Would a major candidate stating that if he/she became President of the United States, that he/she would seek to press criminal charges against the current President, and his administration, make you more or less likely to vote for him/her?
2007-06-12
14:49:56
·
26 answers
·
asked by
PtolemyJones
3
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
I notice among the early answers a sense that Bush hasn't broken any laws.
So let be be more specific about the charges.
Multiple, agregious, and morally reprehensible violations of the Geneva Convention, including torture, kidnapping, and murder.
I'll skip over the 'outing a CIA agent for political gain', and 'backing out of a signed treaty' issues. I'll even ignore the gross damage done to the economy by Big Oil under Dubwa's auspices.
The profiteering in Iraq at the cost of U.S. Soldiers lives should certainly be considered though.
2007-06-12
15:00:50 ·
update #1
I also notice the sense that 'we shouldn't pursue, because there are more pressing matters'.
At what point does 'pressing needs' over ride the Rule of Law? Would you have skipped the Nurenberg trials, because so much of Europe was demolished?
Somehow we found time for justice, and dealing with pressing issues then. Why do you think we are incapable of doing the same now?
2007-06-12
15:05:28 ·
update #2
It depends who the current President is. If I feel that the current President has done things to warrant charges being pressed against him/her, then I would be more likely to vote for the candidate who proposes this course of action.
A prime example would be the Bush Administration--how many unlawful actions were committed by Bush and his cronies in the last 6 years? To name just one: suspending the writ of habeas corpus. This is certainly unconstitutional, and opposed by the general public. I am not too naive to think that everything every administration does is exactly "legal" (though it should be), but the extent to which the Bush administration has broken the law is unprecedented. These people should be held accountable--as accountable as ordinary citizens, and not held above the law.
A person willing to take action to take the current President to task for wrongdoings would stand out to me as a candidate willing to do the right thing. I would be more likely to vote for this candidate.
What would you do?
2007-06-12 15:06:18
·
answer #1
·
answered by starrygirl2004 2
·
1⤊
2⤋
My vote will go to the person who I believe will best represent this country and not to someone who runs on a platform of chopping some heads off.
I can't imagine any viable candidate who is running for the presidency, saying something like that and expecting to gain votes as a result.
2007-06-12 15:04:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋
i don't think of so. The Republicans (for further positive or worse) are poised to win this November, in tremendous section because of the passion of the Tea celebration circulation. Liberals who despise the Tea Partiers might want to keep in mind that still they are elevating concerns about key civil liberties situation such because the Patriot Act, which the President has been too cowardly to get rid of. that's no longer all undesirable, persons!
2016-11-23 15:54:55
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Less, and here s the reason. Even though Bush has made a bunch of mis steps, he has done nothing criminal. If some-one stated that in their candidacy bid my first thought would be that they are a left wing troublemaker, and DC has MORE THAN ENOUGH of them to suffice. Now if Harry Reid were the subject of your question I would have to say "it would certainly help".
What he and some of the others are doing and saying, in my opinion borders on treason.
2007-06-12 14:57:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by Job1000 4
·
1⤊
2⤋
This would be a deal clincher!
However, no promise made by a candidate would be seriously followed through without the full support of the Congress.
2007-06-12 14:54:55
·
answer #5
·
answered by Floyd G 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Less likely. I don't agree with the Bush administration, but I also don't agree that they've done anything different than past administrations.
It also would sound to me like the candidate would be more focused on politics as usual rather than actually solving issues.
2007-06-12 14:52:58
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Hey buddy, that CIA agent that was "outed" do you know what her cover was? Seriously, do you?
I do. You ready for this?
HER REAL FRIGGIN NAME!! She was never a covert agent and her husband was a secretary to an ambassader who was NEVER SENT TO AFRICA BY THE U.S.!
You just showed how brainwashed the liberal media has you.
Why do you think no charges were brougt against anyone for "outing" her? Because no law was broken, by anyone.
Think about it.
2007-06-12 15:10:09
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
I don't necessarily think it would make a difference to me and my vote.
I don't like Bush, and I think that he and his goons have broken many laws and violated many different ethical rules. But going after them wouldn't make me vote for them or against them. I think anyone that finds improper conduct that is illegal has a duty to prosecute those involved. It isn't a way to score votes - it is a duty and obligation.
2007-06-12 14:55:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by volleyballchick (cowards block) 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Less likely. I think that what the current President is doing is saving our as$es and there shouldn't be any charges brought against him.
2007-06-12 14:53:52
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
4⤊
2⤋
Less. That person would lose any chance for my vote. President Bush has not committed any crimes. Now if a candidate wanted to try Clinton for perjury, I would support that.
2007-06-12 14:55:29
·
answer #10
·
answered by yupchagee 7
·
3⤊
3⤋