What would the world be like if Al Gore won in 2000?

[Karalysia]

Would Gore have pushed through Medicaid?

Almost certainly given the massive surplus from years of sucessful Democratic policies, along with the relative peace and prosperity, it would be a new golden age for America I imagine and would likely have resulted in a permanent Democratic majority.

 

[Cutlass]

Doubtful. Our economy would be in tatters due to all the successful terrorist strikes made under his watch, not to mention his selling us out to the ChiComs.

Only Republican presidents have ever sold us out to commie countries.

 

[bhsup]

Well I still think my posts are closer to the truth that the circle jerking I'm reading in here from the republican haters.

 

[Xanikk999]

Doubtful. Our economy would be in tatters due to all the successful terrorist strikes made under his watch, not to mention his selling us out to the ChiComs.

It's a shame that the American public has bought into the fear-mongering produced by proponents of the war on terror that you so easily buy into.

I really doubt that any president no matter who was elected in 2000 would not have of increased airport, airplane and screening security with the tragedy that occurred in 2001. I don't think I knew anyone at the time who was opposed to increasing security within our airports to make sure such an incident would never happen again.

 

[Cutlass]

Well I still think my posts are closer to the truth that the circle jerking I'm reading in here from the republican haters.

You have to consider what all Bush did wrong. And there was a lot of it. And then remember that Gore in 2000 really wasn't that different from Clinton. Sure, he was somewhat more environmentalist. But it wouldn't have added too much to the law existing at the time. Just prevented any rollbacks of the law. Same thing with business regulation. There would have been no jonesing to invade another country. So we would have been better off in that regard. There would have been sensible taxing and spending, so instead of doubling the national debt, he probably would have cut the accumulated debt he inherited in half. The possibility of 9/11 was ignored by Bush, and probably wouldn't have been by Gore. Though the real failures that allowed the attack weren't at the White House, so probably no change there. But then Bush went and did everything he could to maximize the damage done by al Qadia and maximize the power and position of Iran. There's no reason that Gore would have done either. We probably would have gotten bin Laden without invading Afghanistan, rather than the other way around. The housing bubble was well underway before 2000. But the devastation caused by Wall St. was magnified in the middle years of the Bush administration because he gutted regulations, which Gore probably would not have done. So the whole of the crisis might have been less.

All in all, Bush was a horrendously crappy president, and the whole world will be worse off for his tenure for the next century at least. But not everything that happened under Bush's watch was Bush's fault. And don't forget, the Republicans still had Congress. So to a large extent Gore would have been holding the line against changes to make things worse, rather than Bush acting to make things worse. Gore probably would have been no worse that Clinton. And Clinton, while he made some notable mistakes, wasn't really that bad.

 

[amadeus]

At what point in his presidency does he walk on water?

 

[Karalysia]

The same point when Obama did.

 

[Cutlass]

At what point in his presidency does he walk on water?

And what could conceivably motivate you to bring up something like that?

 

[MobBoss]

Well I still think my posts are closer to the truth that the circle jerking I'm reading in here from the republican haters.

Amen to that brother.

This thread is proof of the axiom 'The grass is always greener on the other side of the hill'....except it never really is, and often its far worse than the grass you already have.

 

[Cutlass]

Now THAT would have been a disaster.

We would probably be better off if Gore had beaten Chimpy. But if Lurch had won in 2004, we would have cut and run in Iraq, leaving it in far worse shape than it is right now. We also would have still had the financial meltdown because the last ingredient (allowing banks to take on absurd leverage ratios) was already in place, so the GOP nominee would be President right now.

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Badnarik in 2004...but in retrospect we'd be even worse off if Kerry had won. The federal response to Katrina MIGHT have been better, and the rebuilding process WOULD have been better, but that's the only thing I can see that wouldn't have been an utter disaster.

Even right wing icon George F Will said that Kerry's plan for dealing with terrorism was better than Bush's.

 

[amadeus]

And what could conceivably motivate you to bring up something like that?

So far he's stopped 9/11, captured bin Laden without firing a shot, saved the global economy, saved the environment, kept the budget surplus, and got the Norks to give up their nuclear weapons program.

 

[illram]

Only thing I am pretty sure of is we would not have invaded Iraq. We can debate the relative merits of the Clinton era intelligence/counter-terrorist strategy and whether they would have thwarted 9/11 or not, (assuming Gore would have likely continued whatever it was Clinton was doing with largely the same personnel) but if it had still happened I do not think Iraq would have become a target.

The Bush neo-conservative circle always had it in for Saddam and Iraq, we all knew that. I said the night Bush was elected we would probably invade Iraq, and I said it again the morning of 9/11. I did not enjoy being right on that.

 

[ilduce349]

not much different. The Republican Candidate in 2004 would have won anyway. And all the mistakes following 2004 would have still happened.

Iraq would have started 1-2 years later and a republican would be president right now.
The economy would be worse, because Al Gore would have focused to much on the environment.
You guys (who think Al Gore could have changed the world) fail to see one point. One man can't do in changing the world.
I had this debate last night, and in the end we all agreed that Al Gore couldn't have done much and besides Katrina (Assuming he wins in 2004 as well, which is doubtful) he would have made most of the mistakes Bush did.

 

[BasketCase]

Quick reiteration: if Al Gore had been elected President, CONGRESS would still be in the hands of Republicans (no reason to assume Congressional elections would have come out any differently than they did). Many of the predictions seen over the last three pages are therefore wrong.

 

[Zardnaar]

He would have to have tred hard to be a worse president as Bush, but I wouldn't have accomplished that much IMHO. Iraq being the big maybe.

 

[Murky]

He would have vetoed a lot of the stupid crap the Republicans voted in the law like the stupid incentive to buy SUVs when he knew that CO2 pollution was an issue.

 

[ilduce349]

Quick reiteration: if Al Gore had been elected President, CONGRESS would still be in the hands of Republicans (no reason to assume Congressional elections would have come out any differently than they did). Many of the predictions seen over the last three pages are therefore wrong.

I haven't read any of it, but its probably bs. However you are absolutely right, everything that happened in Bush'es era would have still happened, except 1 or 2 minor things. Iraq might be the one exception, but he probably still would have still gone into Iraq.

Anyway, had Gore been elected in 2000, Bush (or some other republican candidate) would have been elected in 2004, and the republicans would have also won in 2008. Bush (or some other republican candidate) would have been president during the economic crisis, rather then right before it. So even though I hate Bush, I would say he would have been a president then Gore.

 

[Cutlass]

So far he's stopped 9/11, captured bin Laden without firing a shot, saved the global economy, saved the environment, kept the budget surplus, and got the Norks to give up their nuclear weapons program.

Except, of course, I didn't say that. So if you refuse to debate in an ethical manner, why would anyone respond to you at all?