First, I'd like to take note of a short thread I commented in the other day. In it, the person claimed that had Gore been elected (or installed by SCOTUS, as you prefer), the world would be a better place.
And that this had been "proven".
Mind you, I'm no fool. I don't in any way contend that it'd be as bad as it is now, or even close to it, with Gore in office. I suspect it would be better. I think it would be better. I even know it would be better.
For one, we'd probably have had at least a 30% chance of avoiding the WTC attacks altogether. I mean, even a competent administrator couldn't have promised to prevent that, but I figure with the intelligence we had, it had a fair shot of never happening.
After it had happened though, I think Afghanistan might still have happened. I put this at at least 60%.
Iraq though, as it went down? 1% or less.
And of course there is much besides that that might not have happened. Legislation and civil liberties, some good that it never happened, most bad. Alot more than most.
All in all, it would be a uniquely positive improvement, if only we had a time machine and could just temporarily put some crooked Florida election officials in the hospital overnight with severely bruised testicles.
But we can't time travel. Not me, anyway, and if any of you guys can, one wonders why in the hell you aren't. We can't rerun another instance of the universe over starting at 2000.
There is no way to prove anything. So why would someone use the word "proven" about this? Isn't it dishonest to do so? Why is it that when some rightwing pundit says something equally disingenuous, my propaganda detector goes off, and I ignore everything he says from that point forward, but that when someone says that it's been "proven", no one so much as bats an eyelash here?
Could someone please explain it to me?