CityAsylum wrote:
Voting certainly changed the situation when Bush was elected, er, appointed, to come in and 'clean up' the White House. In the name of 'morality,' he has humiliated the nation, destabilized the entire Middle East, ripped Iraq to pieces at an enormous cost in human life and taxpayer money, destroyed the US economy (as well as the global markets), and has generally made the world less safe for everyone - and all with the slimmest margin of victory. This was a case where the votes really did count, and the tipping over toward Bush changed the world.
It kinda makes you wonder. If Bush had lost to Al Gore in 2000, would the world be THAT much different? I could see the economy being a bit better, and we would probably not be in Iraq, but 9/11 still would have happened (and in turn we would have invaded Afghanistan and probably already captured bin Laden), the world would still think that the US is a nation of pricks, and we would still be dependent on foreign oil (for all the government does, it's really the oil corporations that keep us dependent). We would probably also be a bit
less concerned with the environment, since Gore wouldn't have had time to make An Inconvenient Truth, and we would be fed up with his environmental policies by now...
I'm not saying that I would have rather not had Gore elected in 2000 (if anything, Bush is the dumbest president the US has ever had), but it's not like having a democrat in office is going to make it all better overnight...
Last edited by ToadOfSteel on 17 Oct 2008, 2:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.