2006-09-02 05:58:54 · 16 answers · asked by Led*Zep*Babe 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
They've been doing it for years. Why stop now?
2006-09-02 06:04:16 · answer #1 · answered by Southern Apostolic 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
we already have I mean besides Bush 2
Nixon was a liar from the word go, using dirty slanders on his opponents Jerry Voorhees and Helen Gahagan Douglas.
Andrew Jackson and Ulysses Simpson Grant, were drunks,
Warren G. Harding, suffered nervous breakdowns at the age of 24 and had to spend some time in a sanitarium. and is generally seen to be tied with Bush 2 for the title of Stupidest President.
2006-09-02 14:15:30 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Did you mean vote for? Hey, I can not elect anyone for president. I would say, depending on your point of view, most of our presidents have had "troubled pasts". If he had BEEN CONVICTED of a felony, I would not vote for him/her. If there are suspicions that are not proven, I would consider where those suspicions came from. The opposing party would be the likely suspect and unless there was an abundance of proof of those suspicions, I would not allow that to interfere with my choice.
2006-09-02 13:59:00 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bush was a lousy student.
He has an arrest record.
He finked out on his National Guard commitment.
He was an alcoholic. Also used cocaine.
He was a failure at business, even did illegal Insider Trading.
It's clear that there's no such thing as a bad resume. As long as you talk about Jeezus they'll overlook everything else, including the fact that he's not up to the job.
2006-09-02 13:06:09 · answer #4 · answered by kreevich 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would depend what kind of trouble was in his/her past. Depending on what that may be, then I might, if there were other candidates with the same kind of problems. However if there were a clean-cut professional with a proper political past, in which I found no radical right or left wing problems, then no.
2006-09-02 13:02:54 · answer #5 · answered by The Crow 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I would have to say it depends on what kind of troubled past. If this person experienced bankruptcy that would be an acceptable troubled past, if this person was a murderer/rapist or something horrible like that then I'd have to say no.
2006-09-02 13:06:54 · answer #6 · answered by dmc81076 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably, I doubt you will a large majority of politicians that do not have a troubled past, so really to me (in my opinion) it's voting for the lesser evil.
2006-09-02 13:05:20 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It all depends what the troubles were, a thief, a liar, a embezzler no, others might be but it really depends on the act itself
2006-09-02 13:10:47 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depends on the trouble. Was it related to their performance in office? Did they break the law? Were they being hypocritical?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
2006-09-02 13:01:32 · answer #9 · answered by bdcold 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Everybody's had a troubled past..
2006-09-02 13:04:11 · answer #10 · answered by yes_i_am 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If they could legally be elected and seemed to be the better candidate, yes.
2006-09-02 13:03:14 · answer #11 · answered by debop44 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋