It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What would be different if Clinton was still the President?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 09:53 PM
link   
This is obviously a hypothetical question. Would the world be a different place If Bill Clinton was still president? What would be different? Would there have been a war? Would 9/11 have happened, Should there be a term limit set on the presidency? Would we be in the same situation? Does the leader of a nation make that much difference?




posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:47 PM
link   
I think the country would not have been so divided as it is now. You probably would not have seen protestors takeing to the streets.
Clinton would've been far more cautious about starting a huge "war on terror". I'm sure he would've taken military action but not on the scale that we are seeing now.
I think Clinton had a better understanding of foreign relations than Bush does for sure.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:49 PM
link   
The world would be a safer place and America would be freaking out with their President in the hospital.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:54 PM
link   
If Clinton were still the president my husband 401K will still be intact and our investments will greater, they were good during his presidency and they would have been even better now.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by elaine
Clinton would've been far more cautious about starting a huge "war on terror". I'm sure he would've taken military action but not on the scale that we are seeing now.


I agree. I don't think Iraq would have been invaded, and maybe not even Afghanistan. Willie always seemed real calm and laid back.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:35 PM
link   
9/11 would have happened. It was in planning long before Bush took office. We would not, however, have gone to "war" in Afghanistan or Iraq as the President would have been interviewing new interns and lying under oath.

Our economy would be in the same state it is today because of 9/11 and the fact that the economy goes in cycles, it doesn't matter who is in office. For those of you who still had jobs, you would be paying more taxes and complaining about it.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcgolf
9/11 would have happened. It was in planning long before Bush took office. We would not, however, have gone to "war" in Afghanistan or Iraq as the President would have been interviewing new interns and lying under oath.

Our economy would be in the same state it is today because of 9/11 and the fact that the economy goes in cycles, it doesn't matter who is in office. For those of you who still had jobs, you would be paying more taxes and complaining about it.


Without a war you wouldn't have a HUGE deficit though.
Guess you couldn't figure out how to blame everything on him, including the Korean War.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by dcgolf
9/11 would have happened. It was in planning long before Bush took office. We would not, however, have gone to "war" in Afghanistan or Iraq as the President would have been interviewing new interns and lying under oath.

Our economy would be in the same state it is today because of 9/11 and the fact that the economy goes in cycles, it doesn't matter who is in office. For those of you who still had jobs, you would be paying more taxes and complaining about it.


Without a war you wouldn't have a HUGE deficit though.
Guess you couldn't figure out how to blame everything on him, including the Korean War.


You're right in some respects. Unfortunately, much of the demise of the economy is due to the pressure put on companies to "beat" Wall Street expectations for the quarter. That causes companies to reduce cost which results in the loss of jobs.

Take Intel for example. Their stock took a hit today because they lowered their revenue expectations for the quarter (3 months) from 8.6 BILLION to 8.3 BILLION (rough estimate). They will still make rough 1 BILLION dollars in profit for the quarter, but for some reason, that isn't enough. Now they will feel the pressure to lower cost so their stock will go up. It doesn't make much sense.



posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by dcgolf


You're right in some respects. Unfortunately, much of the demise of the economy is due to the pressure put on companies to "beat" Wall Street expectations for the quarter. That causes companies to reduce cost which results in the loss of jobs.

Take Intel for example. Their stock took a hit today because they lowered their revenue expectations for the quarter (3 months) from 8.6 BILLION to 8.3 BILLION (rough estimate). They will still make rough 1 BILLION dollars in profit for the quarter, but for some reason, that isn't enough. Now they will feel the pressure to lower cost so their stock will go up. It doesn't make much sense.


Sounds more like insanity to me.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join