Originally Posted by
Ajax Knucklebones
***If the bailout still passes, despite an Obama or McCain vote against, it would have made that candidate appear too weak to take on Washington. Just part of why it was so scummy to put the bailout through so close to such an important election.***
So, in America's general public's eye, if a politician votes against something that is not wanted by the common man, but it still passes, then they are seen as weak by us and can not lead? Obama stated over and over that he would have never voted for the Iraq war, yet almost 100% of his constituents did. Did we seem to hold this against him? I think back when it was first voted on, we probably would have, but only because we were so full of "patriotism" that we were cult-taught that by doing so was unpatriotic. Other than that, If he voted against it and we were, as majority, against it, I don't see how we would hold this against him in voting him in as president, if the rest of the government was all for it.
As far as who you've spoken with, don't know what to tell you. It's just that over and over again, everything I read, seems to say that the government is doing everything that the past government (right before the great depression) did not do. They are doing this to avoid a depression. Believe me, I'm no Republican and this sure as shit isn't helping my bank one fuckin' bit. It's just what I've been reading on the topic.
Like I said, we will never agree on this. Only time will tell who is right in the end.
Bookmarks