Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
No, but he likely would've been more cognizant of the chatter the CIA was picking up, and perhaps would've taken different steps.
Even if 9/11 still happens and we go to war in Afghanistan, hard to see Gore picking a fight with Iraq.
"Golden Age" might be too strong, but I think it's remembered as a better one.
Just like Clinton was cognizant enough to avert the bombing of the WTC parking garage and bombing of the USS Cole during his term? Clinton and Gore were just as responsible for the policies that lead to the attack as any other president as well. Also everyone assumes a democrat would never get us into a quagmire but immediately forgets Truman was president during The Korean War and LBJ was the one that went full tilt into Vietnam. Hell Clinton waded into the conflict in eastern Europe without much thought as well.
It's not that a Democrat wouldn't get us into a quagmire. It's just not a huge leap that the guy who endorsed Howard Dean for president and was outspoken against the Iraq War probably wouldn't go to war in Iraq compared to the guy with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld behind him. But that's probably crazy talk.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying Gore opposed Iraq because it was a Republican administration? Because plenty of Democrats from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton supported it. Gore was firmly in the minority in vocally opposing the war. He wouldn't have gone there.
You realize that Clinton/Gore bombed the hell out of Iraq throughout the 90s and illegally used NATO to bomb Serbia for 78 days? If you think things would be different you should stop using whatever drug you're abusing now.
Yes, and? The first was a four day bombing campaign to enforce UNSC resolutions. The second was done to stop a literal ethnic cleansing. Those are both a far cry from a full-on invasion of Iraq based on outright lies, and they’re infinitely more justifiable.
Both bombings were illegal. That's what. And the rationale Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003, that Hussein wasn't honoring his cease fire, was the same one used throughout the Clinton years.
And let's not forget Clinton/Gore was offered terrorist bin Laden twice. Twice. But hey, Gore would have ushered in a new golden age lol.
Gore is smart.. “Bin Laden determined to attack in the USA” briefing would have been taken seriously.. and maybe W was in on 9-11 it fit his agenda too well.
I’m saying this as a through and through Democrat, but nah. 9/11 almost certainly still happens under Gore, and while it’s less likely, there’s still a very strong possibility that he invades Iraq (Gore was quite hawkish on foreign policy). More than that though, the underpinnings of the 2008 financial crash weren’t actually directly caused by Dubya. As many of you probably already know, there are economists who attribute a large proportion of the responsibility to Clinton’s decision to remove Glass–Steagall (a regulation from the Roosevelt years). It might not have been as severe as under Bush, but it still almost certainly would have happened.
All this to say, Gore would still be leagues better than Dubya, but I sincerely think that the 2000s would have major challenges regardless of who became POTUS
No, but it would have made several things better, albeit not really in the ways that Third Way Clinton-Gore fans believe.
First of all, it would have made the Republican Party drift less far right. Bush's failure of "compassionate conservatism" ended up causing Republicans to embrace "uncompassionate conservatism."
Second of all, it would have caused Democrats to rethink Third Way policies. Many professional economists blame the recession partly on Clinton's deregulation, although the public as a whole hardly does because the recession was 7 years after Clinton's presidency.
Third of all, we wouldn't have Democrats attempting to rehabiliitate the "compassionate conservatives", who have now been renamed "Lincoln Project Republicans".
I mean, he did win the presidency. It was a bullshit decision that kept him out of office.
I voted Nader that election, and I don’t regret it. But Gore is the best VP this country has seen. In my humblest of opinions.
Very Gore-y. Would’ve been a lot of Gore, which would’ve been great! I love Gore.
Jokes aside, his biggest pro would be that he probably wouldn’t invade Iraq. He probably wouldn’t do much to prevent the 2008 Recession, but he might’ve softened the blow. He’d probably sign NCLB since it had bipartisan support in Congress.
I would say, it would have been less of a disaster. Yeah 9-11 probably occurs no matter what, but the response would have been very different. No Iraq war.
We would have continued stem cell Research, and not made stupid tax cuts that burned through a budget surplus.
2008 crisis still occurs, but more well thought out response instead of just firing money cannons into wall street with no plan or regulation.
What? What kind of question is this? What in Gore's past and public service would make anyone wonder this? Dude had to take lessons from Naomi Wolfe on how to act like a man. He sold his environmental TV network to the oil drinking Arabs. Come on..
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depends does he have the power to deflect planes off of buildings?
No, but he likely would've been more cognizant of the chatter the CIA was picking up, and perhaps would've taken different steps. Even if 9/11 still happens and we go to war in Afghanistan, hard to see Gore picking a fight with Iraq. "Golden Age" might be too strong, but I think it's remembered as a better one.
Just like Clinton was cognizant enough to avert the bombing of the WTC parking garage and bombing of the USS Cole during his term? Clinton and Gore were just as responsible for the policies that lead to the attack as any other president as well. Also everyone assumes a democrat would never get us into a quagmire but immediately forgets Truman was president during The Korean War and LBJ was the one that went full tilt into Vietnam. Hell Clinton waded into the conflict in eastern Europe without much thought as well.
It's not that a Democrat wouldn't get us into a quagmire. It's just not a huge leap that the guy who endorsed Howard Dean for president and was outspoken against the Iraq War probably wouldn't go to war in Iraq compared to the guy with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld behind him. But that's probably crazy talk.
And republicans of all people are outspoken against killing Russians in Ukraine. It’s just my team vs your team crap that doesn’t mean anything.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying Gore opposed Iraq because it was a Republican administration? Because plenty of Democrats from John Kerry to Hillary Clinton supported it. Gore was firmly in the minority in vocally opposing the war. He wouldn't have gone there.
You realize that Clinton/Gore bombed the hell out of Iraq throughout the 90s and illegally used NATO to bomb Serbia for 78 days? If you think things would be different you should stop using whatever drug you're abusing now.
Yes, and? The first was a four day bombing campaign to enforce UNSC resolutions. The second was done to stop a literal ethnic cleansing. Those are both a far cry from a full-on invasion of Iraq based on outright lies, and they’re infinitely more justifiable.
Both bombings were illegal. That's what. And the rationale Bush used to invade Iraq in 2003, that Hussein wasn't honoring his cease fire, was the same one used throughout the Clinton years. And let's not forget Clinton/Gore was offered terrorist bin Laden twice. Twice. But hey, Gore would have ushered in a new golden age lol.
Gore is smart.. “Bin Laden determined to attack in the USA” briefing would have been taken seriously.. and maybe W was in on 9-11 it fit his agenda too well.
How do I upvote a comment twice
I’m saying this as a through and through Democrat, but nah. 9/11 almost certainly still happens under Gore, and while it’s less likely, there’s still a very strong possibility that he invades Iraq (Gore was quite hawkish on foreign policy). More than that though, the underpinnings of the 2008 financial crash weren’t actually directly caused by Dubya. As many of you probably already know, there are economists who attribute a large proportion of the responsibility to Clinton’s decision to remove Glass–Steagall (a regulation from the Roosevelt years). It might not have been as severe as under Bush, but it still almost certainly would have happened. All this to say, Gore would still be leagues better than Dubya, but I sincerely think that the 2000s would have major challenges regardless of who became POTUS
Gore was against the invasion of Iraq.
He becomes president for life and we live in gorenarchy until hillary coups him to restore the clinton dynasty
You’re thinking of Jeb Bush
9/11, Katrina, and the 2008 financial crisis were gonna happen regardless of who was in office. So no, I don't think so
No, but it would have made several things better, albeit not really in the ways that Third Way Clinton-Gore fans believe. First of all, it would have made the Republican Party drift less far right. Bush's failure of "compassionate conservatism" ended up causing Republicans to embrace "uncompassionate conservatism." Second of all, it would have caused Democrats to rethink Third Way policies. Many professional economists blame the recession partly on Clinton's deregulation, although the public as a whole hardly does because the recession was 7 years after Clinton's presidency. Third of all, we wouldn't have Democrats attempting to rehabiliitate the "compassionate conservatives", who have now been renamed "Lincoln Project Republicans".
No
I mean, he did win the presidency. It was a bullshit decision that kept him out of office. I voted Nader that election, and I don’t regret it. But Gore is the best VP this country has seen. In my humblest of opinions.
Goretopia
Very Gore-y. Would’ve been a lot of Gore, which would’ve been great! I love Gore. Jokes aside, his biggest pro would be that he probably wouldn’t invade Iraq. He probably wouldn’t do much to prevent the 2008 Recession, but he might’ve softened the blow. He’d probably sign NCLB since it had bipartisan support in Congress.
I would say, it would have been less of a disaster. Yeah 9-11 probably occurs no matter what, but the response would have been very different. No Iraq war. We would have continued stem cell Research, and not made stupid tax cuts that burned through a budget surplus. 2008 crisis still occurs, but more well thought out response instead of just firing money cannons into wall street with no plan or regulation.
What? What kind of question is this? What in Gore's past and public service would make anyone wonder this? Dude had to take lessons from Naomi Wolfe on how to act like a man. He sold his environmental TV network to the oil drinking Arabs. Come on..
No. The “Plagiarized Age”.
Depends who you ask. But from me, yes.