English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Should Al Gore have not thrown in the towel so readily in that presidential votes fiasco? Just think, if he had stood his ground he would have been president and the world might not be in such a state of conflict as it is now. Don't you think things could have been so different?

2007-12-01 02:30:34 · 17 answers · asked by celtish 3 in Politics & Government Government

17 answers

YES

2007-12-01 02:33:31 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2 2

The hanging chads beat Al Gore. This all led to the change over to electronic voting machines. The judgments made were stacked against him.

Kerry is the one who threw in the towel. I am angry that he didn't contest the Ohio vote because there would have been better investigations into the performance of the voting machines and whether they are reliable which effects our trust that our votes are even counted as they should be.

It is difficult to judge how things might have been at this point. There still would have been a Republican majority in the House and Senate but Gore didn't campaign on getting rid of Saddam Hussein like Bush did. That probably would have been the major difference.

2007-12-01 03:12:27 · answer #2 · answered by BekindtoAnimals22 7 · 1 0

Gore is a media hound. His save the world quest is full of holes and not one of then is related to the ozone. American politicians buy votes and hence the presidency. Saddam needed to be sorted out and Iran is next on the shopping list Gore is gutless and would have done nothing after 9/11 or maybe you are so naive that you think 9/11 would not have happened had Al been in charge?

2007-12-01 02:38:35 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

After the courtroom gave the election to Bush he usual it with grace putting the country first, and in assessment to lots of his supporters never accused Bush of stealing the elections or implied the he became an illegitimate president. He became between the few baby-kisser with a countrywide acceptance that reported on the time that invading Iraq became a great mistake. As vice chairman he became in fee of the attempt to strengthen the performance in government and the reduces government wasteful spending so there became little left for Bush to shrink dispute his supplies you to shrink greater. He relatively served in county for the period of the Vietnam conflict even nonetheless he had the relationship to get interior the national safeguard or reserves. His activities to strengthen public know-how of international warming may well be seen as the two a superb or a unfavorable.

2016-11-13 03:25:11 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

As a resident of Florida I will tell you first hand that if he would have won Florida that would have proven corruption. Florida is a Republican state and in fact gained Republican seats in 2006. If they were so sure, then why did they try to keep the Military vote from being counted. They were trying to steal the state and they lost. Al Gore is a loser and needs to go away. He is more happy scamming the suckers of the world with his "Global warming" scam.

2007-12-01 02:34:57 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6 1

He didn't "throw in the towel". He lost. The Democrats were illegally trying to force selective district recounts, meaning they only wanted to recount the districts that were narrowly contested in areas perceived to be Democrat dominant areas. They also contested and eventually invalidated 1000's of absentee ballots from soldiers serving overseas (historically favoring Republican candidates). Every recount that was allowed by the courts increased the lead of the Republicans, after which the Democrats contested and demanded another recount.

2007-12-01 02:55:54 · answer #6 · answered by xtowgrunt 6 · 0 1

you dont understand


even if al gore won, he would still be in this dilema. he would have to make the same desicions that bush is making now.
I mean, any president at this time would not be liked because they would have to make a hard desicion about iraq


Half the people will like you, and half wont

2007-12-01 02:39:57 · answer #7 · answered by shane 2 · 2 0

Al Gore is doing much more important work now than he could be doing as President of a country that is managed by incompetent, contemptible, lying, cheating, stealing, cowardly, bickering, corrupt so-called 'public servants' who don't give a tinker's damn about serving their constituents; whose only allegiance is to the corporate contributors to their campaign war chests; who have long ago forgotten that they are supposed to be serving a nation governed by a Constitutional law; who have turned the Oval Office, the hallowed halls of Congress, and our judicial system into a mockery of what the U.S.A. should stand for; who preside over a society that has allowed apathy, arrogance, avarice, hatred, selfishness, gluttony, amorality, corruption, and hubris to conquer its very soul; and who have absolutely no regard for the needs of those U.S. citizens who are sick, elderly, unemployed, underprivileged, poor, disabled, disadvantaged, under-educated, homeless or hungry.

Al Gore's compassion, humanity and spirit is poised for greatness among a world of ingrates who fail to recognize the vital contribution his mission makes to trying and renew this planet before "we the people" destroy it. He deserves more than a Nobel peace prize; he deserves our utmost attention and revered respect. Unfortunately, the ostriches hiding their heads in the sand about global warming [the most important issue facing this world today] are exuberantly vocal as they try to protect their greedy, gutless way of life driving gas-guzzling SUVs; wasting natural resources; refusing to REduce, REuse and REcycle; and worshiping at the altars of power, money and consumerism.

Al Gore's work is much more important than being President of a satiated, selfish nation. -RKO- 12/01/07

2007-12-01 02:59:31 · answer #8 · answered by -RKO- 7 · 1 2

After hitting the home-run?
Why waste time with it.
Cannot have the best of both world.
One is good enough.
Ever wonder how he "Jingle the bell"?
While we were still standing at loss and blurr out there.
Waiting for our turn.
Luke 10.20
What do you think?.

2007-12-01 02:39:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

No, he would not have been elected. He lost, and each and every recount proved that

Besides, who in their right mind would want Al Gore as President?

"Don't you think things could have been so different?" Yes, things would undoubtedly be alot worse if Gore won

2007-12-01 02:34:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 6 2

Of course he should've stood his ground, but I doubt it would've changed anything. He was facing power mad people who were willing to stop at nothing to ensure their victory. If he had stood too strong he might've ended up dead. I mean come on, he was facing the same people who were willing to kill over 5,000 people just to push their power grabbing agenda.

2007-12-01 02:37:02 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2 1

fedest.com, questions and answers