Let's pretend for a little, and say that Gore were President now....

[glenn1]

Okay, stop the flames already, you haven't even read my entire thread yet.

Without getting into a simplistic "Gore/Bush sucks" argument, describe how you think things would be different now if things had turned out differently, and we were having threads about President Gore instead of President Bush.

IMHO, apart from the differing worldviews the two men would have brought to the Presidency, there would be little net difference in what both men would have done so far. Let's examine:

1. Tax issues: Well, this is perhaps the one major area where there would be an appreciable difference. Does anyone doubt that with Gore in charge, that tax cuts would have likely gone out the window? Whether or not you personally feel that a particular level of tax cuts is a good idea or bad at this time, i think it safe to say that no Bush = no tax cut. Fair statement?

Advantage: Bush

2. Recon plane and China: I don't see where this would have likely been handled differently by Gore than how it was actually handled by Bush. The Chinese had us in a rather unpleasant spot, and arguably, Bush finessed the issue about as well as could be hoped for, given the circumstances. We'll never know if Gore would have done as well, but i'll give him credit for his intelligence and experience and say he would have done pretty well with the situation also.

Advantage: Tie

3. California Electricity Crisis: While I believe that President Bush ultimately had the right idea (that this was a state-specific problem, and that intervention would ultimately prove counterproductive), he made a hash out of it PR wise. Personally, i don't think that Gore would have been exactly keen on the idea of price caps either, but likely, he would have been able to better portray an image of compassion and empathy for the citizens of California. I think he would have done this publicly, even while he was privately telling the politicians in Sacromento to fix the damn problem already and stop whining to Washington DC about it.

Advantage: Gore

4. Kyoto Treaty: Kyoto is dead. The Senate would have never in a million years ratified it, and that's why Clinton never bothered to send it over to be ratified in the first place. Whether Bush thinks its a bad idea, or Gore thinks its a good idea, is kinda moot. Kyoto as it currently stands is DOA.

Advantage: Tie


Anyone else care to continue?

 

[vi edit]

If Gore was president:

- Stem cell research would not be threatened
- Insurance companies would still be require to provide coverage of contraceptives
- Public libraries wouldn't be manhanlded into putting filters on their computers with internet access

 

[Raspewtin]

<< 1. Tax issues: Advantage: Bush >>



I disagree on this one. I'd rather not return to deficit spending, even if losing the tax cut. I agree that Bush was the driving force behind tax cut, and no huge tax cut would have happened without Bush, although there would have been token tax cut. there wasn't a lot of popular support for the tax cut.



<< 2. Recon plane and China: >>



IMO Bush handled this not too badly, Gore couldn't have done much better, I agree



<< 3. California Electricity Crisis >>



Gore would have done much better here. Bush really screwed this one up, hence his retraction and the instituion of price controls. And now it's no longer a California problem. Nevada had rolling blackouts Bush just doesn't have the balls to handle this b/c of his unfortunate position of being an energy company whore.



Here are some things Gore would do that I would have liked:

1) Patients and Doctors would have the right to sue HMOs finally
2) No irresponsible tax cut based on already false projections of the economy
3) Responsible social security plan

Here are some ads we got with Bush

1) Repeal estate tax ( ya I know it will come back but its a step in the right direction)
2) I like the way Powell is handling Isreal/Palestine better than Clinton (and assumably Gore)
3) I doubt we'd have a Democrat controlled congress if Bush wasn't president which is good


---
What i would like is one party controlling the house and senate, the other in the presidency, the judicial farily middle of the road. I also hope the Republican party doesn't take too much damage public support wise from some of Bush's more unpopular ideas.

 

[jjm]

I asserted that both would perform similarly during the campaign, and I still believe that. Mostly, a split Congress would force either one towards the center. Jr tried to go for broke, and it cost him. Now he will really feel the heat of a divided Congress.

I think there would have been less of a tax cut and more money targeted to deficit reduction under Gore. But there still would have been some sort of tax cut.

I think GWB's inexperience has shown up in foreign policy. And Powell has made some errors too. I think Gore would have fared better.

edit: fixed typo

 

[DefRef]

Energy: Gore would've slammed price caps on in a heartbeat (liberal compassion) AND would've nationalized the energy industry to SHUT IT DOWN. Gore is/was/will always be an environmental extremist and is little different than Ted Kaczinsky. He would have had no idea what to do. Liberals have no idea how the REAL WORLD works, that's why they live in their Liberal Fantasyland. No drilling in the ANWR and gas would be headed for $3.00/gal.

Taxes: What's better? No tax cut or a pathetic tax cut that will put little money in people's pockets? The GOP tax cut is pitiful and still leaves too much money in D.C. Also, they're already starting to back off on some cuts because the slowing economy means lower revenues. This is because the liberals and the media insist on the economically bogus &quot;static scoring&quot; system where taxes are treated as a zero-sum game. That's why we get the constant lie that tax cuts must be &quot;paid for&quot; and that cutting taxes increases deficits. (The great lie against Reagan, when it was Dem spending and promise-breaking that created the deficits.)

China: Publically, Gore may have gotten them back, but the private deal would've involved the continuation of the Clinton treason of technology transfers to a sworn enemy of America. Liberals are anti-American at their hearts and will sell us out every chance they get.

Kyoto: Gore would be pushing it HARD (see above comments) because it was his pet issue. The fact the only Romania has ratified in Europe shows that the ONLY goal of Kyoto is to cripple America's economy. Pollution would've been unchecked in Third World countries AND China didn't sign on.

Dubya is being beaten to death in the media, but what else is new? The media is so angry that their Chosen One lost that they'll brutalize any GOP initiative and give unequaled praise to any GOP member that wishes to turn against their party. Traitor McCain and Jim &quot;Commie&quot; Jeffords have stepped up to get the warm media tongue bath and more are to come.

The GOP is too stupid to realize that they're getting their asses kicked in the media and that too many people are ignorant (both willfully and otherwise) to know just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
The worst one are the college students who have been filled with a load of Lefist propaganda and programming and then comes to forums like this to regurgitate their &quot;information&quot; when they have no idea of what the Truth is and even WHY they &quot;think&quot; what they do. They're ignorant, but you'll never convince them.

 

[ElPool]

being mostly republican, I would be able to complain about the president alot more, which is always nice.

 

[timco]

Warning: long post (waiting for KDE to compile: that's some slow-ass sh!t).



<< Energy: Gore would've slammed price caps on in a heartbeat (liberal compassion) AND would've nationalized the energy industry to SHUT IT DOWN. Gore is/was/will always be an environmental extremist and is little different than Ted Kaczinsky. He would have had no idea what to do. Liberals have no idea how the REAL WORLD works, that's why they live in their Liberal Fantasyland. No drilling in the ANWR and gas would be headed for $3.00/gal. >>



Are you sure? Or is this just yet more right-wing paranoid nonsense? I think there are more important priorities than nationalizing the energy industry and do you even have any proof that Gore would've done this? He would have had a House that is controlled by the Republicans, a Senate where the GOP still held the balance of power because of Jeffords not defecting. Oh, I have a fair idea how the world works; I'm not stuck in some timewarp, wishing it was the 1950s again when everyone was pure and simple and there was no threat to the US's hegemony from upstart nations like China and the real enemy was the USSR. You need to get your head from out your ass and stop hating people who don't agree with all your bigoted opinions.

More right-wing crap: &quot;environmental extremist&quot;. I don't support drilling in the ANWR, gas prices should be higher to discourage use of gasoline and barge-like gas guzzlers that do 9 miles a gallon. Industry emissions should be controlled so the environment is not poisoned by Dubya's paymasters in the energy industry. The environment isn't some utilitarian resource that can be exploited ad infinitium. What's so extreme about this? Dude, you sound like the extremist. Typical conservative bullsh!t: &quot;my view or no view&quot;. And yes, I am a LIBERAL (quick, grab your guns and hop in your truck and shot me dead before I destroy the country).



<< Taxes: What's better? No tax cut or a pathetic tax cut that will put little money in people's pockets? The GOP tax cut is pitiful and still leaves too much money in D.C. Also, they're already starting to back off on some cuts because the slowing economy means lower revenues. This is because the liberals and the media insist on the economically bogus &quot;static scoring&quot; system where taxes are treated as a zero-sum game. That's why we get the constant lie that tax cuts must be &quot;paid for&quot; and that cutting taxes increases deficits. (The great lie against Reagan, when it was Dem spending and promise-breaking that created the deficits.) >>



I reckon Gore would have introduced a smaller tax cut, using the rest to cut the deficit a bit and to spend a bit more on education and social programs. Cutting taxes irresponsibily - more than the country can afford - creates deficits; if Dubya's tax cuts were slightly more modest (even more modest than the reduced figure that actually passed - $300M IIRC) then no-one would be whining about deficits.



<< China: Publically, Gore may have gotten them back, but the private deal would've involved the continuation of the Clinton treason of technology transfers to a sworn enemy of America. Liberals are anti-American at their hearts and will sell us out every chance they get. >>



IMO, Gore would have gotten 'em back; he might not have played hardball so much as Bush appeared to and China might have been more reasonable as well. I wonder why Clinton pursued a strategy of appeasing China whilst ostracizing countries like Iran, Iraq, Cuba and North Korea all of which are equally as bad as China. Well, I don't recall Castro killing people with tanks... Liberals are not anti-American. Do you have any proof of that? I doubt it. Conservatives like Bush just sell out to wealthly corporations who - coincidence - gave lots of $$$$ to his election campaign, to the nuts in the Christian Coalition.



<< Kyoto: Gore would be pushing it HARD (see above comments) because it was his pet issue. The fact the only Romania has ratified in Europe shows that the ONLY goal of Kyoto is to cripple America's economy. Pollution would've been unchecked in Third World countries AND China didn't sign on. >>



Paranoia and totally unreasonable and unfounded opinion alert #3. What does Romania have against America? Can you give me a link to a site that tells me that the only goal of Kyoto is to cripple America's economy? BTW, links to Dubya's oil corporation friends and &quot;DefRef's Right-wing Liberal Hating Conspiracy Theory and Paranoia Site&quot; does not count. The western world (US and Europe) produce most of the pollution in the world; our nation produces 25%, therefore they should cut down more. How can nations in Africa saddled with debt, famine and war afford to cut down on pollution? Perhaps the exalted nations of the West should set an example. Perhaps some technology transfer (or would transferring technology to the Gambia or Morocco undermine the US and threaten our way of life)? Apparently European nations (a bunch of socialists) are determine to press ahead with Kyoto, despite the US and probably Japan (Japanese position is not that clear) refusing to ratify it. And why does tightening environmental controls necessarily mean crippling the economy? Yes, polluting companies will have to pay to clear up but that can be offset by creating jobs and growth in environmental industries. For example, switch to natural means of producing power like wave and wind - you need people to build the things and operate 'em; you can employ people making products like insulation for houses and so on. European nations (the UK I think is one of them) have made cuts in their CO2 emissions and so on and their economies aren't going under like the US's appears to be...



<< Dubya is being beaten to death in the media, but what else is new? The media is so angry that their Chosen One lost that they'll brutalize any GOP initiative and give unequaled praise to any GOP member that wishes to turn against their party. Traitor McCain and Jim &quot;Commie&quot; Jeffords have stepped up to get the warm media tongue bath and more are to come. >>



Yes, newspapers like the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal were so angry that Al Bore lost the election as they were so looking forward to all that liberal nonsense that he would introduce. Perhaps if the GOP wasn't losing people like McCain then the media would be &quot;brutalizing&quot; the GOP. I voted Gore (must've been drunk) but if McCain was the GOP's candidate I would have had a hard time chosing between the two. The war hero with integrity or the liberal wooden man. Where is Jeffords now? I haven't heard much from him lately...



<< The GOP is too stupid to realize that they're getting their asses kicked in the media and that too many people are ignorant (both willfully and otherwise) to know just how deep the rabbit hole goes.
The worst one are the college students who have been filled with a load of Lefist propaganda and programming and then comes to forums like this to regurgitate their &quot;information&quot; when they have no idea of what the Truth is and even WHY they &quot;think&quot; what they do. They're ignorant, but you'll never convince them. >>



Yes, the GOP is stupid and they'll get their asses kicked and rightfully so at the mid-terms and in 2004. And I'll be laughing my ass off. No doubt you and your ilk will have to go and live in the forests in case a group of liberals come round your house and try and beat you to death with their copies of Marx's Communist Manifesto (guns will be made illegal, remember).

So people who don't agree with your right-wing propoganda are ignorant, are they? That's what gets me about conservatives. At least Liberals make a pretence of listening to other people's views (even if they ignore them: with some of the trash that gets posted into this forum, I'm not surprised). I'd rather be ignorant than a narrow-minded bigot who is consumed by hate, irrationality and fear. All that hate is bad for you; you've gotta lighten up (I don't hate conservatives: they make me laugh too much). And I'm not a college student (any more; but I was a liberal long before then).

Oh, I don't want to be convinced by you. My liberal fantasyland is far too enjoyable. Delusion is fun... Later, y'all.

 

[Lucky]

Whether or not tax cuts are a good idea or bad at this point, i think it safe to say that no Bush = no tax cut. Fair statement?

Advantage: Bush


Youve just contradicted yourself by saying it doesnt matter at this point if they are good or bad, but saying that bush now has an advantage. Not everyone will agree on this, some will say its a disadvantage that bush pushed the cuts through.

 

[DefRef]

If you think that KDE is &quot;slow ass sh1t&quot;, you clearly haven't realized how slow Timco is!

Yeah, whatever. You sure laid the smack down on me. I better go crawl under the porch and lick my wounds until death claims me. You are so smart and knowledgable. I'll learn better before I ever cross you again.





















[/sarcasm]

 

[glenn1]

<< Youve just contradicted yourself by saying it doesnt matter at this point if they are good or bad, but saying that bush now has an advantage. Not everyone will agree on this, some will say its a disadvantage that bush pushed the cuts through >>



Fair point. I should have phrased it as 'whether or not you personally believe tax cuts to be good or bad, but i think it safe to say that no Bush = no tax cut' rather than what i said (which admittedly was rather hashed).

I don't think that you'll find many people agreeing that tax cuts themselves are a bad idea, even Mr. Gore proposed one during the campaign. The main issue seems to be the appropriate size for the cuts. The reason why i gave the advantage to Bush is that i believe, and reasonably so IMHO, that had Mr. Gore become President, we likely would have gotten no significant tax relief at all.

 

[timco]

Hmmmm, DefRef, you don't choose to respond to any of my points but instead resort to being sarcastic. Interesting strategy. Are you by chance 6 years old?

 

[AaronP]

If Al Gore were president right now, we'd all be calling ourselves &quot;Comrade&quot; and we'd be starting over in the year O.

 

[ElFenix]

if all gore were president we wouldn't have had some of the good things happen in texas that we have had with rick perry.

we'd still be in the FTAA thing, so the far left and labor would still be complaining.

we'd still be in a recession.

we'd still have a horrid education system.

we'd still have pork on the part of congressmen.

we'd probably have all those last minute regulations that billy signed in.

we'd still have incredibly low interest rates.

social security would still go bankrupt.

at least better bought and paid for by national concerns rather than ChiCommies.

 

[Freejack2]

Gore would have done fine as president. No party will nominate a candidate if they don't think they can be president. My only concern I had with Gore was he was a bit too big on gun control. Though I think the NRA would have set him straight on that and a compromise would have been reached.
The fact that Bush and Cheney are oil men makes me very very nervous.
As for the environment I'm amazed at some people. They will make financial sacrifices for their children but god forbid should they make enviornmental sacrifices so that their children will have a world to inherit.
My concerns about the environment have made me change my affiliation to the green party. Though mind you I'm not a &quot;green nut&quot;, but my feeling is, research on making things more enviroment friendly should progress more rapidly. Without becoming more environmentally conscious, we can't continue to live at this comfort level too much longer. Think about it.

 

[glenn1]

Freejack, while i pointedly disagree with the majority of the Green Party platform (i am a Libertarian personally), i would hope at least you will take the time to study the platform and make an educated decision whether or not it truly represents your values. If it does, so be it, but you should be fully aware of all the Party's positions before making such a decision... the party platform is here....

 

[Freejack2]

Acutally I agree for the most part with the Green Party's platform. Their platform doesn't please all the people but then again the saying you can't please all of the people all of the time holds very true. There is no easy answer to anything, but at least the Green party is trying. I wish them the best of luck and will do my best to help them and be affiliated with them.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

Gore would be out of office by now anyway, Bush won the recounts even when independent groups recounted and gave Gore the hanging chads, dimpled ballots, etc.

 

[kvelouria]

<< Gore would be out of office by now anyway, Bush won the recounts even when independent groups recounted and gave Gore the hanging chads, dimpled ballots, etc. >>



Hello. Do you understand what the words &quot;pretend,&quot; &quot;if&quot; and &quot;now&quot; mean? If not, maybe you need a dictionary.

 

[ShotgunSteven]

<<

<< Gore would be out of office by now anyway, Bush won the recounts even when independent groups recounted and gave Gore the hanging chads, dimpled ballots, etc. >>



Hello. Do you understand what the words &quot;pretend,&quot; &quot;if&quot; and &quot;now&quot; mean? If not, maybe you need a dictionary. >>



Um, hello dipshit, in pretending that Gore had become President, I figured he would be out of office by now, since in reality Bush won. It just says &quot;...And say that Gore were President now....&quot; It did not say if he had been rightfully elected. I am pursuing my chosen scenario for this Thread. I suggest you remove the stick from your arse before someone else does and uses it to beat you.

 

[AndrewR]

If Gore were President, I wouldn't be receiving a 5-10% pay increase next year. He'd have the military planting flowers in Greenland.