but he would have caved to republican "Stay out of iraq" pressure (yeah, the GOP would be anti-war-in-iraq, citing the need to avoid "nation-building") and we wuoldn't be QUITE as close to war. this isn't a good thing, because we wouldnt avoid the war; it just would have been a longer, more painful process with mad concessions given to the GOp and the country even more divided about it, as the serpentine Republican tongues seem to talk sense...gore would be unpopular as fuck.
gore would approach north korea with diplomacy, but he wuoldn't have a secret plan to war the crap out of it at the first available opportunity like Bush does. this is bad because little does everyone know yet but north korea will be our nuclear downfall if something drastic isnt done soon.
gore would have totally fucked up afghanistan, attacking it, but in a half-assed way (think Clinton's half-assed rocketing of terrorist camps). the war would have lasted 4x as long and would have caused MANY more deaths, not from US bombs or anything, but from the humanitarian crises of starvation, etc. that prolonged conflict leads to.
but we might have osama. seriously. i actually dont care, but for those of you with eagle-biting-osama's-head tattooes: should've voted for Gore.
goatschool
Member
this is aggravating, xfer! you drop those specified assumptions, AND your reasoning has to be lurking in there, somewhere... but... i don't see it...
Static
Manically depressed robot
xfer, honestly, afghanistan is in that situation now anyway! i mean, what do you think? there's a buffet over there?
we're not going to help them, bush isn't going to help them. slow fucking or not. they're screwed.
i'm not saying gore would have been better, but afghanistan is just as fucked in the ass as they would ever have been.
i am really hesitant to assume that we would be this close to war with a democratic president. not because presidents have all that much control, but because gore would probably have been slower to jump on the 'hero' bandwagon, and essentially, this is the bandwagon that rolled us to where we are. i just dont think it's a safe assumption. i also dont think there was an inevitable road to where we are now according to war.
also, clinton even said in a recent interview that he knows if gore were in office he would haev 100% already been over in N korea at the start of their b.s. talking to them and being like 'sup? want to like, chill out dudes?'. not that he can stop them from going straight to madness, but i also dont think he'd have had this like 'wait! we are busy here hold on crazy korean dude' attitude.
gore is a shit for brains. BUT he's also a wuss and he also is a little less into war as he admits openly because vietnam scared the shit out of him.
we're not going to help them, bush isn't going to help them. slow fucking or not. they're screwed.
i'm not saying gore would have been better, but afghanistan is just as fucked in the ass as they would ever have been.
i am really hesitant to assume that we would be this close to war with a democratic president. not because presidents have all that much control, but because gore would probably have been slower to jump on the 'hero' bandwagon, and essentially, this is the bandwagon that rolled us to where we are. i just dont think it's a safe assumption. i also dont think there was an inevitable road to where we are now according to war.
also, clinton even said in a recent interview that he knows if gore were in office he would haev 100% already been over in N korea at the start of their b.s. talking to them and being like 'sup? want to like, chill out dudes?'. not that he can stop them from going straight to madness, but i also dont think he'd have had this like 'wait! we are busy here hold on crazy korean dude' attitude.
gore is a shit for brains. BUT he's also a wuss and he also is a little less into war as he admits openly because vietnam scared the shit out of him.
XzanderX
shut it
I think there would a difference.
Different economic plan for one.
I think that the US and company would have attacked Afghanistan, but I don't think a democratic government would go after Iraq.
Different economic plan for one.
I think that the US and company would have attacked Afghanistan, but I don't think a democratic government would go after Iraq.
avi
W3RK3R
not war-related, but....
if we didn't elect bush, we would have to deal with Ashcroft. That's a pretty big deal right there. And we wouldn't have the upcoming FCC deregulation to worry about. Or such backpedaling on environmental issues.
if we didn't elect bush, we would have to deal with Ashcroft. That's a pretty big deal right there. And we wouldn't have the upcoming FCC deregulation to worry about. Or such backpedaling on environmental issues.
i was reading, hmmm where was it... somewhere? shit i will remember. anyway, i was reading about all of the environmental law 'undoings' of the bush administration that have gone through since he's been here and it's a MAJOR setback that gore would have never allowed.
VangelicSurgeon
Three Star General
Can you explain that in more detail? Just because I tend to not pay attention sometimes, not because I disagree...
Similar threads
- Poll
