Al Gore would've been a better president than G.W. Bush. Agree or disagree?

by Mopeder ~ Proud American Posted 2012/06/16 18:05:17

Related Topics: Al Gore, Bush, Dubya, Failure, President, Stock

Read More

229 votes
Read all 401 opinions
Lightning Report View Results and Demographics + View Demographics

Loading Demographics... Click an icon to see demographic results Display unknown and private
	agree	136 votes	59%
	disagree	62 votes	27%
	I don't like either one of them.	31 votes	14%

We all remember what a failure and laughing stock Dubya was.

+16

Add a comment above

findthelight2000 2012/06/17 04:37:31

agree

+12
If Al Gore had won, I don't think the US would be in nearly as economically bad a shape as we are in now.
>> See Replies

More polls by Mopeder ~ Proud American

Space I... to norman 2012/06/17 08:53:53

+1
we're talking about the state norman; read the material first...

reply
Red Branch to norman 2012/06/19 20:57:49

No genius. Romney has never been the presdent. Gore made far more money that Bush could dream about.

reply
Cyan9 to Frank 2012/06/16 19:02:31 (edited)

+1
And do you honestly think Romney will carry his this fall? No he will not. Tennessee votes for the more conservative of candidates and Massachusetts votes for the more liberal of the two. Why would anyone care how Tennessee voted anyway?

reply
Red Branch to Cyan9 2012/06/16 20:21:40

+2
You are no one and you don't care, nor do you know.

If algore had carried TN, he would have won in 2000. Algore used to be relatively conservative until he sold the little bit of soul he had and crossed over to the dark side of liberalism and that cost him TN and the election.

reply
Cyan9 to Red Branch 2012/06/16 20:39:04

Had he carried a single state more than he did he would have one. Bush only won by 2 electoral votes and lost the popular vote.

reply
Red Branch to Cyan9 2012/06/16 21:13:33

Bush won.

reply
Cyan9 to Red Branch 2012/06/16 21:16:48

Then why do you sound so sore at the fact Bush lost the popular vote? :P

reply
Getting... to Cyan9 2012/06/16 21:34:37

You're the one that sounds sour at the joke that is Al Gore and the punchline of him losing his own state. Given Gore's family connections to that state, he should have been able to ignore it completely and carry it easily. Here's a better example for you; Walter Mondale vs Ronald Reagan in 1984. I'll save you the search. Mondale was crushed by Reagan. Reagan carried 49 of 50 states. Which state did he not win? I'm glad you asked. It was Mondale's home state of Minnesota.

reply
Cyan9 to Getting... 2012/06/17 09:08:25

I'm quite aware the vast majority of candidates carry their home states. However, this really doesn't mean much when the state and candidate are of the same party. It's as unlikely that a Southern Democrat or a Northeastern Republican would beable to carry his home state in a presidential contest today, especially in a tight election. I wasn't being "sore". I was pointing out the home state advantage theory while real is overblown.

reply
norman to Red Branch 2012/06/16 23:05:13

Cyan9 is partly right. Al Gore won the popular vote but Bush was appointed to the presidency by a 5 v 4 Supreme Court decision.

reply
Red Branch to norman 2012/06/16 23:21:59

+1
Bush was not appointed.
Gore filed with the Florida courts and it was appealed to the Supreme Court that issued a decision.

By rights, Gore should have filed his claim with the House of Representatives who is supposed to deal with matters like that according to the Constitution. When you file suit in court, there is always a possibility that it will end up in the Supreme Court.

Bush had the electoral vote and that is what put him in the White House. Had Gore carried his state,

reply
Getting... to Red Branch 2012/06/17 03:26:59

Well said! Lefties never want to hear this part of that Bush vs Gore fiasco. It's always the right wing SCOTUS "appointed" Bush. I always go with 'the SCOTUS did nothing different than the Florida state supreme court' and there is never a response. LOL

reply
Cyan9 to norman 2012/06/17 09:05:07

Why only partly? Bush won with 271 electoral votes(meaning a shift of two votes would have changed the outcome). Or were you referring to something else? I don't mind being wrong, I just like being able to know what I'm wrong on so I can change.

reply
Space I... to Cyan9 2012/06/17 08:54:33

and????

reply
norman to Red Branch 2012/06/16 23:02:40

Al Gore was never a liberal, any more than this corporate-loving fool in the White House today is a liberal.

reply
Red Branch to norman 2012/06/16 23:23:29

+1
Gore was very Liberal by the time he was selected as Clinton's running mate. Gore did not hold one conservative opinion.
While Obama love the corporate world, he pushes all the ultra liberal causes.

reply
Hebsi to Frank 2012/06/16 20:31:55

+1
Gore still carried the majority of the American popular vote in that election, that should tell you something as well.

reply
Getting... to Hebsi 2012/06/16 21:35:13

...that both candidates sucked big time.

reply
norman to Frank 2012/06/16 22:58:02

Maybe not but if you take the time to go back and look at the numbers from the 2000 election you will find that Al Gore won the popular vote in the country by over a million ballots.

reply
findthe... to Frank 2012/06/17 04:44:40

Yeah..., it tells me that there are way too many right-wing media brainwashed rednecks, un-Christlike Bible-thumpers, and gun-totin' pro-slavery racist confederates in Tennessee!

reply
Peach to Frank 2012/06/17 11:23:02

Bush didn't carry his home state either, he was born in Massachusetts.

reply
lil crazy to Frank 2012/06/17 18:23:57

I don't see how not carrying your own state tells you anything.

reply
Katie1234 to Frank 2012/06/17 22:38:25

lololollol that's sooo tru! no wonder he lost the election! lol

reply
WankerBait 2012/06/16 18:10:43

agree

+7
The US economy would be much better, and the size of the federal government would be much smaller...

reply
DougE to WankerBait 2012/06/16 19:07:47

+1
you must be smoking crack! There's never been a progressive that's reduced the size of government.

reply
Moose to DougE 2012/06/16 20:51:35

WankerBait didn't say reduce the size of government, just that it would be smaller if he instead of Bush won that election.

reply
Getting... to Moose 2012/06/16 21:36:56

It's kind of a bad presumption isn't it? The reason the government grew was directly related to 9-11 and the (stupid) creation of the Dept of Homeland Security. Aside from that, has the government changed noticeably?

reply
Moose to Getting... 2012/06/16 21:52:58

I'll be perfectly honest, I wasn't old enough at the end of Clinton and the beginning of Bush to say the government is bigger or not other than the things you mentioned. Speculating though, I doubt a republican controlled Congress and Supreme Court would have given Gore the kinds of power Bush received (Patriot Act, wiretapping, "enhanced interrogation"... ) The democrats tend to bend to the will of republicans in the foreign policy area.

reply
WankerBait to Getting... 2012/06/17 14:19:48

+1
it has, and here's just a few ways it's changed:

- Dept Of Homeland Security - check
- Patriot Act - check
- Militarization of the Police - check
- Privatization of the military through contractors - check
- Privatization of the prisons - check
- Privatization of public education - check
- Indiscriminate used of drones in Police actions around the world and now at home. - check
- Citizens United decision - check
- New personal bankruptcy rules making it more punitive for individuals - check
- Debtor prisons - check
- Corporate Socialism vs. individual Capitalism - check
- Medicare Prescription Plan (unfunded) - check
- Affordable Care Act - check

The list goes on, but you get the idea ...

reply
Getting... to WankerBait 2012/06/17 22:32:27

+1
You list a lot of policy shifts which is understandable. I was thinking structurally; adding new branches. I'm not sure a lot of what you list is on the same scale of governmental growth as creating a new department. Obviously, both are a concern in the long run.

reply
RogerCo... to DougE 2012/06/17 05:50:33

+1
The Department of Homeland Security is a Bush creation. It is the ultimate big government nightmare.

reply
Getting... to RogerCo... 2012/06/17 22:28:54

It has quite a few friends; notably both DoE's.

reply
Luis 2012/06/16 18:09:59

agree

+7
Chucko the clown would have been a better president. W kinda set the bar way low.

reply
DougE to Luis 2012/06/16 19:08:32

+1
yeah, especially with screwing his interns, wait that was....... William Jefferson Clinton.

reply
Eric B. 2012/06/16 18:08:27 (edited)

agree

+7
Satan would have been a better President.

reply
jackola... to Eric B. 2012/06/16 18:17:56

+3
after 80 near 90 years with the Democrats in charge who do you think is ruling America.????? Can you even thinkl of Mr Scratch.....?

reply
Guru_T_... to jackola... 2012/06/16 18:32:23

+3
We're all still safe as long as the Republicans don't slime their way back into the White House.

reply
Space I... to jackola... 2012/06/16 18:40:40 (edited)

+3
The Illegal Majority, the Mexicans. the Cubans. the Muslims.
And then there is the Gay Movement; the Abortionist movement, and the I can't balance the Federal Checkbook movement.
Look what the "Democracy" of the Democratic party brings:Perversion; law breakers; illegal aliens; killing children in the womb; and 5 Trillion dollars of debt in over 3 years...
They are the Satan he wanted....

reply
findthe... to jackola... 2012/06/17 05:25:45 (edited)

For someone suffering with terribly with diabetes, you seem to be on a mission to commit indirect suicide by supporting and voting for neo-conservatives and their "survival of the fittest" agenda.

reply
Red Branch to Eric B. 2012/06/16 18:35:44

At least you could worship the real thing then, but Obama is close enough.

reply