Hillary won't get the nomination

[Cancel 2016.2]

I knew about the suffering under the sanctions & hated them for it. I hated the suffering in Rwanda, but this was not caused by PROACTIVE action by the U.S.

I understand how ashamed you must be of voting for Bush not once, but TWICE...I mean, that's something you have to carry with you for the remainder of your days, possibly past the time that we are no longer a superpower because of his incompetence. It's something that will always come up in a conversation or 2 around election time, and I appreciate you're wanting to hide under a rock rather than explain how Gore was a "tool" because he sighed so much, so you willfully voted for the worst President in American history, twice.

Such an arrogant prick you are today. You decide to take action or you decide not to.... either way the result is determined by your decision. It does not matter whether is was proactive or inaction that led to the deaths. They were cause because the correct choice was not made.

I understand how you are ashamed that you nominated two consecutive tools that allowed the so very ignorant Bush to beat them. I mean, that is soemthing you have to carry with you for the remainder of your days, possible past the time that we are no longer a superpower because of their inability to beat Bush. It is something that will always come up in a conversation or 2 around election time and I appreciate your not wanting to have to explain how you so willfully nominated idiots like Gore and Kerry when Bradley and Clark were right there to crush Bush.

Side note: I voted against Gore not for his sighing as you seem so fond of saying, but because his economic policies were shit and would have hurt this country. Growing up in KC, my vote would have easily gone to Bradley. But idiots like you decided to go with the boar. That is your fault. Live with your decision and quit blaming others for your ineptitude.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I know Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

Isn't that enough?

No. It is not enough. Would it have turned into another Rwanda? But instead of outright murder it would have been watching them continue to starve under the sanctions for another 12 years?

You do not know. Neither do I. So don't act as though the ONE decision not to go into Iraq somehow equates to everything being better. What if millions HAD died due to the sanctions because of inaction? What then Lorax? again, neither of us knows if this would have occured, so it is pointless acting as though you do.

 

[Onceler]

"No. It is not enough. Would it have turned into another Rwanda? But instead of outright murder it would have been watching them continue to starve under the sanctions for another 12 years?"

If you can't look at a situation like Iraq today, and make a decision about whether our actions since 2003 have hurt or helped the situation there, you have no discernment, or ability to reason, for that matter.

You should abstain from involving yourself in any discussion about national security & foreign policy going forward.

 

[Cypress]

And your party is going down in history as putting forward candidates who lost to the "worst President in history" TWICE.

One more time. It isn't the R voters he is talking about, if you want to win you have to convince the Independants who thought Gore/Kerry were both worse than Bush.

Gore won.

Kerry narrowly won independents, and clobbered bush amongst moderates.

the reason Bush beat kerry was because of lies, fear, and driving millions of new rightwing theocrat voters to the polls.

Either Gore or Kerry would have clearly been a superior president to george bush. History will condemn Bush as one of the worst presidents ever. If you can get over Gore's "sighs", and Kerry's Boston highbrow accent, in those debates there wasn't an iota of doubt who the more capable and competent man was.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"No. It is not enough. Would it have turned into another Rwanda? But instead of outright murder it would have been watching them continue to starve under the sanctions for another 12 years?"

If you can't look at a situation like Iraq today, and make a decision about whether our actions since 2003 have hurt or helped the situation there, you have no discernment, or ability to reason, for that matter.

You should abstain from involving yourself in any discussion about national security & foreign policy going forward.

I can most certainly look at our actions and determine that. What neither of us can do is pretend we know what WOULD have happened if Gore had been elected and we had done nothing. THAT is impossible to determine. It is pure speculation.

If you cannot see the difference in using hindsight to determine if events were beneficial or not is NOT the same as saying "well gee golly Beave what would have happened if Gore had won instead of bush" You may be able to say..."well Wally, he wouldn't have been likely to invade Iraq" and you would likely be right... but THAT is the extent to which you can make an "educated guess".

As I mentioned before, which you conveniently ignored... what if he had been elected, had not invaded and millions had starved to death under the sanctions. In THAT case, the 100,000 dead (while tragic) would be a better outcome than the millions dead. Would it not?

Now to be clear, I don't know that would have been the outcome because we don't know what the boar might have done to get Saddam to comply. But given that they were currently starving under the sanctions, it would not be absurd to suggest that it would have been a likely outcome. But please, continue to act as if the one action would determine all possible future outcomes. I thought you were more intelligent than that.

 

[Damocles]

Gore won.

Kerry narrowly won independents, and clobbered bush amongst moderates.

the reason Bush beat kerry was because of lies, fear, and driving millions of new rightwing theocrat voters to the polls.

Either Gore or Kerry would have clearly been a superior president to george bush. History will condemn Bush as one of the worst presidents ever. If you can get over Gore's "sighs", and Kerry's Boston highbrow accent, in those debates there wasn't an iota of doubt who the more capable and competent man was.

I didn't vote for Gore, not because of "sighs" as you so desperately want to believe, but because I believe his economic policy was worse than bad.

I didn't vote for Kerry because he was too stupid to even think voting for war was voting for war, and his economic policy was even worse.

I didn't vote for Bush because he was no conservative by any measure I would put to it. I voted for Badnarick because I wasn't going to vote for Bush, and I wasn't going to vote for the terminally retarded because they "weren't Bush".

Get realistic.

One more time for your silly little argument.

It isn't Rs you needed to convince, it is the Independants that cross over and vote in either election. It is the swing voters that agreed and thought they were worse for America, even worse than the "worst President in history". Your party consistently selected candidates that were even worse then Bush. Pretty crappy record there.

 

[Epicurus]

In the spirit of reason and logic which prevails this thread, I would like to suggest that Ralph Nader's great great great grandmother is actually responsible for the dead in Iraq.

If only she hadn't gone out to the bars that night those kids in Iraq might still be alive!!!!

 

[Cancel7]

That has to be the dumbest thing I have ever seen you spit out.... That attempt at an analogy is pathetic and in no way represents what I said.

Or can you list out all of the things Gore would have done differently with facts to back them up? Perhaps also include how the rest of the world would have responded to his actions or lack thereof? Including the terrorists?

Please Lorax.... enlighten us as to how you KNOW all of these things and the reactions they would have caused. Spell them out for us.... or shut the fuck up about "knowing" things would have been better with Gore. Because at the end of the day you and I both know you are simply assuming that you know how he would have reacted.

You haven't even explained why Gore is a "tool" or what that even means.

And considering the position we are in today, it takes a huge suspension of disbelief to even consider that things could have been worse under Gore, or pretty much anyone else. And that is what you and other are doing; suspending disbelief also known as magical thinking.

Don't get mad at people who refuse to do the same. The reality based community.

 

[Topspin]

Gore or Kerry could have been Jimma Carta reincarnated
neither moron (Cypress or Lori) knows that they wouldn't have.
Let's get dems to man up and get somebody elected so they can stop
playing the Jim Mora card "coulda, woulda, shoulda".

 

[Cancel7]

Gore or Kerry could have been Jimma Carta reincarnated
neither moron (Cypress or Lori) knows that they wouldn't have.
Let's get dems to man up and get somebody elected so they can stop
playing the Jim Mora card "coulda, woulda, shoulda".

And yet another two time bush voter checks in to explain why they were correct to vote for Bush, who many professional historians now say will go down as the single worst President in the history of the United States.

But, Gore might have been worse yet!

Well, I guess whatever you gets you through the night.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

You haven't even explained why Gore is a "tool" or what that even means.

And considering the position we are in today, it takes a huge suspension of disbelief to even consider that things could have been worse under Gore, or pretty much anyone else. And that is what you and other are doing; suspending disbelief also known as magical thinking.

Don't get mad at people who refuse to do the same. The reality based community.

Give me a fucking break. Take a look back up... and answer what Lorax chooses to ignore... with the "millions of Iraqis" starving as was the mantra in the late 90's and leading up to the war... how can you say you KNOW the Iraqis are better off? What if millions had died from starvation because President Gore did nothing?

You do not KNOW and to suggest that you do is just as silly as my suggesting that I do. It is idiotic at best. the only assumption you can safely make is that Gore would not have invaded. But you and I do not know what consequences would have come from that decision. We have no way of proving one way or the other. So quit acting like it is a given that things would be magically better if Gore had been President. You do NOT know that.

I am irritated at Lorax for using that very "magical thinking " that you are talking about. Out of the two of us, he is the only one pretending to know what the future "might have been".

 

[Epicurus]

I'm not gonna hate on Gore because he never really got his chance.

Bush was a disaster, but I think that pushing the blame for the Iraq War to Ralph Nader is the most intensive leap of logic I've seen from Democrats in a while.

But shouldn't it be the President's fault? Well he wouldn't be prez except for that horrible Nader man.

But shouldn't more blame really rest on the Dems and Reps in Congress that authorized the war? 2 words: Ralph Nader.

WHat about blaming the Democratic primary voters in 2004 who chose Kerry, who had little chance of victory? Nader Nader Nader Nader

 

[Cypress]

I didn't vote for Gore, not because of "sighs" as you so desperately want to believe, but because I believe his economic policy was worse than bad.

I didn't vote for Kerry because he was too stupid to even think voting for war was voting for war, and his economic policy was even worse.

I didn't vote for Bush because he was no conservative by any measure I would put to it. I voted for Badnarick because I wasn't going to vote for Bush, and I wasn't going to vote for the terminally retarded because they "weren't Bush".

Get realistic.

One more time for your silly little argument.

It isn't Rs you needed to convince, it is the Independants that cross over and vote in either election. It is the swing voters that agreed and thought they were worse for America, even worse than the "worst President in history". Your party consistently selected candidates that were even worse then Bush. Pretty crappy record there.

You have a bit of an excuse, since you withheld your bush vote the second time.

Two-time bush voters are beyond reprehensible. I don't care to hear about how kerry or gore forced them to vote for Bush. There's never any excuse to vote for an incompetent moron, who's harming the nation. Regardless if he has an (R) next to his name.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

And yet another two time bush voter checks in to explain why they were correct to vote for Bush, who many professional historians now say will go down as the single worst President in the history of the United States.

But, Gore might have been worse yet!

Well, I guess whatever you gets you through the night.

Tell me Darla... why didn't the Dems put up Bradley in 2000? You and Lorax keep harping on how we have to live with our votes, yet act as if your votes had nothing to do with the outcome. Had you voted for stronger candidates, they could have done what the boar and munster failed to do.... beat the ever so clever (unless we need to call him stupid to suit our purposes) Bush.

 

[Onceler]

"Bush was a disaster, but I think that pushing the blame for the Iraq War to Ralph Nader is the most intensive leap of logic I've seen from Democrats in a while.

But shouldn't it be the President's fault? Well he wouldn't be prez except for that horrible Nader man."

I don't think anyone has suggested that accountability for the invasion doesn't lie largely with Bush. To suggest it this way, as you have, is slightly lobotomized thinking.

This is a fact: if Nader voters in Florida had voted for the VIABLE candidate who most represented their views, instead of trying to "send a message" (which has already died), we wouldn't be in Iraq.

 

[Cypress]

Tell me Darla... why didn't the Dems put up Bradley in 2000? You and Lorax keep harping on how we have to live with our votes, yet act as if your votes had nothing to do with the outcome. Had you voted for stronger candidates, they could have done what the boar and munster failed to do.... beat the ever so clever (unless we need to call him stupid to suit our purposes) Bush.

Gore beat bush, and Gore was right on Iraq, civil liberties, Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, and climate change. I think you hate him so much, because you spent years trashing him to justify your vote for bush, when afterall in the end Gore was pretty much right about everything.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

I'm not gonna hate on Gore because he never really got his chance.

Bush was a disaster, but I think that pushing the blame for the Iraq War to Ralph Nader is the most intensive leap of logic I've seen from Democrats in a while.

But shouldn't it be the President's fault? Well he wouldn't be prez except for that horrible Nader man.

But shouldn't more blame really rest on the Dems and Reps in Congress that authorized the war? 2 words: Ralph Nader.

WHat about blaming the Democratic primary voters in 2004 who chose Kerry, who had little chance of victory? Nader Nader Nader Nader

That was my point as well. We don't KNOW whether Gore would have been good or not. We are all simply stating our opinions of him.

You are absolutely correct. The blame for Iraq goes to Bush. Not Nader voters.... and it is ridiculous of certain Dems on here to act as if Nader voters somehow wasted their votes simply because they refused to vote for the tools the Dems put forth.

 

[Cancel7]

Tell me Darla... why didn't the Dems put up Bradley in 2000? You and Lorax keep harping on how we have to live with our votes, yet act as if your votes had nothing to do with the outcome. Had you voted for stronger candidates, they could have done what the boar and munster failed to do.... beat the ever so clever (unless we need to call him stupid to suit our purposes) Bush.

Right, Bradley was more to the left than Gore, you are contradicting yourself! And since Gore won the popular vote, and also the electoral vote, no matter how much you guys will never admit the second part, but can't deny the first, your entire argument, frankly, is moot Sf.

 

[Cancel7]

Give me a fucking break. Take a look back up... and answer what Lorax chooses to ignore... with the "millions of Iraqis" starving as was the mantra in the late 90's and leading up to the war... how can you say you KNOW the Iraqis are better off? What if millions had died from starvation because President Gore did nothing?

You do not KNOW and to suggest that you do is just as silly as my suggesting that I do. It is idiotic at best. the only assumption you can safely make is that Gore would not have invaded. But you and I do not know what consequences would have come from that decision. We have no way of proving one way or the other. So quit acting like it is a given that things would be magically better if Gore had been President. You do NOT know that.

I am irritated at Lorax for using that very "magical thinking " that you are talking about. Out of the two of us, he is the only one pretending to know what the future "might have been".

I think you are using this to make yourself feel better.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

"Bush was a disaster, but I think that pushing the blame for the Iraq War to Ralph Nader is the most intensive leap of logic I've seen from Democrats in a while.

But shouldn't it be the President's fault? Well he wouldn't be prez except for that horrible Nader man."

I don't think anyone has suggested that accountability for the invasion doesn't lie largely with Bush. To suggest it this way, as you have, is slightly lobotomized thinking.

This is a fact: if Nader voters in Florida had voted for the VIABLE candidate who most represented their views, instead of trying to "send a message" (which has already died), we wouldn't be in Iraq.

This is a FACT: If the Dem voters had voted for a VIABLE candidate who most represented their views that was capable of beating Bush we wouldn't be in Iraq.