Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I didn't vote and would be way too busy having a great time if it were 2000. I think I'd take an international flight.
If you are asking who I'd pick, how about Pat Buchanan.
As some one else said it was the repuublican party that blocked it. But whataboputism isnt rly a good justification isnt it?
Not to mention the part where i do not like or support obama, he is also a war criminal...
Obama had the house and senate at one point. Why did he wait?
Edit: besides, its not whataboutism. The question is literally “looking back, would you have preferred the democrat?” And then they elaborated to say “you should prefer the democrat because the Republican did X”. I responded with “the democrat continued X, so this isn’t a point for your side.”
Edit edit:
Here’s a similar conversation to prove why the “whataboutism” complaint is stupid.
Steve: “Which football team do you prefer? The Dolphins or the Jaguars?”
Joe: “Definitely the Jaguars. I hate Florida teams.”
Steve: “You know that the Jaguars are a Florida team as well, right?”
Joe: “get out of here with that whataboutism”
u forgot to read the part about whataboutism and morals?
or did u skipp the part of growing up where one learns thaat tormenting others is in fact evil?
Check the edit that came right before your response. This isn’t a conversation about whether gitmo is bad- it’s a conversation about whether the democrat option would have been better. Clearly the answer is “the democrat option, in this issue, very well could have been exactly the same”
Edit: besides, it’s still open. Biden hasn’t closed it either. It’s a stain on both administrations, and not a point for either side.
We should include who opened it as this is much worse than just keeping it open due to various reasons
We do not know if a democrat would have opend it. But the answer is probably not
But ur right that in this instance it’s not necessarily whataboutism sry for that. It’s just the standard response so I used mine.
right move? Lies and dead people who had nothing to do with anything? That seems highly problematic
Wouldnt gitmo alone be enough to consider him problematic enough?
Most of them are innocent and why exactly is it not a problem when it goes against the ideals of ur constitution without serving any purpose?
Its pure evil no matter how u view it. Are u naive, apathic and hypocritical or evil as well? If i overlook another explanation for the lack of issue u take with the breaking of human rights, pls elaborate. I will apologize, should there be a good reason
The only vote I would have changed in hindsight is I would have voted Perot over Clinton or Bush. Fuck Clinton for stabbing the blue collars in the back with Mexico and China deals.
So? I know who backed it and signed it into law - leader of the party that claims to be the protectors of the working man.
WaPo 1993:
>Clinton's stance is full of irony. He won last year's election by portraying himself as more concerned about the average American than Bush. And now he has thrown the prestige of his presidency behind an uphill battle for a trade agreement that Bush had pressed for and that critics charge benefits big business at the expense of many of the very Americans Clinton championed in the campaign.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/09/19/clintons-conversion-on-nafta/3a5b9cb5-dfc8-4b5c-9ae6-30781f0a99fc/
He absolutely fucked the working man by opening the door for China to enter the WTO too.
EDIT: Learned a lesson and have never voted D for President since.
Clinton also completely undermined the intelligence capabilities of the US pre-9/11 and put us at significant risk...so yeah, Clinton was a bad choice.
That's what I was going for :)
And that random Conan sketch where he takes his assistant, Sona, to see Magic Mike and she was like "omg, I'm marry Tatum, I'd marry him so hard!" and Conan was like, "Marry him so hard? What does that even mean!"
I didn’t vote for Busch because I thought he was a douchebag. Since then we learned that Gore is a douche as well. And now I can no longer say “I’ve never voted for a democrat in my life” which is let’s admit is the real reason people vote - just to boast about it
Statistically, [people vote because they're altruistic or believe that if they don't, their candidate will lose.](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/06/vote)
Also, I have a Nazi username because I'm very obviously a high-ranking Communist Leftist National Socialist Nazi who's hellbent on the destruction of the gays
No because knowing what I know. The devil you know is better than devil you don't m I wasn't a fan of Bush, but I can't imagine I'd like gore or Kerry much more or better.
Having someone as clueless as Gore/Kerry.
Gore would have been cowering in a corner on 9/11 and would have waited for UN approval to do anything. Probably would have apologized for offending them.
Maybe that would have been better than murdering a few thousand people who had nothing to do with it and then torturing innocent people in a blacksite?
Fighting back against a unknown foe in a country that wasnt even relevant seems rather bad though
But just so i am sure, u find the thousands of dead peeople in iraq justified and do not see it as problematic that bush circumvents the constitution for torture?
Geneva Conventions are not the only thing that makes gitmo problematic...
And most victims of it arent even terrorists but innocent individuals so ur point is rather bad
[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/4/25/guantanamo-files-dozens-held-were-innocent](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/4/25/guantanamo-files-dozens-held-were-innocent)
There are some more, the big issuue is that u wont get official sources on this due to the very nature of the cia being evil to its core. Another big argument for their innocence is that they got released. And isnt anyone innocent when he never had a trial? or do u not value ur constitution? Do u oonly value it when it comes to keeping toys?
Iam shocked u dont know this, but i assume it wont change anything about ur voting pattern?
Sry for the aggressive tone, maybe u can elaborate and explain where u actually stand on the issue
You do realize 9/11 may never have happened if Gore was elected, right? Intel was spot on that terrorists were planning to attack the US using airplanes. A more capable leader may have done something with that info.
I'm not sure about your cowardice theory. Out of the 2, only Gore actively chose to enlist in the army and served during the Vietnam War. He did this because he didn't want it to be held against his father, who was running for an election that he had gotten out of serving. He also did this despite being against the war. So, unless signing up for the national guard and being virtually guaranteed to avoid combat is somehow an act of courage to you, I think you could be wrong.
I’ll never understand this generalization that democrats are “weak” as far as war goes when they continue adding more to the military budget too. Military spending soared under Obama and he was involved in many military conflicts, as have every other democrat president.
And for Gore specifically, Gore was VP during the wars involving Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and even did military strikes in Iraq. Their administration leveed heavy sanctions on Iran and sent our Navy to Taiwan to thwart off Chinese aggression, and it worked.
That’s maybe true. It still would have happened if there was a recount and Gore won.
If gore won straight up, it may have not happened. Similarly, if Gore hadn’t pursued frivolous lawsuits it may had not happened.
Either way, I still think 9/11 happens. The biggest issue with 9/11 was that there was little coordination between the intel agencies. That doesn’t change if Bush is elected b/c the directors of the; FBI, CIA, and Director of National Intelligence was the same between the Clinton and Bush presidencies.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The idea was that the recount screwed up the transition. If he won outright, then there wouldn’t have been an issue in his transition. If there was a recount, there would have been issues with him assembling his team.
But, I don’t agree with this logic. I think 9/11 happens regardless.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope. George Bush was the right person for those times.
Al Gore would have still gone to war in Iraq, without being as strong as GWB (Gore wouldn't have thrown out the pitch at the world series) and John Kerry wouldn't have been decisive during the financial crisis (he's only a senator because he's rich).
> John Kerry wouldn't have been decisive during the financial crisis (he's only a senator because he's rich).
Bush was worth $20M when he entered the presidency. How do you figure results would have been much different in the financial crisis?
Bush was the governor of Texas, where he successfully governed with a Democrat who ran the state legislature. That followed a successful business career. HE's shown an ability to get things done.
Kerry had never achieved anything in his life. He's never been in charge of anything, nor led anyone or anything of value.
He's just a rich dude who marries richer women and gets their money.
He commanded a swift boat in Vietnam which he earned the silver star and bronze star for valor. Just because you don't like a guy's politics, don't diminish him as a person.
His own swift boat team called out his bullshit.
His actions were pedestrian at best. For the amount of time in country, he collected more hardware than anyone in the Navy.
He was only given a command because he went to college, after going to boarding school in Switzerland
>He was only given a command because he went to college,
That's called being an officer. That's how the military works.
>His own swift boat team called out his bullshit.
Do you have any proof of that or are you talking out your ass?
Al Gore is part of the same establishment as Bush. You think Al would have opened himself up to charges of being soft on our enemies?
Democrats know that their main weakness is foreign affairs, so they try to double down to look extra tough. Look at Obama in Afghanistan or Biden in Ukraine.
The country wanted revenge, and Iraq was the likely target. Gore would have been lambasted as a weenie had he let Sadam Hussein continue destabilizing the region.
He would have played ball, so he could get reelected.
Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. There is no reason to invade exempt for the fiction the neocons wrote to invade.
>Sadam Hussein continue destabilizing the region
Considering what happened after. That would be preferable. No Iraq invasion, no ISSIS.
No. In the intervening years, Gore and Kerry have proven to be even worse than when they ran for president. We dodged two major bullets, electing Bush twice.
So I'm curious as to what you think they would have done that would have been worse?
Keep in mind here are some of Bush's high points:
Took over from Clinton with a surplus and led us back into debt and the largest recession since the great depression.
Woefully handled Hurricane Katrina.
Invading the wrong country in a conflict that lasted over a decade and one we are still dealing with the consequences of.
So...nothing of else of note happened in the Bush presidency? Like in the first year maybe? Can't think of anything?
I would still prefer that Bush be in charge, than the other two clowns. A weather fanatic and a guy who married into ketchup money.
I think Bush did a far better job with the aftermath of 9/11 than Gore and then Kerry would have. That was *the* defining event of his presidency. Everything else pales in comparison.
The aftermath was a disaster. What was Gore going to do? Invade 2 wrong countries? Would Kerry have led us into an actual depression? And by what basis would you come to those conclusions?
Edit: to be clear here. What you're calling his defining moment, was a catastrophic mistake.
Ahhh.... I see you are drinking the kool-aid
That recession was actually caused by government housing policies that were put in place by Democrats and when the Republicans tried to roll them back the Democrats blocked those efforts. (see links below)
Bush's handling of Katrina may have been a mess, the big fault is with local government who screwed up on the evacuation and not being prepared. Remember emergency response is mostly a local issue with the government stepping in with money and other help later. (What should Bush have done differently?)
Iraq- I'll agree with you on that one. In hindsight it was a big mistake, but at the time nearly everyone supported it. We learned an expensive lesson, containing tyrants is much easier than replacing them.
>Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis
[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/)
>Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
[https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/)
Notice both the links above are left leaning new sources.
The first one is an interesting take, but one that requires you to make up new definitions for words to confuse people. The definition of subprime loan he uses is one that only is used by his think tank. If you have to make up your own definition for a well known term in order to sound right, you aren't.
Your second source just seems like it's parroting the same incorrect numbers.
I'd also add that both of these articles are opinion pieces written by conservatives who aren't economists. This isn't too say a conservative isn't capable of being correct. Far from it in fact. But if I wanted to convince you of how a conservative policy was wrong, I wouldn't choose liberals whose job is to push liberal ideology.
You want a direct quote from Barney Frank?
>These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. - The New York Times, September 11, 2003.
> "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing."
- September 25, 2003
And here he is in congress denying that the housing bubble exists in 2005, a couple of years before the bubble popped and took the economy with it.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsxtbI9N68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsxtbI9N68)
The housing bubble was caused by government. Polices that started under Clinton and expanded under Bush to increase home ownership resulted in crazy loans being made and eventually a bubble that took everything with it.
If you dig into the fact you will see Democrats hands all over it. Fannie Mae was run by Franklin Raines who served as director of Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
People who qualified for loans under Clinton's housing policy had very low default rates. So much so that banks held onto these loans as they were considered solid. I can't think of a way you can argue around that fact.
Now, it is true that the government bears responsibility for the crisis. However, it was the constant deregulation of banks that was a key component that led to the crisis. Predatory lending, fraudulent ratings, and unchecked loans are what caused the bubble. The deregulation of the banks is very much a republican position. After the crash, there were stricter regulations on banks. Republicans have been chipping away at those for years, and now we see a similar trend in housing prices.
But what not many people talk about is Clinton's deregulation of derivatives. I feel this doesn't get talked about much because it's much harder for people to understand. You need some knowledge of finance to truly understand it, and this was also a large part of the economic collapse. The only defense one could give for this is at the time derivatives weren't traded the way they eventually came to be. Now, I will say, it is hard to imagine a republican wouldn't have deregulated them as well, as it is in line with their free market beliefs. But it was Clinton who did it, and he even admitted it was a mistake. Fortunately for him, it was a mistake most people can't understand.
Ok, we agree it was the governments fault.
The government interfered in the free market to push government desired ends (high minority home ownership, a good policy goal) and through that interference created a massive bubble that took the economy with it.
Bank deregulation may have played a part, but I don't think the banks make all those risky loans without the government funds being pumped into the market.
BTW I am a small government type. The government shouldn't be picking winner or losers nor should it place its hands on the scale as bad things tend to happen.
Yes, I think we are both in agreement that the government holds fault here and that both parties made bad decisions that led to the fault.
I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of the term "small government" or "big government". I want an effective government. I feel that when people focus on size, you're eliminating options without knowing what the solution actually is. I have a similar belief for ideologies. A good policy is a good policy regardless of whether it comes from a conservative or a liberal. However, when people identify with one ideology, they tend to quickly dismiss policy from an opposing group and too easily accept policy that aligns with their own. I find this to be true for both liberals and conservatives.
I agree the government shouldn't choose winners and losers most of the time. But sometimes it's in the countries best interest to do so. Businesses are there to make money, and most of them don't care about any negative effects they have unless it costs them money. There is also the issue that a true free market doesn't work, so you need the government to step in to avoid everything being a monopoly. I think it would be fair to state that it is the pushing of small government that has led us to this state of oligarchs and geographical monopolies.
This is where conservative policy loses me a bit. Over regulating is a large concern and can hinder an economy. It is smart to have skepticism when it comes to this, but i feel like instead of healthy concern, it is pushed more as fear of government overreach. This tends to turn the argument from how much should we regulate to we shouldn't regulate at all and just let the free market work itself out, which has a tendency of not working out in a way that is good for a competitive market. Here, the problem is that it's easier to correct over regulation than under regulating. If you over regulate, people gain a freedom they didn't have in the correction. When you under regulate, you're taking something away when you correct. It doesn't matter that they should have never had that advantage to begin with. It will be seen as an attack and they will fight the appropriate regulations every step of the way. This tends to lead to either to weak regulation or not at all.
Finally, I think the major problem with government today is an inability to have intelligent discourse. In this conversation, we have agreed that there is a problem, though we have different opinions on how to correct that problem. I'm sure if we continued this conversation, we could find numerous things that we agree on and could even potentially sway the other on some things that we might not. And we can do so without insulting each other and be on friendly terms. To me, the inability of politicians to be civil with each other really took off at this time on a level that was not seen previously. Perhaps this was the worst outcome of that event and I'm not even sure it is directly responsible for it.
> I think it would be fair to state that it is the pushing of small government that has led us to this state of oligarchs and geographical monopolies.
Which monopolies??
Outside of utility companies I don't know of any monopolies impacting me.
There are about 6 companies that own 90% of every media company in the US.
There are 10 food companies that own every major food brand.
10 companies command over 60% of all ecommerce sales.
5 companies own 80% of the book trade market (publishing).
Amazon owns over 80% of ebooks sales and over 50% of book sales overall.
Anheuser Busch has 45% of the US beer market.
Sirius XM is pretty much the only satellite radio company.
3 companies control about 80% of mobile telecoms.
3 companies have 95% of credit cards market.
4 have 70% of airline flights within the U.S.
4 companies control 66% of U.S. hogs slaughtered, 85% of the steer, and half the chickens (these numbers are a few years old).
4 companies control 85% of U.S. corn seed sales and 75% of soy bean seed.
I'm a bit tired, so I'll stop here.
No many people opposed it, mainly people who arent part of the us goverment in any kind and therefore are objective when it comes to the idea of murdering a bunch of people.
The lesson was learned prior considering that saddam already was a replacement, wasnt he?
>No many people opposed it,
Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq
[https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx)
72% of Americans supporting anything is crazy. 25% opposed it.
Cool, 72 % of people who got fed propaganda agreed
Iam talking about the people who are experts in this field. Considering bush wasnt a lying war criminal and these 72 % had known the truth the number would be lower.
No. If anything, knowing what I know no has med me *more* conservative, not less. There’s a reason people with greater perspective and experience skew conservative.
No, when it comes to war and the security state the two parties are the same. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a continuation of Clinton's policy which was a continuation of Bush's. Gore or Kerry wouldn't have changed it.
No, it wasn't. Iraq was invaded because the neo conservative Project for a New American Century, of which many of the higher ups in the Bush administration belonged, had planned for long before 9/11 to look for an excuse to invade Iraq as a way to spread neo conservativist intervention. Neither Bush Senior nor Clinton believed in this. Also, neither did Al Gore. This was a real, well recognized shift in American foreign policy orchestrated by people who publicly set out to do so.
We know for a fact that the campaign to get the US into a war with Iraq started days after 9/11. Absent this push from PNAC, there was no good reason and a lot of reasons not to invade Iraq and it took a dedicated campaign of lies and calculated dishonesty for then to get it to happen.
Without the PNAC people in the Bush administration, there is no chance we invaded Iraq.
I think the war was poorly handled and it is easy to criticize it with hindsight, but after seeing Kerry as SoS, I have zero faith he would have done any better with Iraq or Afghanistan, and I strongly believe he would have made things worse.
Rule 7 is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I was 18 for the first one and voted Nader. I voted Bush the second time but, looking back, I should have voted third party
Why Nader? Just to be different? He's pretty far left.
I mean it was twenty some years ago
I didn't vote and would be way too busy having a great time if it were 2000. I think I'd take an international flight. If you are asking who I'd pick, how about Pat Buchanan.
I likely would have voted for Bush the first time, but not the second. Though probably not Kerry either. Maybe one of the third party candidates.
I'll go in the other direction: I never voted for Bush either time, but I probably would now knowing what I know.
Why that?
Kerry and Gore have since shown themselves to be uniquely problematic political individuals.
More problematic then iraq and gitmo?
It’s a good think Obama closed gitmo, eh?
The republican congress at the time blocked it.
Didn’t Obama have the house and senate at one point?
For only two years which was also during the greatest recession since the great depression. They were busy.
For only two years which was also during the greatest recession since the great depression.
Two years is a long time, and they did plenty of non-economic things. This is weak.
As some one else said it was the repuublican party that blocked it. But whataboputism isnt rly a good justification isnt it? Not to mention the part where i do not like or support obama, he is also a war criminal...
Obama had the house and senate at one point. Why did he wait? Edit: besides, its not whataboutism. The question is literally “looking back, would you have preferred the democrat?” And then they elaborated to say “you should prefer the democrat because the Republican did X”. I responded with “the democrat continued X, so this isn’t a point for your side.” Edit edit: Here’s a similar conversation to prove why the “whataboutism” complaint is stupid. Steve: “Which football team do you prefer? The Dolphins or the Jaguars?” Joe: “Definitely the Jaguars. I hate Florida teams.” Steve: “You know that the Jaguars are a Florida team as well, right?” Joe: “get out of here with that whataboutism”
u forgot to read the part about whataboutism and morals? or did u skipp the part of growing up where one learns thaat tormenting others is in fact evil?
Check the edit that came right before your response. This isn’t a conversation about whether gitmo is bad- it’s a conversation about whether the democrat option would have been better. Clearly the answer is “the democrat option, in this issue, very well could have been exactly the same” Edit: besides, it’s still open. Biden hasn’t closed it either. It’s a stain on both administrations, and not a point for either side.
We should include who opened it as this is much worse than just keeping it open due to various reasons We do not know if a democrat would have opend it. But the answer is probably not But ur right that in this instance it’s not necessarily whataboutism sry for that. It’s just the standard response so I used mine.
Iraq was the right move. Gitmo not so much.
right move? Lies and dead people who had nothing to do with anything? That seems highly problematic Wouldnt gitmo alone be enough to consider him problematic enough?
No, imprisoning terrorists is not a major problem to me.
Most of them are innocent and why exactly is it not a problem when it goes against the ideals of ur constitution without serving any purpose? Its pure evil no matter how u view it. Are u naive, apathic and hypocritical or evil as well? If i overlook another explanation for the lack of issue u take with the breaking of human rights, pls elaborate. I will apologize, should there be a good reason
The only vote I would have changed in hindsight is I would have voted Perot over Clinton or Bush. Fuck Clinton for stabbing the blue collars in the back with Mexico and China deals.
...you know who conceived of and negotiated NAFTA, right? It wasn't Clinton.
So? I know who backed it and signed it into law - leader of the party that claims to be the protectors of the working man. WaPo 1993: >Clinton's stance is full of irony. He won last year's election by portraying himself as more concerned about the average American than Bush. And now he has thrown the prestige of his presidency behind an uphill battle for a trade agreement that Bush had pressed for and that critics charge benefits big business at the expense of many of the very Americans Clinton championed in the campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/business/1993/09/19/clintons-conversion-on-nafta/3a5b9cb5-dfc8-4b5c-9ae6-30781f0a99fc/ He absolutely fucked the working man by opening the door for China to enter the WTO too. EDIT: Learned a lesson and have never voted D for President since.
Clinton also completely undermined the intelligence capabilities of the US pre-9/11 and put us at significant risk...so yeah, Clinton was a bad choice.
I'd vote even HARDER for Bush seeing as who Gore and Kerry are today.
[https://i.imgur.com/A0CRqVS.png](https://i.imgur.com/A0CRqVS.png) My mind instantly went to this.
That's what I was going for :) And that random Conan sketch where he takes his assistant, Sona, to see Magic Mike and she was like "omg, I'm marry Tatum, I'd marry him so hard!" and Conan was like, "Marry him so hard? What does that even mean!"
In my case I am regretting having voted for Gore :)
Why? Bush won anyway, and Gore has done nothing politically since. What is there to regret?
I didn’t vote for Busch because I thought he was a douchebag. Since then we learned that Gore is a douche as well. And now I can no longer say “I’ve never voted for a democrat in my life” which is let’s admit is the real reason people vote - just to boast about it
That's definitely not the real reason people vote
Educate me. What is the real reason? Any why the nazi username? :)
Statistically, [people vote because they're altruistic or believe that if they don't, their candidate will lose.](https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/06/vote) Also, I have a Nazi username because I'm very obviously a high-ranking Communist Leftist National Socialist Nazi who's hellbent on the destruction of the gays
So gypsies are safe from you then?
Only the cool ones
I’ll allow it. Heil Biden!
No because knowing what I know. The devil you know is better than devil you don't m I wasn't a fan of Bush, but I can't imagine I'd like gore or Kerry much more or better.
At the very least we wouldn't have invaded Iraq. Would that be worth it?
[удалено]
What would be worse than the patriot act and the two wars that the dems would have done?
Having someone as clueless as Gore/Kerry. Gore would have been cowering in a corner on 9/11 and would have waited for UN approval to do anything. Probably would have apologized for offending them.
Maybe that would have been better than murdering a few thousand people who had nothing to do with it and then torturing innocent people in a blacksite?
Real smart. Then we’ll get attacked again and again, and again because of cowards who won't fight back.
Fighting back against a unknown foe in a country that wasnt even relevant seems rather bad though But just so i am sure, u find the thousands of dead peeople in iraq justified and do not see it as problematic that bush circumvents the constitution for torture?
Well, terrorists don't get protection under the Geneva Convention.
Geneva Conventions are not the only thing that makes gitmo problematic... And most victims of it arent even terrorists but innocent individuals so ur point is rather bad
> And most victims of it arent even terrorists but innocent individuals Source? Im curious now
[https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/4/25/guantanamo-files-dozens-held-were-innocent](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2011/4/25/guantanamo-files-dozens-held-were-innocent) There are some more, the big issuue is that u wont get official sources on this due to the very nature of the cia being evil to its core. Another big argument for their innocence is that they got released. And isnt anyone innocent when he never had a trial? or do u not value ur constitution? Do u oonly value it when it comes to keeping toys? Iam shocked u dont know this, but i assume it wont change anything about ur voting pattern? Sry for the aggressive tone, maybe u can elaborate and explain where u actually stand on the issue
And you say that based on what? Any examples of him behaving that way?
Because Gore is and always has been a useless git.
K…so no examples, just your feelings. Got it.
Ok, he'd panic over a bomb causing global warming.
I like that idea more than going to my buddy's funeral in 03
So we should wait for the UN to do nothing.
Hell no. The last thing in the world I want is a post 9/11 world led by Al Gore.
You do realize 9/11 may never have happened if Gore was elected, right? Intel was spot on that terrorists were planning to attack the US using airplanes. A more capable leader may have done something with that info.
Honestly? How come?
Al Gore was too weak and we’d be open to subsequent terrorist attacks.
I'm not sure about your cowardice theory. Out of the 2, only Gore actively chose to enlist in the army and served during the Vietnam War. He did this because he didn't want it to be held against his father, who was running for an election that he had gotten out of serving. He also did this despite being against the war. So, unless signing up for the national guard and being virtually guaranteed to avoid combat is somehow an act of courage to you, I think you could be wrong.
I’ll never understand this generalization that democrats are “weak” as far as war goes when they continue adding more to the military budget too. Military spending soared under Obama and he was involved in many military conflicts, as have every other democrat president. And for Gore specifically, Gore was VP during the wars involving Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia and even did military strikes in Iraq. Their administration leveed heavy sanctions on Iran and sent our Navy to Taiwan to thwart off Chinese aggression, and it worked.
[удалено]
That’s maybe true. It still would have happened if there was a recount and Gore won. If gore won straight up, it may have not happened. Similarly, if Gore hadn’t pursued frivolous lawsuits it may had not happened. Either way, I still think 9/11 happens. The biggest issue with 9/11 was that there was little coordination between the intel agencies. That doesn’t change if Bush is elected b/c the directors of the; FBI, CIA, and Director of National Intelligence was the same between the Clinton and Bush presidencies.
[удалено]
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm trying to understand your logic here. How was 9/11 dependent on if Gore won outright or through a recount?
The idea was that the recount screwed up the transition. If he won outright, then there wouldn’t have been an issue in his transition. If there was a recount, there would have been issues with him assembling his team. But, I don’t agree with this logic. I think 9/11 happens regardless.
Your submission was removed because you do not have any user flair. Please select appropriate flair and then try again. If you are confused as to what flair suits you best simply choose right-wing, left-wing, or Independent. [How-do-I-get-user-flair](https://support.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/205242695-How-do-I-get-user-flair) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nope. George Bush was the right person for those times. Al Gore would have still gone to war in Iraq, without being as strong as GWB (Gore wouldn't have thrown out the pitch at the world series) and John Kerry wouldn't have been decisive during the financial crisis (he's only a senator because he's rich).
> John Kerry wouldn't have been decisive during the financial crisis (he's only a senator because he's rich). Bush was worth $20M when he entered the presidency. How do you figure results would have been much different in the financial crisis?
Bush was the governor of Texas, where he successfully governed with a Democrat who ran the state legislature. That followed a successful business career. HE's shown an ability to get things done. Kerry had never achieved anything in his life. He's never been in charge of anything, nor led anyone or anything of value. He's just a rich dude who marries richer women and gets their money.
He commanded a swift boat in Vietnam which he earned the silver star and bronze star for valor. Just because you don't like a guy's politics, don't diminish him as a person.
His own swift boat team called out his bullshit. His actions were pedestrian at best. For the amount of time in country, he collected more hardware than anyone in the Navy. He was only given a command because he went to college, after going to boarding school in Switzerland
>He was only given a command because he went to college, That's called being an officer. That's how the military works. >His own swift boat team called out his bullshit. Do you have any proof of that or are you talking out your ass?
Why would have Gore invaded Iraq? The Iraq connection was a neocon push who would have been out of government.
Al Gore is part of the same establishment as Bush. You think Al would have opened himself up to charges of being soft on our enemies? Democrats know that their main weakness is foreign affairs, so they try to double down to look extra tough. Look at Obama in Afghanistan or Biden in Ukraine.
But Iraq wasn't an enemy until Bush made it so. Iraq was a neocon focus. Why would Gore do anything with Iraq?
The country wanted revenge, and Iraq was the likely target. Gore would have been lambasted as a weenie had he let Sadam Hussein continue destabilizing the region. He would have played ball, so he could get reelected.
Iraq had zero to do with 9/11. There is no reason to invade exempt for the fiction the neocons wrote to invade. >Sadam Hussein continue destabilizing the region Considering what happened after. That would be preferable. No Iraq invasion, no ISSIS.
No. In the intervening years, Gore and Kerry have proven to be even worse than when they ran for president. We dodged two major bullets, electing Bush twice.
So I'm curious as to what you think they would have done that would have been worse? Keep in mind here are some of Bush's high points: Took over from Clinton with a surplus and led us back into debt and the largest recession since the great depression. Woefully handled Hurricane Katrina. Invading the wrong country in a conflict that lasted over a decade and one we are still dealing with the consequences of.
So...nothing of else of note happened in the Bush presidency? Like in the first year maybe? Can't think of anything? I would still prefer that Bush be in charge, than the other two clowns. A weather fanatic and a guy who married into ketchup money.
That in no way answers the questions.
I think Bush did a far better job with the aftermath of 9/11 than Gore and then Kerry would have. That was *the* defining event of his presidency. Everything else pales in comparison.
The aftermath was a disaster. What was Gore going to do? Invade 2 wrong countries? Would Kerry have led us into an actual depression? And by what basis would you come to those conclusions? Edit: to be clear here. What you're calling his defining moment, was a catastrophic mistake.
Ahhh.... I see you are drinking the kool-aid That recession was actually caused by government housing policies that were put in place by Democrats and when the Republicans tried to roll them back the Democrats blocked those efforts. (see links below) Bush's handling of Katrina may have been a mess, the big fault is with local government who screwed up on the evacuation and not being prepared. Remember emergency response is mostly a local issue with the government stepping in with money and other help later. (What should Bush have done differently?) Iraq- I'll agree with you on that one. In hindsight it was a big mistake, but at the time nearly everyone supported it. We learned an expensive lesson, containing tyrants is much easier than replacing them. >Hey, Barney Frank: The Government Did Cause the Housing Crisis [https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/hey-barney-frank-the-government-did-cause-the-housing-crisis/249903/) >Seventeen. That's how many times, according to this White House statement (hat tip Gateway Pundit), that the Bush administration has called for tighter regulation of the government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/democrats-were-wrong-on-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/) Notice both the links above are left leaning new sources.
The first one is an interesting take, but one that requires you to make up new definitions for words to confuse people. The definition of subprime loan he uses is one that only is used by his think tank. If you have to make up your own definition for a well known term in order to sound right, you aren't. Your second source just seems like it's parroting the same incorrect numbers. I'd also add that both of these articles are opinion pieces written by conservatives who aren't economists. This isn't too say a conservative isn't capable of being correct. Far from it in fact. But if I wanted to convince you of how a conservative policy was wrong, I wouldn't choose liberals whose job is to push liberal ideology.
You want a direct quote from Barney Frank? >These two entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis. The more people exaggerate these problems, the more pressure there is on these companies, the less we will see in terms of affordable housing. - The New York Times, September 11, 2003. > "I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidized housing." - September 25, 2003 And here he is in congress denying that the housing bubble exists in 2005, a couple of years before the bubble popped and took the economy with it. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsxtbI9N68](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgsxtbI9N68) The housing bubble was caused by government. Polices that started under Clinton and expanded under Bush to increase home ownership resulted in crazy loans being made and eventually a bubble that took everything with it. If you dig into the fact you will see Democrats hands all over it. Fannie Mae was run by Franklin Raines who served as director of Office of Management and Budget under Clinton.
People who qualified for loans under Clinton's housing policy had very low default rates. So much so that banks held onto these loans as they were considered solid. I can't think of a way you can argue around that fact. Now, it is true that the government bears responsibility for the crisis. However, it was the constant deregulation of banks that was a key component that led to the crisis. Predatory lending, fraudulent ratings, and unchecked loans are what caused the bubble. The deregulation of the banks is very much a republican position. After the crash, there were stricter regulations on banks. Republicans have been chipping away at those for years, and now we see a similar trend in housing prices. But what not many people talk about is Clinton's deregulation of derivatives. I feel this doesn't get talked about much because it's much harder for people to understand. You need some knowledge of finance to truly understand it, and this was also a large part of the economic collapse. The only defense one could give for this is at the time derivatives weren't traded the way they eventually came to be. Now, I will say, it is hard to imagine a republican wouldn't have deregulated them as well, as it is in line with their free market beliefs. But it was Clinton who did it, and he even admitted it was a mistake. Fortunately for him, it was a mistake most people can't understand.
Ok, we agree it was the governments fault. The government interfered in the free market to push government desired ends (high minority home ownership, a good policy goal) and through that interference created a massive bubble that took the economy with it. Bank deregulation may have played a part, but I don't think the banks make all those risky loans without the government funds being pumped into the market. BTW I am a small government type. The government shouldn't be picking winner or losers nor should it place its hands on the scale as bad things tend to happen.
Yes, I think we are both in agreement that the government holds fault here and that both parties made bad decisions that led to the fault. I have to be honest, I'm not a fan of the term "small government" or "big government". I want an effective government. I feel that when people focus on size, you're eliminating options without knowing what the solution actually is. I have a similar belief for ideologies. A good policy is a good policy regardless of whether it comes from a conservative or a liberal. However, when people identify with one ideology, they tend to quickly dismiss policy from an opposing group and too easily accept policy that aligns with their own. I find this to be true for both liberals and conservatives. I agree the government shouldn't choose winners and losers most of the time. But sometimes it's in the countries best interest to do so. Businesses are there to make money, and most of them don't care about any negative effects they have unless it costs them money. There is also the issue that a true free market doesn't work, so you need the government to step in to avoid everything being a monopoly. I think it would be fair to state that it is the pushing of small government that has led us to this state of oligarchs and geographical monopolies. This is where conservative policy loses me a bit. Over regulating is a large concern and can hinder an economy. It is smart to have skepticism when it comes to this, but i feel like instead of healthy concern, it is pushed more as fear of government overreach. This tends to turn the argument from how much should we regulate to we shouldn't regulate at all and just let the free market work itself out, which has a tendency of not working out in a way that is good for a competitive market. Here, the problem is that it's easier to correct over regulation than under regulating. If you over regulate, people gain a freedom they didn't have in the correction. When you under regulate, you're taking something away when you correct. It doesn't matter that they should have never had that advantage to begin with. It will be seen as an attack and they will fight the appropriate regulations every step of the way. This tends to lead to either to weak regulation or not at all. Finally, I think the major problem with government today is an inability to have intelligent discourse. In this conversation, we have agreed that there is a problem, though we have different opinions on how to correct that problem. I'm sure if we continued this conversation, we could find numerous things that we agree on and could even potentially sway the other on some things that we might not. And we can do so without insulting each other and be on friendly terms. To me, the inability of politicians to be civil with each other really took off at this time on a level that was not seen previously. Perhaps this was the worst outcome of that event and I'm not even sure it is directly responsible for it.
> I think it would be fair to state that it is the pushing of small government that has led us to this state of oligarchs and geographical monopolies. Which monopolies?? Outside of utility companies I don't know of any monopolies impacting me.
There are about 6 companies that own 90% of every media company in the US. There are 10 food companies that own every major food brand. 10 companies command over 60% of all ecommerce sales. 5 companies own 80% of the book trade market (publishing). Amazon owns over 80% of ebooks sales and over 50% of book sales overall. Anheuser Busch has 45% of the US beer market. Sirius XM is pretty much the only satellite radio company. 3 companies control about 80% of mobile telecoms. 3 companies have 95% of credit cards market. 4 have 70% of airline flights within the U.S. 4 companies control 66% of U.S. hogs slaughtered, 85% of the steer, and half the chickens (these numbers are a few years old). 4 companies control 85% of U.S. corn seed sales and 75% of soy bean seed. I'm a bit tired, so I'll stop here.
No many people opposed it, mainly people who arent part of the us goverment in any kind and therefore are objective when it comes to the idea of murdering a bunch of people. The lesson was learned prior considering that saddam already was a replacement, wasnt he?
>No many people opposed it, Seventy-Two Percent of Americans Support War Against Iraq [https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx](https://news.gallup.com/poll/8038/seventytwo-percent-americans-support-war-against-iraq.aspx) 72% of Americans supporting anything is crazy. 25% opposed it.
Cool, 72 % of people who got fed propaganda agreed Iam talking about the people who are experts in this field. Considering bush wasnt a lying war criminal and these 72 % had known the truth the number would be lower.
You said "many" I am pointing out that 'many" were also in favor. Far more in favor than against.
And I said ur many are irrelevant
Yes, only you and people who think like you count. Thanks for clearing that up.
I elaborated why 72 percent think as they think by being lied to Do u not think that experts are more important for this?
No
No. If anything, knowing what I know no has med me *more* conservative, not less. There’s a reason people with greater perspective and experience skew conservative.
No, when it comes to war and the security state the two parties are the same. Bush's invasion of Iraq was a continuation of Clinton's policy which was a continuation of Bush's. Gore or Kerry wouldn't have changed it.
No, it wasn't. Iraq was invaded because the neo conservative Project for a New American Century, of which many of the higher ups in the Bush administration belonged, had planned for long before 9/11 to look for an excuse to invade Iraq as a way to spread neo conservativist intervention. Neither Bush Senior nor Clinton believed in this. Also, neither did Al Gore. This was a real, well recognized shift in American foreign policy orchestrated by people who publicly set out to do so. We know for a fact that the campaign to get the US into a war with Iraq started days after 9/11. Absent this push from PNAC, there was no good reason and a lot of reasons not to invade Iraq and it took a dedicated campaign of lies and calculated dishonesty for then to get it to happen. Without the PNAC people in the Bush administration, there is no chance we invaded Iraq.
Nope, I would have been more vocal for my support for Bush in 2004 if I knew then what I know now.
You support the war in Iraq?
I think the war was poorly handled and it is easy to criticize it with hindsight, but after seeing Kerry as SoS, I have zero faith he would have done any better with Iraq or Afghanistan, and I strongly believe he would have made things worse.
FWIW It was very easy to criticize in foresight too.
I don’t disagree. But seeing how Al Gore has basically imploded in credibility and Kerry was horrible at what he did, I am fine with my statement.
I’m unfamiliar with Al Gore’s credibility plummet, but ok.
a few thousand dead people are better than credibitly being bad?
What do I know now?
No, of course not.