Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[bripat9643]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

The SC ruled that states couldn't impose term limits, so apparently they can't.

 

[jc456]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

defeatists

 

[bripat9643]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

It will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. I am not sure showing your taxes is a qualification though, is it inherently different than making someone gather thousands and thousands of signatures?

Yes, because the later is a task you have to perform. It doesn't require you to give up any of your constitutional rights. Do you think states should be able to require you to release your divorce records?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

The reason CA is so screwed up is because the Democrat Party has no competition.
They've practically erased Republicans from the state.

Almost 5 million people voted Repub in Cali last election...does not really seem to be erased.

Population of CA is 40.1 million. That is 88% Democrat. Seems pretty erased to me, especially considering that those 88% only occupy about 1/5th the state.

Only 13% of that 40 million voted for Hillary


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

It will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. I am not sure showing your taxes is a qualification though, is it inherently different than making someone gather thousands and thousands of signatures?

It doesn't have to be and maybe we should welcome the change in attitude towards ballot access seem to embrace. If we are going to start deciding it's okay to adjust state rules for ballot access or voting on political preferences, the Democrats would be wise to figure out they don't have the states necessary to accomplish crap, and will do more to hurt themselves opening that door than anything else.

But they may get a clue when they lose so bad in 2020 they have to address the fact that their fricken nonsense is a bit too far for even the most uninformed voter. They have yet to recognize that it's not just Republicans, Conservative or Libertarians that are getting sick and tired of their bullshit dicking around.

Showing your taxes has nothing to do with political preferences


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Seawytch]

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

Candidates already file financial paperwork that is public information...and we manage to redact all the private information before it is made public. Tax returns would be treated no differently, but THIS particular change to rules has to be made at the Federal level....and it will be in the future, you can bank on it.

How will we know? Are you going to make bank records public also?

Are you obtuse, stupid or trying (and failing) to make a joke?

 

[sartre play]

And the crazy stuff just gets more crazy, nit picking every little thing, but no OP's on the people (mostly lobbyist) that run the DOI, EPA HHS, DOD, and a unqualified billionaire Amway heiress who runs the DOED. guess every ones OK with corporations running the government.

 

[RealDave]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

That is total bullshit.

We are choosing a candidate. How We have a right to know how he is enterswined with foreign governments, etc

 

[mudwhistle]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

It will have to be decided by the SCOTUS. I am not sure showing your taxes is a qualification though, is it inherently different than making someone gather thousands and thousands of signatures?

The purpose is inherently different. The purpose of signatures is to make sure the ballots are reasonable in size, and easy to read for the voter. (the cost savings to the State are incidental). Flooding a ballot with 500 names is a burden on the voter, as well as the State.

Requiring tax returns is nothing more than an additional political requirement, above and beyond the requirement for the office mandated by the Constitution.

That's what primaries are for. To weed out some of the riff-raff.
But.....
Yup.....totally innocent. Nothing to see here folks. Just Democrats trying to rig elections. Not a problem. Move along.

 

[BluesLegend]

This liberal hypocrite in Washington State who wants to force Trump to show is tax returns to get on the ballot...refuses to show her own tax returns to run for office.

 

[iceberg]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

It's idiotic from the get-go. Will it really matter if VT, CA, NY etc. take Trump off the ballot, except to serve as fodder for the mockery of snowflakes?

I think it’s a terrible precedent myself. What’s next? Stating that you have to be a resident of that state to be on the ballot?

However, for those who preach that States should have the right to regulate a woman’s right to choose, run their own education departments, decide who can use what form of ID to vote…it’s interesting how those people are such ardent supporters of a state deciding it’s own course….right up until they are not for a state deciding its own course.

Most of what you said makes sense. But how could you be a resident of every state? That part makes no sense.

If Republicans scream that Obama should show his grade school transcripts, then what’s wrong with asking presidential nominees to show us their tax returns.
The only ones I can remember that refuse to show their tax returns were Bernie Sanders, mitt Romney, and Donald Trump, none of which are Democrats.

i remember the left saying it was stupid to ask - not required. so now that they can show what they mean what do you do? the same ******* retarded stupid shit you were making fun of when done to you.

why is it ok to be stupid when you're doing it to someone else but when done to you - it's a party foul?

 

[iceberg]

You mean like State Amendments to the State Constitution that sets marriage as a union between one man and one woman?

Or is it that States should be allowed to make their own rules when you happen to agree with it?

It seems as though the Republicans are saying that States don’t have that right.

No, we are saying that the State has to show just cause for discrimination. Not liking someone is not 'just cause'. Wouldn't you agree?

Unless, of course, you don't mind disenfranchising voters when its someone you don't like.

Hmmm….

No. Now if the proposed rule said that Republicans wanting to seek office had to release their tax information…that would be discrimination. The proposed rule would apply to everyone. So it’s not a matter of discrimination.

except we know what they are *really* after. it's a stupid game of cat and mouse between the 2 and it's making us a bunch of collective idiots chasing our tails around as if it will get any of us anywhere at all.

i don't believe they have any legal recourse to get his taxes now and the constant WAH WE DEMAND is old. beyond old. it's friggin stupid. beyond that even. it's tantamount to being 2 years old and crying until you get your way. but - if they're wanting to change laws good luck. it will take more than a few states making demands but hey - follow the process, don't go around it, and good luck.

we're focused on all the wrong things these days and this is a poster child of proof of that.

I get it. All the candidates in the past that released their tax returns had nothing to hie. Your pal, Littledick Donnie, must & you are scared to dearth that they will how just how duped you were.

look fuckhead jed - the left knows they're not going to get it. but they have nothing left. so they make THIS their battleground and cry FOUL and hope their "dupes" follow along.

move along now little lemming, move along.

 

[iceberg]

it drives the left nuts to be told "no" (much like any 2 year old) and that's what trump is doing. the more you scream, the more he enjoys himself.

So the right likes to be told "no"? That argument seems quite partisan and disingenuous.

are you saying the left LIKES to be told no? i'm speaking of the left, they don't ******* like it, and it has nothing to do with the right but nice diversion.

 

[iceberg]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

That is total bullshit.

We are choosing a candidate. How We have a right to know how he is enterswined with foreign governments, etc

so explain uranium one again for us. or the Ukraine issues in helping hillary. or what obama meant by "let me get re-elected and i'll help".

when you hold values equally you have a point. til then, you're just...this shit.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

it drives the left nuts to be told "no" (much like any 2 year old) and that's what trump is doing. the more you scream, the more he enjoys himself.

So the right likes to be told "no"? That argument seems quite partisan and disingenuous.

are you saying the left LIKES to be told no? i'm speaking of the left, they don't ******* like it, and it has nothing to do with the right but nice diversion.

I'm saying neither party likes to be told "no". It's a big reason why both parties are fucked.

 

[justoffal]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

Sure....Gun rules too.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

That is total bullshit.

We are choosing a candidate. How We have a right to know how he is enterswined with foreign governments, etc

so explain uranium one again for us. or the Ukraine issues in helping hillary. or what obama meant by "let me get re-elected and i'll help".

when you hold values equally you have a point. til then, you're just...this shit.

YEAH BUT IT'S DIFFERENT!

JO

 

[Rustic]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

 

[rightwinger]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Republican led states tried the same thing with Obama in 2012

After 2012, Republicans stopped caring about birth certificates

 

[Dick Foster]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Fat friggin chance that would withstand a supreme Court ruling. Stupid shits are desperately reaching for straws.