What would Al Gore do?

Great Debates
21

All right, as one of the more conservative members of this board, I’ll take a shot at answering some of your questions.

What would Al do for us as a nation? Continue to promote a welfare state, granting huge handouts and socialist-like income re-distribution programs to the supposedly economically disadvantaged, while increasing the gigantic bureaucracy that rides on the backs of these programs.

Al Gore on dealing with the Chinese. Follow the established Clinton policy of caving in to every little demand they make. You know, most favored nation trade status, ignore human right abuses. Of course he’s gonna follow Clinton’s policy; you must remember that Al and the democrats received a considerable amount of money from the Chinese in campaign donations.

Al Gore on the economy. He’d do nothing. The president has very little to do with the overall health of the economy. Except the collection of a punitive tax that’s effectively swallowed by the huge government he advocates.

Energy problem? Stick his head in the sand, much like he’s done for twenty or more years. Except for writing that silly little environmental manifesto. While Gore decries the burning of fossil fuels for any purpose, he also hates the only true immediate alternative, nuclear power. So, Al’s “energy policy” would also be a do-nothing failure.

They’re ya have it. Nothing.

22

mx-6 said:

More likely nobody cares. As Stoidela said:

So why discuss Gore when he lost? I’m sure we’ll have plenty to talk about with W.

23

David B:“So why discuss Gore when he lost? I’m sure we’ll have plenty to talk about with W.”

Trust me, plenty of people care. Why else is everyone on GW’s ass about everything so far. They are MAD!!

Why blame Bush when you don’t even think that Gore would do better? At least that is the evidence that is in front of me so far. No one, not even Mr. Gore himself, has put up anything of substance.

That has a meaning on its own.

So far I have a South Park tune and UncleBeers “Nothing”.

So far no one has stepped to the plate for Mr. Gore. I wonder why anyone would believe that he will be back in 4 years when he stands defenseless here even now.

24

Again, I quote Stoidela:

Trying to draw the conclusions you’re drawing from a non-discussion is rather ridiculous.

25

Now I see how David B got 5945 posts.

Do you ever make an actual statement?

Or do you just quote Stoidela? :slight_smile:

Face it Dave, you have nothing to say in Al Gore’s defense so be happy with 5945 already.

26

blush

I’m being quoted by a Moderator! And not just * any * moderator, 'tis the MIghty David B! Twice! Golly! I’m all a twitter and atingle! Jeepers! Cool beans! Neato!

To borrow from Exprix… evidently, I rock.

:smiley:

stoid

27

Sure, money dominates in every other realm…Why should we make any attempt to make the government any different. “Government of the wealthy, by the wealthy, for the wealthy shall not perish from the earth!”

28

mx-6 said:

The point that you seem to be missing is that I don’t need to say anything in Gore’s defense because he is not the man who will be president for the next 4 years. (Okay, that’s not the only point you’re missing, just one of the main ones.) Since everybody here discussed the whole Bush/Gore thing back when there was actually a question about who would be the next president (including for the next 5 weeks after the election), you might expect that we are a bit tired of it and don’t want to bother when some guy comes in off the street and starts challenging people.

Run along now. We’ll see you in a couple years.

29

God, you’re right! That fucking socialist, he’s responsible for the welfare reform act (at least was one of the ones pushing hardest for Clinton to sign it) and all that re-inventing government stuff that shrunk the civil service by something like 10-15%. (I am winging it a bit on the numbers.)

Right. Now the elder Bush…there was someone who was tough on China!!! And, I bet George W. is just aching to take on all those major corporations who have moved their manufacturing over there!

Yeah…he doesn’t even support tax breaks for the rich!

Yeah…with two oil men at the helm, you know we will have an enlightened energy policy. Or, maybe we will go back to the subsidization of nuclear power, which seemed to be having a little trouble competing in the marketplace without it (although to be fair, this may be partly because of the subsidization of fossil fuels).

30

It seems that you are the only one that is bothered here.

You are still mad huh? GW Bush is your leader. :smiley:

The point that you seem to be missing is that these are my questions and you answered none of them.

Why?

Because you are ill-equipped apparently.

David B:“More likely nobody cares.”

So why do you insist on running up your post meter for no reason other than to troll my thread?

Congras 5946! Almost 6000 :D:D

31

mx-6 said:

Again, you miss the point (I’m beginning to see a pattern). You asked why people hadn’t responded. I told you. I did my best to educate you, but I can only do so much. It has nothing to do with being “bothered” – it has to do with why others are ignoring you.

Wrong. W. is the president. He is not my leader.

I’m sorry to see that you have a reading problem. Perhaps you could get an adult to go over my explanations with you.

Buh-bye.

32

David B:

The point that you seem to be missing is that these are my questions and you answered none of them.

Why?

I’m sorry to see that you have a reading problem. Perhaps you could get an adult to go over my explanations with you.

Buh-bye.----------------------

Reading problem? Seems that you are the one with the reading problem. Otherwise you’d answer my questions instead of running off at the keyboard.
David B:“More likely nobody cares.”

So why are you still here?

5947! Up Up Up and still you’ve said nothing!

33

I mean 5949! dude, slow down.

34

Nope. With Lieberman as the VP, the Republican governor of Connecticut would most likely have chosen a Republican to fill the empty slot. 51-49 Republican Senate.

35

dnftt

36

The next CT Senator would be a Republican for only the few months it would take for the CT Legislature (Dem) to arrange a special election, which by all accounts would be won by state AG Richard Blumenthal (Dem.), restoring the current balance. Or there might be a death or resignation, or Bob Smith might go Independent again, or whatever. Anyway, the next Congressional elections are only 21 1/2 months away.

To the OP, the topic of how Bush and Gore would do the job differently was pretty heavily covered in the campaign. Anyone who wasn’t paying attention is urged to do so next time.

My fellow South Park fans, you’re leaving out the last and best verse:

*Al Gore Junior built the Pyramids
And fought off Kubla Khan
Cause Al Gore Junior don’t take shit
From a-ny fuck-ing o-o-o-one …

37

Just noticed a headline that Bush is seeking to curtail aid for family planning services overseas. I think Gore would have continued this funding.

38

No, it shan’t. Not when the government is the world’s largest consumer, eh?

jshore, not that I don’t normally see the points you try to make even if we do disagree, but this one went way the hell over my head. What I say here goes for tejota as well, what with “But I don’t think corporations should have the right to political speech” and all.

Fact1: the wealthy pay most of the income tax.
Fact2: the wealthy, on top of this, would like to contribute money to further a political cause.
Fact3: at least they are doing something besides whining.

OK, 3 was a little mean. Just worked my damn weekend away and I’m crabby :wink: But really, Rugby has got it. You want to further a politician’s cause, whatever that might be, you give him money. Lets change fact number three to read

Fact3: Corporations are legal entities and can be sued, taxed, and subject to all manner of laws.
Fact4: All entities subject to laws have an interest in influencing its outcome.

Fact4 is commonly understood to be democracy when that influence is peaceful. Though corporations are not considered to have all the rights that an individual would that doesn’t mean a corporation, as a unit, doesn’t have a vested interest in legislation. As such, it would be quick to aid a politician that can aid it.

Again, if we damn corporations for helping politicians that would help them then we damn ourselves for voting for the politician that would help us “increase public education,” “care about the environment,” whatever the cause may be. I don’t mind a differing opinion, just the double standard expressed here.

39

Just want to chime in on the China angle. Is China getting rich because they tricked us into moving our factories over there? Um, no.

Their economy is improving by leaps and bounds because they abandoned socialism for a more capitalist approach. The more they abandon socialism and embrace capitalism the more wealthy they will become. Simple, really. And it has very little to do with the US and almost everything to do with internal Chinese politics.

We should be grateful for China’s soft landing from communism. Just look at the mess over in Russia, where communism has been replaced by a mafia style feudal system. But there is very little an American president can do to influence China, really. I suppose we could slap protective tariffs on anything coming from China. But is that going to help your average Chinese human rights abuse victim?

In my opinion, Clinton did about as well as anyone could have with China. Ending the yearly street theater about MFN/Normal trading relations was a good move since we were NEVER going to do anything except hypocritcal saber-rattling. Best thing to do is encourage trade, encourage human contact between China and neo-western countries. Designating China an enemy country is simply going to increase misery in both countries.

40

Lemur866, I agree with you, but I’d like to go further. My understanding is that, once a society has accepted essentially-free enterprise, with necessary regulation, as the normal, correct way of operating an economy, then democracy will follow. When the bulk of the people are used to running their own economic affairs, taking ultimate responsibility for their fates on a microeconomic scale, then on the macroeconomic scale necessary to ensure the microeconomic stuff works, that will tend to create or increase resentment at an authoritarian political rule. The next, short step is to take responsibility for their political lives as well as their economic ones. The process can certainly be bumpy, and even violent, but I think the pressures are ultimately irresistible.

China’s opening to foreign trade, and internal free enterprise, is not only good for business globally, but seems to me to be increasing its democratization, too. The government is still keeping the lid off, and memories of Tiananmen Square are still raw, but the status quo is unstable. The challenge will be to keep the political transition as soft as the economic one has been - and pandering to the old Yellow Peril fears by ignorant saber-rattling can only hurt.

Bush, Powell, and Rice would do well to look more closely at the China-Taiwan relationship before continuing that stuff - the trade and travel links are growing quickly in numerous ways. It’s a little strange to read news from over there and see that the very same people who make saber-rattling speeches against each other on the front pages are negotiating new trade deals on the inner pages. The old speeches reflect being trapped in previous generations’ rhetoric that cannot be abandoned without loss of face. But the Jesse Helmses of the world would rather take the belligerent speeches at face value and take actions that only escalate tensions, rather than recognize that those folks know they’re never going to follow through on them unless we force them to.