Lifestyle > Train of Thought

If Gore Would Have Won in 2000........

<< < (3/3)

Suffice:

--- Quote from: 7even the Harbinger on July 04, 2004, 04:15:38 AM ---less terrorists. less fear in america. less hate for muslims. less hate for americans. less dead people.

--- End quote ---

what he said and: No 9/11 attacks, no Afghanistan, no Iraq, no pipelines, no oil wars, no patriot act...
 
But our economy would probably be in a worse shape than it is now.

Montana00:
i dont think the economy would have gotten worse.  The jobs would still have been lost and everything, but it would have come back up just like it did. Bush did nothing to get more jobs, and improve the economy. and gore wouldnt have either.

M Dogg™:
Like everyone said, no Iraq War, but we'd still have 9/11 and we'd still be in Afganistan. I think that Afganistan would been the exact same, and right now Conservatives would be pushing their canidad because Gore is too weak of a president to catch Bin Ladan. Also, I highly, highly doubt that Gore would push anything close to the Patriot Act. The economy would be about the same, but the budget would be balanced, which it's not right now. The one thing I never agreed with Gore on, and I'm sure more liberal Democrats don't either since we always fight against it, is censership. That's like the Republicans supporting the Patriot when it is against everything the conservative Republican is about. A true Republican should be pissed at the Patriot Act because it causes growth in the government, and is the cause of millions of dollars spent. Censership is against the liberal belief, because it does not allow many intercity American's message to get out. His wife was for censership of rap music, but that does not allow intercity America, who liberals are always trying to help, it does not allow their voice to be heard fully. But with anybody we can find something to pick on. Hell, I've heard conservatives talk shit on Franklin D. Roosevelt, the best president since Abe Lincoln, and that's real talk.

Montana00:
and bush is a strong president to catch bin laden?

Bush will never catch bin laden because he invaded the wrong countries. If bin laden is in the middle east its either pakistan or saudia arabia,his hometown.

M Dogg™:

--- Quote from: rampant on July 04, 2004, 11:54:47 AM ---and bush is a strong president to catch bin laden?

Bush will never catch bin laden because he invaded the wrong countries. If bin laden is in the middle east its either pakistan or saudia arabia,his hometown.

--- End quote ---

I'm not saying Bush is a stronger president, but traditionally in the United States, democratic presidents are seen as weaker, so right now someone like Trauma would be jumping up and down saying that had George Bush would have won, we'd have Bin Laden. That is completely false, but Al Gore would be losing the election right now because he couldn't catch Bin Laden. When a Republican is in office, Americans feel they have the best wartime president they can have, even though in the last century, only George Bush Sr. was a Republican president at the beginning of a U.S. war. WWI was Wilson, WWII was Roosevelt, Korea was Truman, Vietnam was Johnson, and Clinton had many little conflicts under his belt. But Americans still like to think that Republicans are wartime presidents, were Democrats are weaker peacetime presidents.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page