Should those candidates and elected officials accused of sexual, racial or ethical impropriety be struck from ballots or removed from office? Basically, is it more important to get an accused deviant out of office even if there is no proof of the accusers claims or is it more important to abide by the presumption of innocence?
1. Why risk things getting worse? Get the scumbucket out!
2. As long as the accuser seems credible the scumbucket should be run out of office.
3. Justice is important but Democracy is more important so get the scumbucket out.
4. Sometimes individuals will make false or misleading allegations for political reasons but it's too risky to give public figures the benefit of the doubt so get the scumbucket out.
5. If enough people believe your a scumbucket then you're a scumbucket so get the scumbucket out.
6. Allegations are not the same as proof but all is fair in politics so get the scumbucket out.
7. I'm sick and tired of all these absurd allegations from 30 or 40 years ago with no proof. I've pretty much stopped listening to this kind of thing.
8. Evidence? Laws? Hello? Anyone sane in here?
Moderator's Warning: |
Added poll. Poll options 4 and 7 were too long so had to shorten them. Read Post for full options. ~ Kal'Stang |