this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2026
527 points (100.0% liked)

politics

31040 readers
1811 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
  3. No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
  4. No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 20 points 1 day ago (2 children)

A Gore win would have meant no Iraq, and possibly no Afganistan and 9/11.

People forget how much Bush was tied to the Saudis, particularly the Bin Ladin family. They were buisiness partners in defense contracting and made a killing in the weeks after 9/11.

Also, Bush flat out ignored multiple warnings about members of Al Qaeda being in the US, including an august 2001 warning about them planning an attack.

Gore on the other hand, was a proponent of climate action.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Yes. It would have been better in the short term. We have no idea where project 2025 would be if those things had happened. I suspect Trump doesn't get elected, and they manage to keep a lid on their plan until 2030 when they were actually ready, and held all the courts.

I haven't forgotten about GWB. I protested that shit in my 20's. Hell I'm using a sign that was made back then to protest the Iran war today. I don't think it would have been worse back then, I think we would have gotten complacent, the way we did when Obama was elected, and the establishment Dems would have done fuck all to stop the plan that the conservatives have been working on since their failed Business Plot. I think we got somewhat lucky that an idiot got placed in charge a bit too early.

[–] chaogomu@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

First, Gore would have not appointed John Roberts to the court, John Roberts was a Bush Lawyer.

That right there would have sunk the initial parts of the Republican strategy massively. Because the plan depended on control of the courts, control that Bush maintained after the conservatives stole the election for him.

A Gore win in 2000 would have meant a liberal leaning supreme court, and that would mean that the voting rights act would still exist.

[–] Pistachio@lemmy.zip 3 points 1 day ago

No Roberts or Alito. Also coach Kav, ACB, and Gorsh were all Bush v Gore Legal team members.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago

What did al Qaeda have to do with large scale insurance fraud?