parasaurolophus
Footballguy
Just curious what people think about the consequences of these elections. Obviously we have more to look back on for Bush and have to make some assumptions about the effects of Trump in the future.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Bigger effect on the US? Gore losing or Hillary losing? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter parasaurolophus
- Start date
Dickies
Footballguy
Trump could go four more years, so it’s hard to know how his impact will carry forward With the benefit of hindsight, I’m voting Gore because I don’t think he would have gotten us into Iraq. I think McCain selecting Palin as a running mate instead of Lieberman set the stage for Trump gaining a foothold in the GOP.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Uhm I’ll go with Ross Perot running, twice.
supermike80
Footballguy
If Gore became President we wouldn't be here typing right now..there would be no internet
Juxtatarot
Footballguy
Gore mainly due to Iraq.
Lack of faith/confidence from our allies is the main one. Lesser ones like the new acceptance of bigotry/racism and overall mistreatment of fellow human beings will be corrected once a new person is put into place. Not that Trump created any of those qualities in people, but he made it acceptable to express it. Brought a lot of people out of hiding. The environmental damage will be corrected in time also, as new leaders will put pollution restrictions and wildlife concerns back into play.
squistion
Footballguy
In my opinion, no, Bush was warned about Bin Laden and ignored it, which I doubt Gore would have. Bush was given a Daily Briefing entitled Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US and dismissed whoever gave it to him saying something to the effect of "You can go now, you covered your ###."
supermike80
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Gore. Not even close
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I guess I don`t understand this post. If we are not involved in a major war what exactly is unrecoverable?
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
knowledge dropper
Footballguy
They both have this in common. They ran completely incompetent campaigns which cost them the election.
Mile High
Footballguy
I believe the country has been split wide open from a culture differents stand point. Now that isn't really on Trump it's been festering for along time.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Bush and Gore were both well within the realm of what's normal in American politics. Trump . . . isn't. We probably won't be able to fully assess this one until a number of years from now, but I think the 2016 election was unfortunately far more consequential than 2000.
Thunderlips
Footballguy
Trump.
Mainly not because of his actions/policies as POTUS.......but because I think his special form of promoting is going to become something of a norm for the office. I'd hate to see a REALLY slicker or more competent version of Trump in the office......or if I'm a Republican, a Democrat who does the same thing.
Mainly not because of his actions/policies as POTUS.......but because I think his special form of promoting is going to become something of a norm for the office. I'd hate to see a REALLY slicker or more competent version of Trump in the office......or if I'm a Republican, a Democrat who does the same thing.
I'm reminded of the story about Kissinger asking Zhou En-Lai what he thought the long-term impact of the French Revolution was, and Zhou responding "It's too soon to tell."
It really depends on how much longer Trump is in office, and what condition the country is in by the time he leaves. But gun to my head, I'd say Hillary's loss will prove to be more consequential.
It really depends on how much longer Trump is in office, and what condition the country is in by the time he leaves. But gun to my head, I'd say Hillary's loss will prove to be more consequential.
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
Really interesting question.
After thinking about it a bit, I’m surprised my answer is Gore. But I think if Gore wins in 2000, USA doesn’t cook up a story about WMDs and invade Iraq. That saves a lot of lives and a lot of money.
And this is a guess, but I think with Gore as President the USA gets more mature and serious about climate change and becomes a leader in green technologies and alternative forms of energy. We fast-forward through the arguing about where climate change is real or not and move on to how we can grow the economy in response to it and reduce dependencies on oil-producing nations. So instead of entertaining debates about whether climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to manipulate global trade markets (an actual claim put forth by Trump), we are exporting and licensing green tech and creating a new long-term source of jobs that can be performed in areas of low population density.
I think if we have that, there is less resentment from rural America towards urban America. And with a nerd like Gore as President instead of a frat boy lacking in intellectual curiosity like GWB, the table isn’t set for an anti-intellectual like Trump running on racial resentment able to hijack the Republican Party.
After thinking about it a bit, I’m surprised my answer is Gore. But I think if Gore wins in 2000, USA doesn’t cook up a story about WMDs and invade Iraq. That saves a lot of lives and a lot of money.
And this is a guess, but I think with Gore as President the USA gets more mature and serious about climate change and becomes a leader in green technologies and alternative forms of energy. We fast-forward through the arguing about where climate change is real or not and move on to how we can grow the economy in response to it and reduce dependencies on oil-producing nations. So instead of entertaining debates about whether climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the Chinese to manipulate global trade markets (an actual claim put forth by Trump), we are exporting and licensing green tech and creating a new long-term source of jobs that can be performed in areas of low population density.
I think if we have that, there is less resentment from rural America towards urban America. And with a nerd like Gore as President instead of a frat boy lacking in intellectual curiosity like GWB, the table isn’t set for an anti-intellectual like Trump running on racial resentment able to hijack the Republican Party.
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
It is already becoming the norm in congress. Even if Trump loses to tone has been set. Tweet, make incorrect statements, cause more division. just tired of it all.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
For those who are confident that Gore would not have gone to war in Iraq, it's worth keeping in mind that the 2000 election featured a candidate who was committed to regime change in Iraq versus a candidate who openly disparaged nation-building exercises. Of course the former was Gore and the latter was Bush.
Bruce Dickinson
Footballguy
I’m open to the possibility that Gore would not have tried to tie 9/11 to Saddam Hussein or falsely accused him of having WMDs, so a proposed invasion of Iraq wouldn’t have had the broad Congressional and public support the invasion had at the time.
The other thing to keep in mind -- and this gets to my point in a different thread about the difficulty of counterfactuals -- is that it's no lock Gore would have been a two-term president. In fact, historical precedent argues that it's incredibly difficult for a party to win more than three consecutive elections -- it's happened only once in the last century, and that required a Great Depression, world war and a violation of the two-term norm (which is now a two-term requirement). I also have always believed that if Bush had lost the same kind of nailbiter in 2000 that Gore did, he would have spent the next four years stoking right-wing resentment and come back to challenge him in '04. So we might have ended up with the same W presidency, just pushed back a few years. Does that mean there's no 9/11? Does that mean there's a different one after Bush gets elected? Who knows?
There's a book-length answer to this question:
https://www.amazon.com/Unmaking-Presidency-Donald-Trumps-Powerful/dp/0374175365
I haven't read it, but the table of contents would probably give you a sense of what the authors' answer would look like.
rockaction
Footballguy
This is my exact thought. The Second Iraq War was a disaster, paving the way for further oil embroilment in the Middle East and paving a tack away from the foreign policy allies we had with the 2008 election, whereupon we ceded not only our special relationship with the UK, but also cut back a bit with NATO and continued to play Middle East policeman. Perhaps this was all necessary, but it was certainly a change brought about by a decision to preemptively invade a country after 9/11 by deliberately painting a picture of a threat that was no longer nigh.
Into this vacuum steps not only Trump, but the impeachment proceedings.
rockaction
Footballguy
Huh. Pretty demonstrative, even in the ToC, but those issues have domestic remedies that can be quickly applied the next four years. But international adventurism and/or responses, however sanctioned, undoes remedies within our control, e.g., voting him out in his reelection bid, impeachment, containment by a Democratic Congress, etc. This is why Gore losing was so important on the day-to-day scale of national security and foreign policy.
KiddLattimer
Footballguy
wikkidpissah
Footballguy
Eggs ackly. Not saying it wouldna happened anyway, but this President is certainly a symptom of what that President wrought.
leave a whisper
Footballguy
both won popular vote ..... what if we didn't have the electoral college ?? .... how diff. would America be ??
Stealthycat
Footballguy
Gore and its not even close
why? GW had 9-11, he had the economic collapse ..... Trump? 3 years have been great for economy, peace, job growth, trade agreements ....
why? GW had 9-11, he had the economic collapse ..... Trump? 3 years have been great for economy, peace, job growth, trade agreements ....
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
His pro-tariff policy is anti-conservative.
His spending policy is anti-conservative.
His threats against the free market economy are anti-conservative.
His pro-prison-reform policy is anti-conservative.
His lack of professed Christian beliefs or actions is anti-conservative.
His frequent disrespect towards members of the military and law enforcement are anti-conservative.
His disdain for the rule of law (and the Constitution) is anti-conservative.
And while his publicly-professed beliefs regarding immigration are in alignment with most conservatives, the fact that he has done little to increase merit-based-legal-immigration is a sign that his true beliefs are more closely aligned with nationalism/nativism than with conservatism.
ShamrockPride
Footballguy
Trump's election actually pushed us into the 3rd Red Scare.
Gopher State
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
Summer Wheat
Footballguy
I agree, Trump was a registered Democrat and all the above shows he still has some Democratic roots.
Zegras11
Footballguy
sho nuff
Footballguy
Not IMO...I think he is a Republican...a current Republican. The party has fallen in line with him...on things that just are not conservative values.
The Commish
Footballguy
"conservative" no longer means what it did 20 years ago so I understand the confusion to an extent.
Out of all the candidates, Trump is the only one I can't stand more than Bernie. Wouldn't be surprised if he and his Bros win Trump the election again. He doesn't seem to have learned anything.
Zegras11
Footballguy
Why is it Bernie's fault the other candidates don't campaign as well or possibly have a better message that resonates with more people?
Similar threads
