Alternate history once again.

What do you think would happen if Bush 41 won re-election in 1992 and was President until 1997?

Then Bill Clinton wouldn't be president.  :\'(

Then Bill Clinton wouldn't be president.  :\'(

Maybe or maybe not.

Bill could have run in 1996 (and most likely win).

Maybe or maybe not.

Bill could have run in 1996 (and most likely win).

Then Clinton's presidency would've spanned into the Early 2000s.

Then Clinton's presidency would've spanned into the Early 2000s.

It already did.

Bill Clinton was President until January 2001.

Maybe or maybe not.

Bill could have run in 1996 (and most likely win).


I doubt he would lose and then win later, especially since he was so controversial before he won.

I doubt he would lose and then win later, especially since he was so controversial before he won.

Maybe or maybe not.

In hindsight I doubt things would be noticeably different at all. Clinton was a moderate to conservative Democrat and Bush 41 was a moderate to liberal Republican. They governed almost identically as CIC and their policies were pretty similar overall. No surprise that they've become besties since they both left office.

Maybe or maybe not.

Bill could have run in 1996 (and most likely win).


and maybe we wouldn't gotten the scandal between Monica and him.

It already did.

Bill Clinton was President until January 2001.

I'm talking about into 2002 or 2003.

I'm talking about into 2002 or 2003.

Yes, but your original statement was factually incorrect.

Yes, but your original statement was factually incorrect.

Um no not really.
I mean't to say more into the Early 2000s.

Um no not really.
I mean't to say more into the Early 2000s.

Um, yes. What you meant is not what you wrote.

I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this, lol.

Um, yes. What you meant is not what you wrote.

I don't know why you're making a big deal out of this, lol.

How am i making a big deal out of it ??? All i stated was that his presidency would lean into 2002/03.

I wonder if relations with Russia would have been better had Bush the Elder won in 1992.

I voted for Clinton back then, I was a naive 21 year-old and was taken in by his charm. ("Cool! A presidential candidate that likes Fleetwood Mac!!!"  ::)) And I don't know why, but it seems like the older I get the less I like him. As bad as Trump is, there's a small part of me that's almost glad he won simply because I don't have to see Bill Clinton's stupid face on my TV anymore.  :P

I wonder if relations with Russia would have been better had Bush the Elder won in 1992.

I voted for Clinton back then, I was a naive 21 year-old and was taken in by his charm. ("Cool! A presidential candidate that likes Fleetwood Mac!!!"  ::)) And I don't know why, but it seems like the older I get the less I like him. As bad as Trump is, there's a small part of me that's almost glad he won simply because I don't have to see Bill Clinton's stupid face on my TV anymore.  :P

LOL, I wasn't even alive in 1992 :D.

I've always liked Bill and I think he's the second best President in the past 50 years.

It could be argued that HW was actually more to the left than Clinton or at least governed so. You wouldn't have seen DADA with Bush I, but you also wouldn't have seen the repeal of laws like Glass Steagall or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 orthe other business friendly laws that Clinton signed which have allowed for a level of merger and acquisition unparalleled except by maybe the Gilded Age. You wouldn't have seen CHIP, but without Bill and Hillary pushing their failed healthcare reform plan, Democrats probably would've retained control of Congress. At the very least, the 94 midterms would not have been a historic wipeout if Bush is President. Clinton allowed business to run wild. He capitulated to the GOP congress in pretty much every area and was functionally more of an effective conservative than even Reagan in terms of getting what Republicans wanted done. Clinton actually planned to privatize Social Security and was going to announce his plan during the 1998 SOTU but the Monica scandal opening up derailed that.

In 1990, there were over a dozen different, independent banks. Now there are just around four big banks which bought or merged with all the others. This is due to laws Clinton signed. You have as such "too big to fail" because of him. The sub-prime mortgage boom and predatory lending also began to really take off under him and sped up what became the 2008 crash.

Also, Bush having a second term and then being replaced by a Democrat in 1996 perhaps allows for a more left wing Democrat to run in 1996 to combat Reublican economics and "Reagan/Bush" fatigue. The GOP would accept a 1996 loss more than they did the loss to Clinton. Politics as such might have become less polarized.

In the long run, the U.S. and world is probably better off if Bush wins re-election. The Democratic Party is in the long run stronger and more effective. Politics is more normal and boring and not as "rockstar" focused. Bush I having two terms means no W. Bush, at least not in 2000 and thus he isn't in office for 9/11 and we see the aftermath of 9/11 handled better.

All in all, Bill Clinton's election probably was the worst thing to happen to the U.S. in the last 30 years and a lot of our present day problems can be traced directly back to the election of 1992.

It could be argued that HW was actually more to the left than Clinton or at least governed so. You wouldn't have seen DADA with Bush I, but you also wouldn't have seen the repeal of laws like Glass Steagall or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 orthe other business friendly laws that Clinton signed which have allowed for a level of merger and acquisition unparalleled except by maybe the Gilded Age. You wouldn't have seen CHIP, but without Bill and Hillary pushing their failed healthcare reform plan, Democrats probably would've retained control of Congress. At the very least, the 94 midterms would not have been a historic wipeout if Bush is President. Clinton allowed business to run wild. He capitulated to the GOP congress in pretty much every area and was functionally more of an effective conservative than even Reagan in terms of getting what Republicans wanted done. Clinton actually planned to privatize Social Security and was going to announce his plan during the 1998 SOTU but the Monica scandal opening up derailed that.

In 1990, there were over a dozen different, independent banks. Now there are just around four big banks which bought or merged with all the others. This is due to laws Clinton signed. You have as such "too big to fail" because of him. The sub-prime mortgage boom and predatory lending also began to really take off under him and sped up what became the 2008 crash.

Also, Bush having a second term and then being replaced by a Democrat in 1996 perhaps allows for a more left wing Democrat to run in 1996 to combat Reublican economics and "Reagan/Bush" fatigue. The GOP would accept a 1996 loss more than they did the loss to Clinton. Politics as such might have become less polarized.

In the long run, the U.S. and world is probably better off if Bush wins re-election. The Democratic Party is in the long run stronger and more effective. Politics is more normal and boring and not as "rockstar" focused. Bush I having two terms means no W. Bush, at least not in 2000 and thus he isn't in office for 9/11 and we see the aftermath of 9/11 handled better.

All in all, Bill Clinton's election probably was the worst thing to happen to the U.S. in the last 30 years and a lot of our present day problems can be traced directly back to the election of 1992.

I STRONGLY disagree.

Reagan is the worst President we've had in the past 50 years. His election and re-election is where most of our present day problems can be traced back to, don't get it twisted.

I STRONGLY disagree.

Reagan is the worst President we've had in the past 50 years. His election and re-election is where most of our present day problems can be traced back to, don't get it twisted.


IMO, the Carter/Reagan years got America's decline started but it got really accelerated with Clinton and then Bush II. Obama in my judgement is the best we had since Eisenhower or perhaps LBJ. The Clintons sucked the DNC dry and Bill's lack of self-control (Monica) arguably helped give us Bush 43. Look how powerful big corporations are now versus 1990. I just find Clinton to have been great in the short term and bad in the long run.

IMO, the Carter/Reagan years got America's decline started but it got really accelerated with Clinton and then Bush II. Obama in my judgement is the best we had since Eisenhower or perhaps LBJ. The Clintons sucked the DNC dry and Bill's lack of self-control (Monica) arguably helped give us Bush 43. Look how powerful big corporations are now versus 1990. I just find Clinton to have been great in the short term and bad in the long run.

I agree with you on Obama.

However, I still disagree with you over Bill. I still think Reagan is the worst, make no mistake Bill did have some cons to his Presidency (inaction in Rwanda, signing the 1994 Crime Bill and his affair with Monica Lewinsky, doing away with Glass-Steagall) but he was still a decent/good President, IMO.

Also, he has owned up to his faults as Presidents unlike a lot of others.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.

It could be argued that HW was actually more to the left than Clinton or at least governed so. You wouldn't have seen DADA with Bush I...


You mean Don't Ask, Don't Tell?

You mean Don't Ask, Don't Tell?


Yes, typo.

I agree with you on Obama.

However, I still disagree with you over Bill. I still think Reagan is the worst, make no mistake Bill did have some cons to his Presidency (inaction in Rwanda, signing the 1994 Crime Bill and his affair with Monica Lewinsky, doing away with Glass-Steagall) but he was still a decent/good President, IMO.

Also, he has owned up to his faults as Presidents unlike a lot of others.

I guess we'll agree to disagree.


I disagree with both of you, I actually think Nixon was the worst President within the last half century. His crookedness during Watergate is reason enough to consider him the worst. However, Tricky Dicky also had a whole laundry list of horrid policies he implemented and actions he committed such as the continuation (and arguably the escalation) of the Vietnam War, his constant war with the press (sounds like a guy we all know of ::)), his war against black people and white liberals with the start of the War on Drugs, among other horrible things. Nixon overall had an evil demeanor that anybody could smell within a mile away. Yuck 8-P.

However, if you were to be talking about Presidents since about 1980, I'd still both disagree and will give GWB that title. 9/11, an unjust invasion, an oil crisis, and an economic collapse all happening in one presidency, yeah you can't get any lower than that.

Yes, typo.


When Clinton was office, gays weren't allowed in the military at all. DADT, bad as it was, was a compromise and ultimately the best that could be done at the time.

What makes you think Bush Sr. would have done differently regarding gay people in the military?

I disagree with both of you, I actually think Nixon was the worst President within the last half century. His crookedness during Watergate is reason enough to consider him the worst. However, Tricky Dicky also had a whole laundry list of horrid policies he implemented and actions he committed such as the continuation (and arguably the escalation) of the Vietnam War, his constant war with the press (sounds like a guy we all know of ::)), his war against black people and white liberals with the start of the War on Drugs, among other horrible things. Nixon overall had an evil demeanor that anybody could smell within a mile away. Yuck 8-P.

However, if you were to be talking about Presidents since about 1980, I'd still both disagree and will give GWB that title. 9/11, an unjust invasion, an oil crisis, and an economic collapse all happening in one presidency, yeah you can't get any lower than that.

You have a lot to learn about Reagan bro.

Nixon was bad but Reagan was worse. Don't let Reagan's charming demeanor fool you. Remember he was an actor ;).

I'll explain later why Reagan was worse than Nixon and Bush 43.

It could be argued that HW was actually more to the left than Clinton or at least governed so. You wouldn't have seen DADA with Bush I, but you also wouldn't have seen the repeal of laws like Glass Steagall or the Telecommunications Act of 1996 orthe other business friendly laws that Clinton signed which have allowed for a level of merger and acquisition unparalleled except by maybe the Gilded Age. You wouldn't have seen CHIP, but without Bill and Hillary pushing their failed healthcare reform plan, Democrats probably would've retained control of Congress. At the very least, the 94 midterms would not have been a historic wipeout if Bush is President. Clinton allowed business to run wild. He capitulated to the GOP congress in pretty much every area and was functionally more of an effective conservative than even Reagan in terms of getting what Republicans wanted done. Clinton actually planned to privatize Social Security and was going to announce his plan during the 1998 SOTU but the Monica scandal opening up derailed that.

In 1990, there were over a dozen different, independent banks. Now there are just around four big banks which bought or merged with all the others. This is due to laws Clinton signed. You have as such "too big to fail" because of him. The sub-prime mortgage boom and predatory lending also began to really take off under him and sped up what became the 2008 crash.

Also, Bush having a second term and then being replaced by a Democrat in 1996 perhaps allows for a more left wing Democrat to run in 1996 to combat Reublican economics and "Reagan/Bush" fatigue. The GOP would accept a 1996 loss more than they did the loss to Clinton. Politics as such might have become less polarized.

In the long run, the U.S. and world is probably better off if Bush wins re-election. The Democratic Party is in the long run stronger and more effective. Politics is more normal and boring and not as "rockstar" focused. Bush I having two terms means no W. Bush, at least not in 2000 and thus he isn't in office for 9/11 and we see the aftermath of 9/11 handled better.

All in all, Bill Clinton's election probably was the worst thing to happen to the U.S. in the last 30 years and a lot of our present day problems can be traced directly back to the election of 1992.


I've always said that Bill Clinton was my favorite Republican president. You forgot to add NAFTA and the "3 strikes & you're out" policy for his list of accomplishments.  Now let's say he was first elected in '96 and then again in '00. We most likely would've avoided the '03 foreign policy blunder and disaster in Iraq. I highly doubt he would've gotten us involved over there. But I do believe 9/11 would've still occurred, because he was partly to blame for it. Most of the planning and buildup to 9/11 occurred during the final years of his administration.

Obama was slightly left of Bill Clinton, but was more of a mirage than anything. He got us into Syria and Libya and expanded presidential power for the use of drones on American-born citizens who are "suspected" of being terrorists. There was a major crackdown on whistleblowers during his administration as well. Why he was given the Nobel Peace prize is beyond me. He also bailed out his buddies on Wall Street and had a cozy relationship with Silicon Valley, which is the new "Wall Street." Yes, he threw a few progressive crumbs here and there. But it was mostly rhetoric, IMO. Simply put, he was a corporate Democrat with slick talking points.

Reagan was arguably deplorable as well. He ushered in the modern era GOP the same way Bill Clinton did for the Democrats. Ironically today, Reagan would probably be more successful running as a Dem than a Republican. The Republican Party is too far gone....

Reagan is the worst President we've had in the past 50 years. His election and re-election is where most of our present day problems can be traced back to, don't get it twisted.


>:(

>:(

:P

You have a lot to learn about Reagan bro.

Nixon was bad but Reagan was worse. Don't let Reagan's charming demeanor fool you. Remember he was an actor ;).

I'll explain later why Reagan was worse than Nixon and Bush 43.


Ok, I have done my research and don't get me wrong, Reagan was pretty deplorable as well. I actually think it was his presidency that was a major catalyst that led to the modern GOP (for better or worst, but mainly worst). His presidency was marked by the rise of the Religious Right. He continued the War on Drugs and arguably expanded it to heights larger (proportionally) than any presidency prior or since. He practically invented the dogmatic fiscal theory of Supply Side Economics (or 'Reaganomics'), the asinine idea that you could generate more government revenue by cutting taxes. He massively bloated the military budget to insane heights, further expanding the idea of 'American Empire'.

I could go on and on but nonetheless, while I agree that Reagan was the one who started the decline of politics in our country, that does not make him the worst. In fact I would argue that GWB was the one that REALLY put us down to the path we are today. Now, one poster mentioned this (and I agree) that one could, in theory, claim that Clinton was the catalyst to the decline in politics of our country in the last 25 years due to his rebranding of the Democratic Party as a more Centrist (Centre-Left, IF THAT), party, thus not being a reasonable party of dissent due to the rise in conservatism due to the popularity of the Reagan years. One could argue that if Clinton actually governed how he campaigned (a lot of people are shocked to find out that Clinton actually used to be pretty progressive, but he became the corporatist he is today during his presidency) & there is little to no scandals surrounding his presidency, and thus its likely that we wouldn't even have a GWB.

But nonetheless, my point still stands that GWB was arguably the worst in the last 25-40 years. The only reason he's been (slightly) celebrated or rehabilitated in recent years is due to the chaos surrounding the Trump presidency. Don't be fooled Reignman, just because Reagan was the catalyst for problems plaguing our society doesn't mitigate how bad of a presidency GWB's was, let alone how bad Nixon's was in the 70s (and what I would argue was what REALLY got the ball rolling in the decline in U.S politics but I digress).

Ok, I have done my research and don't get me wrong, Reagan was pretty deplorable as well. I actually think it was his presidency that was a major catalyst that led to the modern GOP (for better or worst, but mainly worst). His presidency was marked by the rise of the Religious Right. He continued the War on Drugs and arguably expanded it to heights larger (proportionally) than any presidency prior or since. He practically invented the dogmatic fiscal theory of Supply Side Economics (or 'Reaganomics'), the asinine idea that you could generate more government revenue by cutting taxes. He massively bloated the military budget to insane heights, further expanding the idea of 'American Empire'.

I could go on and on but nonetheless, while I agree that Reagan was the one who started the decline of politics in our country, that does not make him the worst. In fact I would argue that GWB was the one that REALLY put us down to the path we are today. Now, one poster mentioned this (and I agree) that one could, in theory, claim that Clinton was the catalyst to the decline in politics of our country in the last 25 years due to his rebranding of the Democratic Party as a more Centrist (Centre-Left, IF THAT), party, thus not being a reasonable party of dissent due to the rise in conservatism due to the popularity of the Reagan years. One could argue that if Clinton actually governed how he campaigned (a lot of people are shocked to find out that Clinton actually used to be pretty progressive, but he became the corporatist he is today during his presidency) & there is little to no scandals surrounding his presidency, and thus its likely that we wouldn't even have a GWB.

But nonetheless, my point still stands that GWB was arguably the worst in the last 25-40 years. The only reason he's been (slightly) celebrated or rehabilitated in recent years is due to the chaos surrounding the Trump presidency. Don't be fooled Reignman, just because Reagan was the catalyst for problems plaguing our society doesn't mitigate how bad of a presidency GWB's was, let alone how bad Nixon's was in the 70s (and what I would argue was what REALLY got the ball rolling in the decline in U.S politics but I digress).

Without Reagan, Bush 43 wouldn't have been able to do the bad things that he did. Al Qaeda and the Taliban wouldn't have existed and thus no 9/11 and no reason to "get rid of the WMDs" in Iraq or invade Afghanistan.

Reagan is the worst, then Nixon, then Bush 43. They're the top 3 and Reagan is at the top, IMO.

Clinton wasn't perfect but he was decent and he had to compromise to a Republican Congress and a more conservative America.

The War on Drugs had been around for decades prior to Nixon and Reagan, it just got a name and more publicity with Nixon, but the real action started under Reagan

The first U.S. law that restricted the distribution and use of certain drugs was the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act of 1914. The first local laws came as early as 1860. In 1919, the United States passed the 18th Amendment, prohibiting the sale, manufacture, and transportation of alcohol, with exceptions for religious and medical use. In 1920, the United States passed the National Prohibition Act (Volstead Act), enacted to carry out the provisions in law of the 18th Amendment.

The Federal Bureau of Narcotics was established in the United States Department of the Treasury by an act of June 14, 1930 (46 Stat. 585). In 1933, the federal prohibition for alcohol was repealed by passage of the 21st Amendment. In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt publicly supported the adoption of the Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act. The New York Times used the headline "Roosevelt Asks Narcotic War Aid"€.'

In 1937, the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937 was passed. Several scholars have claimed that the goal was to destroy the hemp industry, largely as an effort of businessmen Andrew Mellon, Randolph Hearst, and the Du Pont family. These scholars argue that with the invention of the decorticator, hemp became a very cheap substitute for the paper pulp that was used in the newspaper industry. These scholars believe that Hearst felt dubious – discuss] that this was a threat to his extensive timber holdings. Mellon, United States Secretary of the Treasury and the wealthiest man in America, had invested heavily in the DuPont's new synthetic fiber, nylon, and considered its success to depend on its replacement of the traditional resource, hemp. However, there were circumstances that contradict these claims. One reason for doubts about those claims is that the new decorticators did not perform fully satisfactorily in commercial production. To produce fiber from hemp was a labor-intensive process if you include harvest, transport and processing. Technological developments decreased the labor with hemp but not sufficient to eliminate this disadvantage.

On October 27, 1970, Congress passes the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, which, among other things, categorizes controlled substances based on their medicinal use and potential for addiction. In 1971, two congressmen released an explosive report on the growing heroin epidemic among U.S. servicemen in Vietnam; ten to fifteen percent of the servicemen were addicted to heroin, and President Nixon declared drug abuse to be "public enemy number one".

Although Nixon declared "drug abuse" to be public enemy number one in 1971, the policies that his administration implemented as part of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970 were a continuation of drug prohibition policies in the U.S., which started in 1914.

In 1973, the Drug Enforcement Administration was created to replace the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs.

The Nixon Administration also repealed the federal 2–10-year mandatory minimum sentences for possession of marijuana and started federal demand reduction programs and drug-treatment programs. Robert DuPont, the "Drug czar" in the Nixon Administration, stated it would be more accurate to say that Nixon ended, rather than launched, the "war on drugs". DuPont also argued that it was the proponents of drug legalization that popularized the term "war on drugs".

According to Human Rights Watch, the War on Drugs caused soaring arrest rates that disproportionately targeted African Americans due to various factors. John Ehrlichman, an aide to Nixon, said that Nixon used the war on drugs to criminalize and disrupt black and hippie communities and their leaders.

The present state of incarceration in the U.S. as a result of the war on drugs arrived in several stages. By 1971, different stops on drugs had been implemented for more than 50 years (for e.g. since 1914, 1937 etc.) with only a very small increase of inmates per 100,000 citizens. During the first 9 years after Nixon coined the expression "War on Drugs", statistics showed only a minor increase in the total number of imprisoned.


After 1980, the situation began to change. In the 1980s, while the number of arrests for all crimes had risen by 28%, the number of arrests for drug offenses rose 126%. The result of increased demand was the development of privatization and the for-profit prison industry. The US Department of Justice, reporting on the effects of state initiatives, has stated that, from 1990 through 2000, "the increasing number of drug offenses accounted for 27% of the total growth among black inmates, 7% of the total growth among Hispanic inmates, and 15% of the growth among white inmates." In addition to prison or jail, the United States provides for the deportation of many non-citizens convicted of drug offenses.

In 1986, the U.S. Congress passed laws that created a 100 to 1 sentencing disparity for the trafficking or possession of crack when compared to penalties for trafficking of powder cocaine, which had been widely criticized as discriminatory against minorities, mostly blacks, who were more likely to use crack than powder cocaine. This 100:1 ratio had been required under federal law since 1986. Persons convicted in federal court of possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine received a minimum mandatory sentence of 5 years in federal prison. On the other hand, possession of 500 grams of powder cocaine carries the same sentence. In 2010, the Fair Sentencing Act cut the sentencing disparity to 18:1.