If it’s proven that the Democratic candidate is dead, I wouldn’t vote for him or her in favor of a Republican candidate. Most likely I would just stay home.
Of course it is.
I haven’t made up my mind on who I am voting for, but if it were true that Cruz is not a citizen eligible for the Presidency I wouldn’t vote for him. Of course, if it were true that a candidate was calling for a do-over when he loses a primary I wouldn’t vote for him either, but that doesn’t count because I was never going to vote for him anyway.
I would never vote for a moral coward who voted against the first Gulf War, but again, that probably doesn’t count because I was never going to vote for him either.
Regards,
Shodan
Accusations aren’t enough, but I don’t think that’s what Skald meant – I’m assuming confirmed accusations. I’m still making up my mind between Hillary and Bernie – if Hillary was proven to be an accomplice to rape, or murder, then I wouldn’t support her (same goes for Bernie).
There’s probably nothing in the realm of feasibility that could make me vote for any of the Republicans at this time.
I’m not actually sure who’s train I’m on at this point. Hillary or Bernie. My state votes late, so it may not matter, depending on how things go.
:dubious:
I once professed that Ayn Rand was a great author and philosopher because policy was so far below vagina on my list of priorities. I once pretended to love cats (I’m allergic to cats and I find them feckless) and took allergy medicine to mitigate the effects.
If it turns out that Hillary actually traded diplomatic favors for speaking fees paid to her husband or their foundation, I wouldn’t vote for her.
If it turns out that she actually murdered Vince Foster, I wouldn’t vote for her.
If it turns out that she is in fact the devil, I wouldn’t vote for her.
Actually, there is precedent for running for President from prison.
Not a good idea in hindsight, was it? It involved basing U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia – and some Muslims seem to have the notion that the mere presence of infidel troops in the same country as Mecca is a form of sacrilege, or something – at any rate it annoys them, and you never know, they might decide to do something about it any day now . . .
I would. It’s generally agreed that the Devil is smart.
Yeah…why settle for the lesser of two evils? Go big or go home.
How many of you would change your vote away from Hillary if she’s indicted on charges relating to her E-mail practices? What about if the FBI recommends indictment, but the Obama Justice Department refuses? Would that bother anyone?
How about if the indictment showed that she was soliciting donations to the Clinton Foundation in exchange for favors from the State Department?
These are the only accusations against her that have any sort of chance of being ‘proven’ at this time.
Oh, there is one more. Apparently, there are documents that indicate the Justice Department wanted to indict her over Whitewater because they thought she was guilty, but the indictment was withdrawn over concerns that for various reasons they might not get a conviction. Apparently, those documents are now part of a FOIA request. If those documents surface along with the evidence that led to the almost-indictment, would that change anyone’s mind?
How about evidence that showed that her outrageous speaking fees from various Wall Street firms were in fact payoffs for favors done as a Senator or as Secretary of State? I’m not saying there IS any evidence of this (I certainly don’t know of any). Just trying to establish the threshold for when you’d drop your candidate.
I will support Bernie over her if I have a chance to, indictment or not.
I might support Kasich if he were the Republican nominee and she’s indicted. Which I think has 0% chance of happening. Otherwise no, the other GOP candidates are too crazy.
Candidly, the fervor with which certain individuals go after Hillary Clinton in particular smacks of witch hunt. I get the sense they’ll do anything and say anything to bring her down.
Where would I draw the line? If it were proven that she concealed or abetted rape. If it were proven that she, personally, were responsible for the FUBAR that was Benghazi. Either the ridiculous assertion that she organized it as a False Flag operation to start WWIII, or that the embassy was left unprotected for military or diplomatic reasons that are inconsistent with normal operations.
The emails don’t, as of now, bother me. She was operating in the same way as her predecessors.
Whitewater - good lord, what was the statute of limitations invented for? That’s a creaky, old corpse to prop up somewhere.
Without Hillary, I’d vote Bernie, if that was still an option. Otherwise, I’d probably try a write in candidate. There are so few Republicans I could stomach from the current list. I don’t see any of them making it to the general.
Definitely not. It’s bullshit. If there were anything at all to Whitewater, Ken Starr would have found it and gone with that instead of desperately and pathetically resorting to Blowjobgate.
I would certainly pick a moderately corrupt Democrat with reasonable policy positions over a principled conservative zealot like Ted Cruz.
Those are all (hypothetically) bad things, but none of them can compare to the actual damage that the Republicans have caused the United States, from suicidal tax rates, destroying access to family planning, attacking Iraq, operating Gitmo, attacking science and scientists, deregulating wall street, refusing reasonable sex ed, attacking civil rights and affirmative action, blowing up the deficit, creating the surveilance state, promoting rancid lies for political gain, supporting the degradation of our electoral system via rulings like Citizens’ United and promoting hatred for the government, attempting to destroy efforts to provide our citizens healthcare, supporting the Saudia government and refusing to pursue their ties to terrorism, removing environmental protections, destroying workers’ unions, moving jobs overseas, and just generally being a pack of selfish, lying, bigoted, dickholes.
So, to answer your question - no. I wouldn’t stop supporting her, not if she showed up to tonight’s debate, snacking on aborted embryos from the skull of Richard Scaife.
In the primary election, proof of any scandal that was large enough to make her unelectable would be likely to make me switch to Sanders. So for example proof of quid pro quo dealings as Secretary of state.
In the general election, I think proof of involvement in Vince Fosters death would be enough to make me stay at home if her opponent were Rubio, but not the other two likely Republican nominees
In order to get me to vote for Trump or Cruz, there would have to be compelling evidence that she is in fact that antichrist. So some seas turning to blood, her demanding that 666 be tattooed on everyone’s forehead, a seven headed dragon destroying 1/3 of the galaxy, this would maybe make me think that giving Trump a shot might not be a bad idea.
Post snipped.
No, Clinton was not operating in the same manner as her predecessors. None of her predecessors ran their own email servers. All of her predecessors used third party controlled systems that, in case of FOIA, would just have over the email.
That might not bother you but under there is a huge difference.
Slee
Nah, she acted pretty much the same as her predecessors, Colin Powell and Condy Rice. Just so we’re clear, here.
So, my guess is that the Repubs are going to say that it’s bad if you have your own email server, but OK if you’re sending classified info through your @aol.com account. 