Would you vote for someone who was indicted?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Herdfan, Jun 3, 2016.

  1. Herdfan macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #1
    It seems in a recent poll, 35% of Hillary supporters would still vote for her if she is indicted. Other polls have an even higher number.

    My question is why would someone vote for someone who was indicted?

    Keep in mind that if she is indicted, it would not be the result of a GOP witch hunt. It would be the DOJ of a Democratic administration that would be indicting and prosecuting her.

    I know I would not have voted for my preferred candidate if he were indicted. If he were indicted between the conventions and the general, I would hope the RNC would replace him, but I would not vote for him. Wouldn't vote for Hillary either, so I would just leave that race blank.
     
  2. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #2
    Would you vote for Trump if he were indicted?
     
  3. jkcerda, Jun 3, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2016

    jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #3
    no on BOTH counts (see my sweet darling renzatics post)
    this one is funny, don't care who you are.
    [​IMG]
     
  4. appleisking macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 24, 2013
    #4
    I wouldn't vote but my guess is it's the never trump vote that accounts for the 35%
     
  5. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #5
    Indicated for what? Indicted for rape or murder or some other violent crime or for defrauding old ladies or children -- then no. Indicted for acts relating to using personal emails for work purposes (basically violating work policy/procedure) -- or related to the over classification of documents as "secret" to satisfy the national security agenda -- then, yes.

    The email thing is a procedural/technical thing -- I don't see it as a - I profited or gained from this type of crime, or I hurt somebody type of crime. So it doesn't bother me. Now Trump defrauding suckers (where his company gained financially)-- that bothers me.

    You could probably nail every politician for campaign finance law violations too (as they are so convoluted and arcane). Big whoopty doo.
     
  6. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #6
    So lets look at that. Hillary does the "bad" thing with email and other communication email (can we say phone protocol). The "bad" guys get the info. They do things based on her info which results in property damage, loss of life, and maybe other things.
    Now, you were saying...
     
  7. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #7
    Hillary Clinton is not going to be indicted. Stop telling yourself that. Because when it doesn't happen, you are going to come back whining about the great conspiracy prevented it.
     
  8. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #8
    Well, plenty of people supported her husband during (and after) his impeachment for perjury, so I'd say it's certainly possible.
     
  9. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #9
    Speculation. I doubt that happened.
     
  10. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    About his personal life. Not how Reagan got away with screwing the nation over much larger issues... but by the time he got to trial, it was after his second term ended.
     
  11. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #11
    She's John Gotti in a skirt Teflon and all she's not going down before November and when she acquires presidential power it'll be never
     
  12. SwiftLives macrumors 65816

    SwiftLives

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Location:
    Charleston, SC
    #12
    The great irony is that Donald Trump is the only 2016 Presidential candidate set to stand trial.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13
    Might be a few more since it sure looks like he bought off two Attorneys General.

    Fun fact of the day. The words Donald Trump nor any picture of him appears on the RNC homepage.
     
  14. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #14
    On the surface, that is probably a reasonable view. But more and more evidence is coming out that she did it to avoid her emails being subject to FOI requests and that is a problem.

    So either she was too stupid to realize she could put both a personal and business email on her Blackberry or she really was trying to keep her dealings personal, which is a problem.

    A month ago I would have agreed with you. But after the IG Report I think it has a small possibility. We are still almost 2 months away from the Convention and I think if Bernie does well in California next week and anything else as significant as the IG report comes out, some of the Superdelegates might have a change of heart. Especially with polling that has her in a dead heat with Trump and Bernie leads him by 10 points. Without the Superdelegates, she does not have enough to win the nomination on her own and that should scare the hell out of the establishment.
     
  15. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #15
    Perjury.

    Still a crime.
     
  16. A.Goldberg macrumors 68000

    A.Goldberg

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2015
    Location:
    Boston
    #16
    I don't trust Hillary, period- regardless of her indictment and the entire email scandal and even political views. I'm just one person but I value my vote and I don't believe Hillary Clinton.

    There seems to be this bizzare phenomenon in politics where people elect, and continue to reelect politicians who are not liked by most (lesser of 2 evils) or possess detestable personalities. The conception created by society of "electability" is mind-boggling. Take for instance the Mayor of Bridgeport, CT- he was convicted of fraud/embezzling tax dollars, impeached/asked to resign, and sent to jail. Upon his release from jail, he ran for office again and was reelected. I don't think most people would readily hire a fraudster to a position of authority within their business, let alone babysit their child- yet this guy gets reelected.

    I think it all depends on the crime, their history, the position they're running for. Everyone deserves a second chance in life, but that requires humility, admission of guilt, and a defined record of improved of behavior. Those who continue to lie, consciously deny, cover things up, and/or have a history littered with scandals do not meet my criteria for deserving a second chance.
     
  17. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17


    Instead you are going to support the guy behind Trump University?

    Right. Good judgement there.
     
  18. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #18
    You can doubt. Your choice. Far too many knowledgeable folks can lay a very convincing circumstantial case for this. Add in her disregard of security protocol and it is more likely a yes than a no. Based on what we are seeing with her email, much more likely yes.
     
  19. zioxide, Jun 4, 2016
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2016

    zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #19
    Because the ****ing alternative is Donald Trump?
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---
    This. This email issue should not be an indictment of Clinton but an indictment of how piss poor our government manages their IT regulations and infrastructure.

    I mean, ****, with the amount of times our government's computer systems get breached, her personal server was probably just as secure. Not to mention the fact that she's a 70 year old who probably has zero clue about how any of the technology works.

    Look at all the breaches just that we have heard about in the past couple years.

    20+ million records stolen from the OPM where they weren't even smart enough to encrypt their database.
    Russian hackers breaking into the white house's network...

    The list goes on...
    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2015/11/continued-federal-cyber-breaches-in-2015


    I would take Republicans a lot more seriously if they weren't just trying to use this issue as political points to try to beat Hillary, but were actually interested in investing money to upgrade our government's woefully inadequate computer systems.


    Yup. He's nothing but a common conman or swindler.
     
  20. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #20
    Let's face it, politicians are not trustworthy. Almost none of them.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 4, 2016 ---
     
  21. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #21
    Even if so, its an indictment on the policies and procedures and infrastructure of our antiquated gov't systems. As another poster pointed out, its probably less secure on gov't servers which are constantly breached and constantly attacked. Again, just like everybody screamed with SNowden (oh noze, everyone knows are super duper secrets), where is the real harm here? While it is not best practice obviously, the hysterics about this seem unwarranted. Does the State Dept. need to tighten its own internal procedures, and include the Sec of State in that -- yes. That's really the change that this demands.
     
  22. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #22
    It's just a symptom of America's present-day kindergarten politics.

    Nobody is interested in fixing problems or making the country a better place. They're just interested in pointing fingers, assigning blame and filling their blood lust.
     
  23. Rhonindk macrumors 68020

    Rhonindk

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2014
    Location:
    Bloom County: Meadow Party
    #23
    The harm is that Hillary has shown she plays fast, loose, and loves being an armchair quarterback when it comes to foreign policy and security. That by itself irrespective of whether or not she is indicted would preclude me from voting for her.

    Two wrongs down't make a right and I for one am so tired of, Hillary is doing it currently, pointing fingers and saying "well they did it too!". Beyond lame. Yes, it is a symptom of our current issue. We don't need her to promote it and perpetuate it.
     
  24. caesarp macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2012
    #24
    Alright, so you are then left with the fraudster, con man, Trump U., multiple bankruptcies, hiding behind brand marketing when condos go bad, reality show guy. That's a better choice for you?

    Trump doesn't play fast and loose with the rules? He's all about being fast and loose. That's his entire persona.

    Or do you plan on abstaining altogether?

    What Hilary is accused of doing hasn't profited here personally or made her company money. Trump has done frauds and cons to get out of personal debt and to enrich himself and his companies. So which is worse I ask you ? Which is worse?
     
  25. Herdfan thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    #25
    Got to disagree with that. Maybe not profited directly financially, but the more info that comes out makes it seem like she did her own server to reduce her accountability. Reduced accountability would allow her to do other things that she might have profited from. We really just don't know yet.
     

Share This Page