If Trump had declared Reagan "Founding Father of Al Qaeda", would he have won 2016 election?

If Trump had declared Reagan "Founding Father of Al Qaeda", would he have won 2016 electio


  • Total voters
    6
Well, if we're gonna ponder the profundities of the historical ramifications and future implications of things that never actually happened, then what if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen" after George Bush accused him of being "wrapped up like a douche, another rumor in the night"?

That's what I want to know. There should be a poll for that.
 
Last edited:
Well, if we're gonna ponder the profundities of the historical ramifications and future implications of things that never actually happened, then what if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen" after George Bush accused him of being "wrapped up like a douche, another rumor in the night"?

That's what I want to know. There should be a poll for that.



We should have seen 9/11 coming I mean its right on the cover of Def Leopard. Truly an inside job by the music industry and Trump.

701628827994.png
 
Well, if we're gonna ponder the profundities of the historical ramifications and future implications of things that never actually happened, then what if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen" after George Bush accused him of being "wrapped up like a douche, another rumor in the night"?

That's what I want to know. There should be a poll for that.

Hypothetical Qs about issues like Forever Wars, their origins and role of elected public servatns would be little more important and potentially informative I think.

If you think hypothetical questions have no place in political debates, would you consider following hypothetical question unimportant?

If Trum had started hot war with Iran (instead of just killing an Iranian General in Iraq and ordering few Syria droppings), would 2020 Prez Election have been "stolened" from him?




This is not anti-Trump topic really even if it may highlight political opportunism but that is almost like saying nothing critical.

Hopefully a key side effect would be better understanding of roots of past few decades foreign policy, costs of global interventions, forever wars and roles of elected and unelected officials/entities.
 
Well, if we're gonna ponder the profundities of the historical ramifications and future implications of things that never actually happened, then what if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen" after George Bush accused him of being "wrapped up like a douche, another rumor in the night"?

That's what I want to know. There should be a poll for that.

I think if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen", his medical team would have considered it a stroke, and kept him under careful supervision. The right wing media would have called it a freudian slip of various German treachery. Because he would have been too busy dealing with these two issues, he would never had the time or opportunity to get blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky and he would have had a productive Presidency leading to a Democrat wave of victories. Al Gore would have won and would have completely saved everyone from global warming and the world would today be 5 degrees cooler. The drop in sea level would have expanded land mass worldwide and lead to a global economic boom and Donald Trump never would have gotten elected and Republicans would no longer even exist as a party because the Democrats were so successful in their goals.

So I think we can all be thankful, that Clinton had not said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen". I don't want to imagine a world without Trump in it
 
Hypothetical Qs about issues like Forever Wars, their origins and role of elected public servatns would be little more important and potentially informative I think.

Then maybe you should have asked one of those questions - instead of musing about what might have happened if Trump had said a thing he had absolutely no reason to want to say.

If you think hypothetical questions have no place in political debates, would you consider following hypothetical question unimportant?

I didn't say I think that. But I do not see anything of value to be gleaned from hypotheticals that don't ask sensible questions to begin with - such as "Who would have won an election if a candidate had said a thing he never actually said and had no reason to want to say (regardless of whether that thing was true or not), especially when saying such a thing would strongly alienate many of that candidate's own supporters?".

The only reason I can see to indulge such a question is not to explore possibilities in order to enhance one's appreciation of the nuances involved in a topic - or to consider things from some new angle, or whatever it is one hopes to achieve by the examination of counterfactuals - but rather to simply piss and moan some more about Trump, despite the fact that he is no longer even President, and despite the fact that there are many entirely non-hypothetical reasons to piss and moan about him without having to resort to bizarre and nonsensical hypotheticals.

If Trum had started hot war with Iran (instead of just killing an Iranian General in Iraq and ordering few Syria droppings), would 2020 Prez Election have been "stolened" from him?

Given that I have never contended that the 2020 election was "stolened from him", I fail to see what the antecedent of the conditional has to do with its consequent.

And in any case, that is not the question you asked. You asked whether one politician would have won some election if he had said a thing he had no reason to want to say (regardless of whether it was true or not), as if the outcome of the entire election could possibly have hinged solely on the issue of his having said that thing.

For all the intelligible difference it would make, one might as well ask, "If Santa Claus had punched Fairy Godmother in the mouth, would the Tooth Fairy have left any money under her pillow?"
 
I think if Bill Clinton had said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen", his medical team would have considered it a stroke, and kept him under careful supervision. The right wing media would have called it a freudian slip of various German treachery. Because he would have been too busy dealing with these two issues, he would never had the time or opportunity to get blowjobs from Monica Lewinsky and he would have had a productive Presidency leading to a Democrat wave of victories. Al Gore would have won and would have completely saved everyone from global warming and the world would today be 5 degrees cooler. The drop in sea level would have expanded land mass worldwide and lead to a global economic boom and Donald Trump never would have gotten elected and Republicans would no longer even exist as a party because the Democrats were so successful in their goals.

So I think we can all be thankful, that Clinton had not said "gunter gleiben glauchen globen". I don't want to imagine a world without Trump in it

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to TheTexan again.
 
Hypothetical Qs about issues like Forever Wars, their origins and role of elected public servatns would be little more important and potentially informative I think.

If you think hypothetical questions have no place in political debates, would you consider following hypothetical question unimportant?

If Trum had started hot war with Iran (instead of just killing an Iranian General in Iraq and ordering few Syria droppings), would 2020 Prez Election have been "stolened" from him?





This is not anti-Trump topic really even if it may highlight political opportunism but that is almost like saying nothing critical.

Hopefully a key side effect would be better understanding of roots of past few decades foreign policy, costs of global interventions, forever wars and roles of elected and unelected officials/entities.

That's pretty easy. "Interventionism". Some might also say "Imperialism".
 
Back
Top