Reply With Quote
strange, this is a legit question and no one can answer it. amazing.
It would seem as though, if one wanted the aire of populism(maverickism) that one or the other would have voted no on the bailout. congressman were getting 100-1 emails opposing the bill that translates into votes.........I guess doing for the banks outweighed even being president. I would have instantly changed my vote for either candidate that voted no. Instead they both vote yes?.........Something strange in Denmark.
strange, this is a legit question and no one can answer it. amazing.
Because they knew it would piss you off.
They both just want it to pass so things will settle down and they can get back to telling us sweet nothings. They figure they can deal with the consequences after the election. Not very forward looking but that's politics.
If it is laden with pork, as a thread here suggests, the McCain, certainly has some 'splaining to do.
Rescue or not; he should have been screaming about the add-ons, if we are to believe ANYTHING he says...
They both voted yes because whoever votes no gets crucified for not doing anything to help the economy. Whether or not "not doing anything" happens to be the best course of action is irrelevant. It's an election and no one votes for the guy who doesn't want to do anything.
It is the way things work in congress for better or worse. The good out weighed the bad. Grow up people!!
So why don't we just find a John Stewart Mill devotee and make him emperor?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
