Al Gore

NKVD · Mar 12, 2008

One alternate history idea I had was the concept of "what if Al Gore won the 2000 election?"

I don't want this to be a political flame war, but for one thing, it's just something to think of. The USA might sign the Kyoto Protocal, 9/11 would still happen, but perhaps Gore would only invade Afghanistan with senatorial concent, and capture Osama Bin Laden.

This is the perfect idea for a point of divergence of an alternate history story. One question though - is there any grounding in fact with the Saturday Night Live thing that he "enjoys lotion."

I like his voice by the way.

Redem · Mar 12, 2008

Well the discussion have been brought several times and don't worry it's not the kind of thing that degenerate in flame wars (you'll get a flare for those pretty soon)

Although no elaborate timeline been done on a Gore Victory (understandable in some way

)

The Archduke · Mar 12, 2008

Very unlikely on Kyoto

Well, a switch of a few hundred votes in Florida could have changed the outcome of the election, but there is no way Gore could have gotten the Kyoto treaty passed. IRC it failed a few years earlier in the Senate 98-0.

ljofa · Mar 12, 2008

Read the book "President Gore...and more things that never happened". It has Tom DeLay vowing that none of Al Gore's initiatives will ever pass so long as the Republicans control both houses of Congress. As Al Gore has always been interested in secret service-type matters, he notices the report that hints that Al-Qaeda might be preparing for a terrorist attack on US soil, possibly at US airports. He wants to increase funding for domestic security but naturally this gets vetoes. 9/11 happens on schedule and it becomes plain that partisan politics have directly led to the worst act of terrorism on US soil. The Republicans get swept from Congress in 2002 and Al Gore is able to ratify Kyoto and implement all his other plans.

NKVD · Mar 12, 2008

The whole storyline doesn't need to have an outward climax in my opinion, like some thing like Russia going to war with the US or some crap like that. Maybe North Korea does something real stupid and the country gets the shit kicked our of it.

Seriously 8 years of Gore would be dramatically different than 8 years of Bush. The Republican party is sort of like the Hapsburg family...a lot of messed up stuff and inter-breeding. lol. The democrats aren't any less sadistic but atleast they're more towards the people over the state.

Maybe we could construct some sort of timeline. For example, who might run in 2008? Will the lack of a need to "change" by the Democrats change who runs? You know what I mean by change...

"It isn't pollution that's ruining the environment; it's all the impurities in the air and water that's doing it."

Redem · Mar 12, 2008

Well constructing a TL is hard cause we have only 8 years of event to work with unless you plan to do a Future timeline. (been done in the past although the POD was further)

I guess evangelical republican would probably be in a position of strenght or at least they would be in a more comfortable position. Hillary Clinton got less chance of being consider viable for a candidate since they would feel less a need to relive clinton years

dhouse1205 · Mar 12, 2008

Actually, a group of people on the forum have already done a Gore victory time line somewhere around here. It was actually a pretty decent thread.

NKVD · Mar 12, 2008

Redem said:
Well constructing a TL is hard cause we have only 8 years of event to work with unless you plan to do a Future timeline. (been done in the past although the POD was further)

I guess evangelical republican would probably be in a position of strenght or at least they would be in a more comfortable position. Hillary Clinton got less chance of being consider viable for a candidate since they would feel less a need to relive clinton years

I'd like it to also include future stuff that Gore being elected might have sparked.

The Archduke · Mar 12, 2008

Kyoto

Even if the Republicans are swept out of the House in 2002, it is the Senate that ratifies treaties and only 1/3 of the Senators would be up for reelection. Even if every single republican senator is voted out (verging on ASB here) the treaty had already been defeated 98-0. Why would Gore being President change the views of so many Senators when they voted the treaty down during Clinton's administration?

The Archduke · Mar 12, 2008

Afganistan

Also, why would the US military be any more effecive in finding and killing/capturing Osama just because Gore was President. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but you need to have some plausible reason why things would be different.

Berra · Mar 12, 2008

The Archduke said:
Also, why would the US military be any more effecive in finding and killing/capturing Osama just because Gore was President. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but you need to have some plausible reason why things would be different.

Butterflies. They start another day and Usama does something else elsewhere. Or two planes carrying Special Forces colliding mid air giving a worse outcome.

The Archduke · Mar 12, 2008

Ok on Afganistan, but how do you butterfly away the US Senate on Kyoto, that is ASBish to me.

Kvasir · Mar 12, 2008

I watched a really interesting documentary a while back that suggested that when NATO went into Afghanistan and destroyed the training camps they really did destroy the nearest thing to Al Qaeda existing. It said that the Myth of Al Qaeda was created by Americans in order to prosecute Osman Bin Ladin for that bomb in that US embassy. Yes I know its vague but I'm tired and it was ages ago. Anyway they made it sound like there was this hue secret organisation to match laws created to prosecute the Mafia. Then after 9/11 the Americans took the lie and spread it around.

When the troops were in Afghanistan there were no secret caves in Tora Bora and the Northan Alliance took people who looked Arab and gave them to America for cash. They would be the terrorists. Has anyone else seen this documentary?

black angel · Mar 12, 2008

The Archduke said:
Also, why would the US military be any more effecive in finding and killing/capturing Osama just because Gore was President. I'm not saying that it is impossible, but you need to have some plausible reason why things would be different.

because in 2002 as Osama is being backed into Tora Bora the USA is moving troops out of Afghanistan for Iraq, so the people that went after Osama were mostly "Afghan National Army"