Printable View
In the entire history of the Republican party, they have managed to steal ONE election - Bush in 2000. The Democrats have made stealing elections an art form. The phrase "Vote early and often" wasn't Republican motto ;D
Let's not forget that Kennedy stole his election, too.
Anyway, Franken is far more qualified than Caroline Kennedy.
Actually Id go with most boring.Quote:
Originally Posted by amat
His command of the facts is good,but he puts me right to bed as far as personality
Franken is an asshole
Caroline Kennedy is "like" "you know" a bimbo http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W85XJADEHxU
...but all the media wants to report on is Sarah freaking Palin
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
The media wanted to report Palin because McCain wanted them to report Palin that was the whole point of bringing her in, not because she was the most qualified but because she brought the most attention.
As for Kennedy, she isn't a bad person and isn't qualified but who says you have to be qualified to be a senator anyways. But the voting record thing was ridiculous, as if she didn't know she didn't vote. I liked Obama because he said he did cocaine, because he talked plainly and wasn't stuck on talking points like every other politician out there. Hopefully more follow the lead.
I don't know if Kennedy stole the election but Bush was shit and if Gore was the president you can't possibly make the argument that he would have been any worse.
You can't make the argument that Gore would have been much better without considering what could have happened if he was President.
Do you remember hearing about Al Gore laughing at Ollie North for being scared of Osama Bin Laden? How would that have gone over after 9/11? It's difficult to really figure out how the American people would have reacted to that when you look back at it....maybe people pay no attention to it and maybe Al Gore is seen as a giant buffoon who dropped the ball BIG TIME. It's a legitimate thought if 9/11 would have happened no matter who was President....because who knows maybe it wouldn't have but that's something that really sticks out to me as something Al Gore would have gotten skewered by.
And after the scandals Bill Clinton had, (Lewinsky, White Water, Travelgate, Troopergate, Sandy Berger, etc.) could Al Gore have survived 1 term without a major scandal and if he did have a scandal would he still have been a viable candidate for a second term?
First off,try though republicans may,the only scandal that stuck to Clinton was LewinskyQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
A major scandal,like being tied to a federally indicted lobbysist? Or lying about the reason for a war?
Trainer, were Americans tired of the Clintons and their scandals (the ones that stuck and the ones that didn't)? Was Gore hurt by being tied to the Clintons? Has America in general had the patience and consistency to stick with 1 party in the Executive Branch for 3 consecutive terms or even 4?!?!?!
The last couple of times Ford and H.W. Bush had a tough go of it (after following Nixon and Reagan respectively) with their approval ratings and the patience of the voters.
I'm not posting what I posted because Al Gore is a Democrat and not my favorite person...I am being objective here. I asked "What would happen to Gore after 9/11 given his previous statements about Bin Laden?" and my guess is things wouldn't have been good for him AT ALL just on that alone.
Um, did Bush catch Bin Laden? Bush lied to the public, presented false intelligence to the American people. Remember when we had those photos of the al queda training ground in Iraq? Or the WMDs?
Sorry after 9/11 you can't make the argument that anything got handled right.
Did I make that statement amat??? Also correct me if I'm wrong but during his last years Clinton was taking a harder stand on Iraq as well and so of course Al Gore would have followed suit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=457jp8VGhEE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFBl0fnMUVc
...Iraq was a done deal well before 9/11 regardless of who won the election.
But yes it could have been handled better if Rumsfeld (Bush's boy) didn't send in a light invasion force.
Yes he was, if Gore did invade Iraq that would have been a mistake. It doesn't matter how many troops we sent in, what the hell are we doing there? What's the goal? It's like Vietnam there is no mission plan we're just there to keep it from caving in on itself. You can't make an argument any other way to because that's true. If the goal was to rescue Iraq from the Baath party then the goal has been accomplished right? So what are we doing?
Anything Gore could have done, it wouldn't have made anything any worse.
What task would a bigger force have accomplished?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
Killersheep, did the surge work better or worse than the original strategy? If we nipped that trouble in the bud earlier then I think we would have been a lot better off....just my view.
amat you cannot compare and contrast a Bush and Gore Presidency because Bush IS the President and Gore never was. It's like me saying "What if Bill Buckner caught that ground ball and the Red Sox won the World Series in 1986?"...."What if Tony Romo didn't mishandle that FG snap in 2006?"...in the end it doesn't matter because it didn't happen. So go out, support Al Gore, talk up what he would have done it doesn't matter because he never got the chance to do it. And you're saying Gore would be better regardless of what Gore would have gone through...it's infantile
Lyle,your the one who brought up GoreQuote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
#1 it's "you're"
#2 YOU brought up Florida
...Oumafan brought up "stealing an election"Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
Who was I supposed to talk about?
haha, its "stealing an election" not "stealing and election", sorry I couldn't help it after you corrected his "you're". Bastard. :D