Do Any of You Gimps Still Believe in Obama?

[GePap]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Votenader.org instead. Oh wait, he is irrelevant, spoiler, old and doesn't suck corporate dick. And he is not gonna win anyway, but Obama needs your vote to win...

:yawn:

Nader did some very good things as a consumer advocate, but he would be a terrible president. Anyone who thinks he would actually be able to rule is well, not all there in the head.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
As for Gore, I would have voted for him back then. He would have been a disaster of epic proportions. Can you imagine Gore after 9-11? I'm sure the best he would have done is pass a pardon for all the terrorists and give them green cards since America was to blame for the attacks after all.

Bush for all his flaws was the better choice. He proved to be a decent president, and I feel that history will be kinder to him then his recent critics.

Nah, he'd have invaded Afghanistan (or gotten them to turn over OBL... seem to remember rumors that something like this could have been arranged if the Bush admin had been less gung-ho, I suspect not though). Public pressure was too high.

We'd be in Afghanistan, either it'd be a mess as it is now or it would be slowly getting better. People would be claiming the GOP would have done a better job invading foreign countries (though they'd be wrong).

The big difference is there wouldn't have been an invasion of Iraq and there'd be a lot more Americans in Afghanistan, though they might be under rules of engagement that prevent them from going fully into the border areas. Who knows?

[tinyp3nis]

Originally posted by GePap


:yawn:

Nader did some very good things as a consumer advocate, but he would be a terrible president. Anyone who thinks he would actually be able to rule is well, not all there in the head.

Why do you think so?

[Ben Kenobi]

I kind of hope you actually believe this, because truly deranged people are far more interesting to me than bad trolls.

I don't think Al Gore would have handled 9-11 well, and yes it is true I would have voted for him back in 2000.

[Ben Kenobi]

And if that's the only issue you care about. Or if that's the tiebreaker issue for you.

Well make up your mind then if you are going to call me a reviled single-issue vote.

That's an epic BAM and a nasty smear all rolled into one. I'm not a particular fan of Al Gore, but WTF?

Now you know how I feel when you folks smear Bush.

One good shot deserves another.

It's just as true as all the other anti-bush nonsense.

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Now you know how I feel when you folks smear Bush.

Damn, I was hoping you were a complete loon. Instead you're just bad at engaging in constructive debates.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nah, he'd have invaded Afghanistan (or gotten them to turn over OBL... seem to remember rumors that something like this could have been arranged if the Bush admin had been less gung-ho, I suspect not though). Public pressure was too high.

He would have done the same thing Clinton did. Lob a few missiles in Bin Laden's camp. Declare victory.

We'd be in Afghanistan, either it'd be a mess as it is now or it would be slowly getting better. People would be claiming the GOP would have done a better job invading foreign countries (though they'd be wrong).

"Anything you can do, I can do better. I can do anything better then you."

You watch too much Annie get your gun? Seriously, you believe the Dems wouldn't have fouled up an invasion, and that everything would be hunky dory in Iraq? Under what basis do you have for your opinion? Look at the Dems in Vietnam. A complete disaster while they were at the helm.

though they might be under rules of engagement that prevent them from going fully into the border areas. Who knows?

I doubt that. They wouldn't HAVE a budget, since the House and Senate dems would strip them of the cash, just like they are doing now to Bush.

Oh wait, no, I think they would actually fully fund a Dem war.

[GePap]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis


Why do you think so?

To be president you need to be able to rule, most importantly to work with Congress to get anything done. Any third party candidate would have instant issues in this country with both the parties that control the legislative. MOre importantly, Nader does not seem the type to carry out the necessary compromises that a good leader makes. I would hope that he would pick experienced hands for his cabinet but then I don't know who he would pick, and how much time would be wasted in nominarting battles.

Picking a complete outsider to lead isn't going to change squat, specially one who had never been elected for anything before, EVER. So why waste four years of bitter politics just to go back to the same old afterwards?

Again, Nader has done a lot of good, but just because you have doesn't make one presidential.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Now you know how I feel when you folks smear Bush.

One good shot deserves another.

It's just as true as all the other anti-bush nonsense.

The difference Ben, if you could understand it, is that we critizice Bush for what we KNOW he has done, while you attack Gore for what you imagine he might have done. I think most rational people can see the difference.

[Arrian]

Now you know how I feel when you folks smear Bush.

One good shot deserves another.

It's just as true as all the other anti-bush nonsense.

When I slam Bush, I have a good basis for it. You have **** all. Gore wasn't elected, so you get to just make **** up and claim that it would've happened that way.

I can play that game too, but it's pointless.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

The difference Ben, if you could understand it, is that we critizice Bush for what we KNOW he has done, while you attack Gore for what you imagine he might have done. I think most rational people can see the difference.

This thread is insisting he was too dumb to be a real fighter pilot, which is a no true scotsman, already.

He was a fighter pilot, and trained to be one.

The way I see things is that the critics believe everything he does is wrong, which is no different then the outrageous statement I made about Gore.

Maybe you are different. Is there anything he has done well, or did he only win in 2004 because of mass brainwashing?

[Arrian]

Is there anything he has done well

I cannot think of a single thing.

The WoT is rather difficult to judge. On the one hand, it's clear we've disrupted AQ quite a bit. That's good. On the other, the situation with Pakistan is, IMO, a big problem. As is the diversion in Iraq. I'm also quite concerned about domestic overreach wrt wiretapping. Then throw in Gitmo, which I consider to be a serious ****up.

Some or all of these problems could/would have taken place under Gore. It's hard to say which ones and to what extent. I certainly don't have any fairy tale belief that Presiden Gore would've done everything perfectly. After all, there would still have been lots of Republicans in Congress... Kidding, kidding.

-Arrian

p.s. Which is to say that the WoT is neither a clear "good job" or "bad job." Everything else that comes to mind falls into the clearly bad job category. Iraq, fiscal policy, energy policy, other foreign policy, etc.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I don't think Al Gore would have handled 9-11 well, and yes it is true I would have voted for him back in 2000.

Gore would have handled 9/11 reasonably well, but would have been hampered by Republicans attempting to use it for political gain. Right wing lunatics would have started blaming Gore for 9/11 (and don't say they wouldn't, because a lot of them erroneously blame Clinton). We already know that the radical right used 9/11 for political gain, because they used it to garner support for the Iraq fiasco.

That's not to say that democrats have not attempted to out the Bush administration's pre 9/11 failings, but it has been fairly low key and the more extreme stuff has been confined to a small number of people.

But if the tables had been turned, the right wing authoritarians would have been all over Gore like a cheap suit. They have no shame and would have kept slinging mud until something stuck. Americans still don't realize that there can be no accommodation with these people. If you want to stop them, they must be eliminated from the political process... completely and irrevocably.

I can tell you one thing: it would be unlikely that the US would be running a secret gulag or torturing prisoners if Al Gore was in charge.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

Maybe you are different. Is there anything he has done well, or did he only win in 2004 because of mass brainwashing?

Bush won re-election in 2004 (by the smallest ever margin by a sitting president, specially in "war time") because a bulk of the electorate at that time preferred a continuity in government during what they saw as a time of crisis, that and because the economy appeared to be "recovering", and thus people had expectation of things improving.

Of course, Nov. 2004 was before things in Iraq melted down, the Katrina ****up, and Bush's seeming tone deafness during the housing bubble collapse.

Are you willing to acknowledge reality Ben and the fact that Bush is currently if not the most unpopular sitting president EVER, only second to Nixon at the depths of Watergate?

[Lorizael]

Originally posted by Agathon
I can tell you one thing: it would be unlikely that the US would be running a secret gulag or torturing prisoners if Al Gore was in charge.

We're running a secret gulag?