-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What If Al Gore Won The 2000 Presidential Election ? Would it have been better or worse for the United States ?
- Thread starter Massimo2002
- Start date
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Al Gore was the first Presidential candidate I voted for. I was won over by his environmental advocacy. My hope would be that we may not be as quite behind in our climate change mitigation as we are.
Massimo2002
Active Member
I am not a fan of Al Gore's Climate Scare Mongering But Despite This He seems to me like a genuine person that I would probably be able to hang out with for the day I mean he is so down to earth and genuine that I have heard others call him boring and also what is a disciple of pan ?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
His advocacy was always based on science, and regardless, fear mongering at this point is better than denial.
I agree. Being boring is the least of my concerns when it comes to politicians.
The Greek God Pan is a deity I am close to from an archetypal perspective and gain inspiration from.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Al Gore dosent even make the list of nominees anymore.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The problem with overstating a claim is that when reality is not nearly as bad, nor seems as immediate it makes denial easier. It is hard to explain why just the warming that we have is bad and why what is to come is much worse. But it is better to work hard and explain how people's grandkids will be paying the price in ways that no one would want them to than to deny the problem and make it worse. Gore had the tendency to talk down to people without really being any more intelligent than they were. It put quite a few people off and may have been key in his loss. In college J. W. Bush outperformed Al Gore, but he never pretended to be more intelligent. His "aw shucks" personality may have been largely a put on.
Daemon Sophic
Avatar in flux
We, and the world, would be in a lot better place today.
Al Gore was very much a science and reality-based politician. His past works showed that he was also good at balancing budgets and minimizing the inefficiency of government.
The other benefit would have been the non-election of the plutocrat's puppet, Bushy Jr. (a.k.a. "Shrub")
That alone would have lead to us NOT getting into Iraq, even assuming that 9/11 still occurred on Gore's watch.
Following the lead of Bill Clinton, perhaps some of the destructive tax breaks for billionaires that Shrub (and later Trump) worsened, would in fact have gone in the opposite direction; thus improving our economy, education system, military strength and positioning, as well as ecological and space research, etc... etc.... etc....
One could even imagine that the corrupt plutocrats would have seen the failure of their attempt to install a 2nd president (the first being Reagan) into the WH as a clue that it isn't a good idea to try.
It is very hard to imagine any true downside to having had Al Gore as POTUS.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
To be fair the seeds to that recession was far more than just Bush. It was even more than just the Republican and Democratic parties, both of which contributed to it greatly. It was international in scope. The cause in the US was more the collapse of the artificial housing bubble than anything else. Loans were too easy to get and too cheap. And then houses got overpriced as a result. Not a good combo. A war that we were not paying for was a step too far.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Higher dentist bills. Bush's accent was bad enough but Al Gore would make your teeth grind.
I don't think much would have changed. The office of the executive is only 1/3 of the power in Washington and the US is one of many countries in the world. Much of what the US has to react to happen in the rest of the world. So that's the POTUS, the SCOTUS and both the House and Senate making decisions.
It's basically one individual squaring of against 544 other politicians. Plus no guarantee that folks at the executive branch are going to support you 100% either. The POTUS is mostly a figure head who gets all of the praise or blame for 4 to 8 years of the shenanigans of the federal government.
The POTUS is generally just a useful scapegoat for the federal government when the rest of them screw up. The idea is we have all of these people keeping each other in check so no single individual can screw things up too much. So things tend to trudge along in much the same vein regardless of who gets to be POTUS.
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Do you mind rewording your explanation? It seems to argue against your point that overstating a claim can make denial easier, unless I am reading it wrong.
I can see the point regardless. I am not entirely sure I agree, though, at least for someone with legislative power. Outright denial not only creates a culture of denial, it means that nothing is actually done. At least overstating climate change wins over some people and in a position like being President it means some legislative action may be taken which is better than nothing.
That may be true. I was young and idealistic and may have not noticed. I still would vote for Gore over Bush.
PureX
Veteran Member
Al Gore did win the 2000 presidential election. Unfortunately, it was taken from him by republican cheating.
And it was the young neo-cons that came into the party under Reagan, that took over the party under Bush Jr., that then chose to pander to the religious right with all kinds of lies and fear-mongering. Their stated goal was to destroy the Democratic Party and usher in a new 100 year reign of republicanism. Corporate fascism, is what they really meant.
Had the neo-cons behind Bush Jr. not managed to steal the presidency it's likely that there would never have been an invasion of Iraq after 9/11, and the insane religious right would never have taken over the Republican Party. And because of that, Trump wouldn't have ever been president, either. Meaning our response to covid would have come far earlier and been far more effective.
And it was the young neo-cons that came into the party under Reagan, that took over the party under Bush Jr., that then chose to pander to the religious right with all kinds of lies and fear-mongering. Their stated goal was to destroy the Democratic Party and usher in a new 100 year reign of republicanism. Corporate fascism, is what they really meant.
Had the neo-cons behind Bush Jr. not managed to steal the presidency it's likely that there would never have been an invasion of Iraq after 9/11, and the insane religious right would never have taken over the Republican Party. And because of that, Trump wouldn't have ever been president, either. Meaning our response to covid would have come far earlier and been far more effective.
Last edited:
anna.
but mostly it's the same
Remember the Brooks Brothers riot?
I was a stalwart Republican back then, and watched the chad count with that perspective, and cheered the Bush win at the time. What an idiot I was. Looking back with hindsight, it was still a slap upside the head to learn that Roger Stone was a key organizer of that riot. Roger Stone.
Twenty Years Ago, Rioters Tried to Stop a Presidential Vote Count – and Succeeded
On November 22, 2000 a mob succeeded in deciding a presidential election.
