no tax return, no place on ballot

[DGS49]

As usual, California ignores the Constitution. Article II creates three requirements for the President: citizenship, age, and a period of U.S. residency. NO STATE can impose additional qualifications or requirements. NOT EVEN CALIFORNIA!!

Fuckin' loons.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea why you ask the same questions over and over again regardless how many times they've been answered. You cannot add additional constitutional requirements to the US Constitution without an amendment to the document.

They are not adding constitutional requirements, they are adding additional requirements to be on their state ballot...and you have said that requirements to be on the ballots are perfectly fine.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then post it again because I never saw it. This is your very own CNN reporting BTW.

"Your very own"....that's really stupid.

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report | HuffPost

You do know your article is from 2012, don't you? That's seven years ago, very post recession.

The claims it was paid back are even older than that. Nothing has changed since the post. We lost big time on the bail outs and then were lied to.

It's funny because it was the Obama administration that lied to us but here you are defending them.

I'm not defending anybody. I'm a believer in the words of James Madison:

"I canot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now when you insist that the loans were not really paid back (and they were) I am merely pointing out your false allegation. So you respond by posting a seven year old article to make your point. Well guess what? Everybody has been doing much better since 2012. I'm sure every dime of borrowed money was paid back.

He presents old (but it's proof anyway) data and you say he's wrong. You present newer proof yet it shows that YOU are wrong. And then it's Obama's fault. Wow, james Madison must be churning in the grave knowing you are quoting him on this and then misinterpreting him big time. Or Bigly time. The fact remains, not all have yet to pay back all bailout funds. The biggies have but there was more to it than just what the news covered. The smaller ones just weren't news worthy. And still aren't. And they'll probably get away with it.

Fine, then provide current proof of that, or at least within the last year. Seven years is a long time for people to repay loans. I Googled it every way possible and there are no stories on that claim since 2012.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

As usual, California ignores the Constitution. Article II creates three requirements for the President: citizenship, age, and a period of U.S. residency. NO STATE can impose additional qualifications or requirements. NOT EVEN CALIFORNIA!!

Fuckin' loons.

Then why was Evan MuMullin only allowed to be on the ballots of 11 states?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

Wall won't stop them. They go over, under and through.

Yes they do, it will only stop over 90% of them.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

He is paying for them. He is securing funds from our military budget.

Which isn't being paid for.

I have no idea what you mean by that. The money was appropriated by Congress for the military spending before Trump even brought up the idea.

I mean what I said. It's not being paid for. Something Trump is known for.

Try to follow this:

Money was previously appropriated for military funding.

Trump is taking money from that fund that was appropriated and paying for the wall.

Any other questions?

We didn't pay for that funding. Fact.

We didn't, then who did?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Which isn't being paid for.

I have no idea what you mean by that. The money was appropriated by Congress for the military spending before Trump even brought up the idea.

I mean what I said. It's not being paid for. Something Trump is known for.

Try to follow this:

Money was previously appropriated for military funding.

Trump is taking money from that fund that was appropriated and paying for the wall.

Any other questions?

We didn't pay for that funding. Fact.

We didn't, then who did?

our kids and grand-kids.

 

[Flopper]

Wrong. They are adding a requirement to run for President. If the founders wanted states to make their own requirements, they would have stated so in the Constitution. The state of Commie Fornia decided to change the requirements which is unconstitutional, and they know it.

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

Oh, bullshit. The state is not saying Trump can't appear on the electoral ballot. If Trump does not appear on the ballot, it will be his decision not to meet exactly the same requirements that all presidential and gubernatorial candidates must meet.

Keep in mind this is not a general election. The purpose of a presidential primary is to show voter preference to assist political parties in nominating a candidate.

Also, a state presidential primary is not a federal requirement. Until the early 20th century there were no state run presidential primaries. Today primaries are used to help parties determine nominees. However some states still use caucuses.

State parties run caucuses, but state governments conduct primaries. The state determines when and where primaries are held, rules for listing candidates, whether write-ins are allowed, whether the primary is open or closed, etc. The only federal law that applies to primary voting is the Voting Act. Party rules determine how primary election results are handled. In most states, the party selects delegates pledged to the winner of the primary but that has not always been the case.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no idea why you ask the same questions over and over again regardless how many times they've been answered. You cannot add additional constitutional requirements to the US Constitution without an amendment to the document.

They are not adding constitutional requirements, they are adding additional requirements to be on their state ballot...and you have said that requirements to be on the ballots are perfectly fine.

I can't keep going back and forth with you on this. You either understand procedural requirements or you don't. You either understand blackmail or you don't. You don't understand any of these things because of this mental block you have for Trump. In fact after a court throws this out, you'll even argue against the decision. That's how bad off you are right now.

 

[pknopp]

"Your very own"....that's really stupid.

Banks Repaid Fed Bailout With Other Fed Money: Government Report | HuffPost

You do know your article is from 2012, don't you? That's seven years ago, very post recession.

The claims it was paid back are even older than that. Nothing has changed since the post. We lost big time on the bail outs and then were lied to.

It's funny because it was the Obama administration that lied to us but here you are defending them.

I'm not defending anybody. I'm a believer in the words of James Madison:

"I canot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now when you insist that the loans were not really paid back (and they were) I am merely pointing out your false allegation. So you respond by posting a seven year old article to make your point. Well guess what? Everybody has been doing much better since 2012. I'm sure every dime of borrowed money was paid back.

He presents old (but it's proof anyway) data and you say he's wrong. You present newer proof yet it shows that YOU are wrong. And then it's Obama's fault. Wow, james Madison must be churning in the grave knowing you are quoting him on this and then misinterpreting him big time. Or Bigly time. The fact remains, not all have yet to pay back all bailout funds. The biggies have but there was more to it than just what the news covered. The smaller ones just weren't news worthy. And still aren't. And they'll probably get away with it.

Fine, then provide current proof of that, or at least within the last year. Seven years is a long time for people to repay loans. I Googled it every way possible and there are no stories on that claim since 2012.

Nothing new is needed. It's been proven to you. Banks repaid Tarp with Harp funds. They were not obligated to repay Harp funds.

Give a bank 5 million. Give them another 5 million which they use to repay the first 5 million. We are still out 5 million.

 

[pknopp]

Which isn't being paid for.

I have no idea what you mean by that. The money was appropriated by Congress for the military spending before Trump even brought up the idea.

I mean what I said. It's not being paid for. Something Trump is known for.

Try to follow this:

Money was previously appropriated for military funding.

Trump is taking money from that fund that was appropriated and paying for the wall.

Any other questions?

We didn't pay for that funding. Fact.

We didn't, then who did?

We are 21 Trillion in debt. (officially, it's probably really far higher)

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I have no idea why you ask the same questions over and over again regardless how many times they've been answered. You cannot add additional constitutional requirements to the US Constitution without an amendment to the document.

They are not adding constitutional requirements, they are adding additional requirements to be on their state ballot...and you have said that requirements to be on the ballots are perfectly fine.

I can't keep going back and forth with you on this. You either understand procedural requirements or you don't. You either understand blackmail or you don't. You don't understand any of these things because of this mental block you have for Trump. In fact after a court throws this out, you'll even argue against the decision. That's how bad off you are right now.

You call it blackmail based upon your hyper partisanship. you have no objectivity on the topic. I am saying "wait and see what the courts say", because it is not as black and white as your little Trump loving mind wants it to be.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

Oh, bullshit. The state is not saying Trump can't appear on the electoral ballot. If Trump does not appear on the ballot, it will be his decision not to meet exactly the same requirement that all presidential and gubernatorial candidates are required to make in California.

Keep in mind this is not a general election. The purpose of a presidential primary is to show voter preference to assist political parties in nominating a candidate.

Also, a state presidential primary is not a federal requirement. Until the early 20th century there were no state run presidential primaries. Today primaries are used in most states to help parties determine nominees. However some states still use caucuses.

State parties run caucuses, but state governments conduct primaries. The state determines when and where primaries are held, rules for listing candidates, whether write-ins are allowed, whether the primary is open or closed, etc. The only federal law that applies to primary voting is the Voting Act. Party rules determine how primary election results are handled. In most states, the party selects delegates pledged to the winner of the primary but not always.

They are looking for sleazy ways to take Trump off the ballot. Do you mean to tell me that if Trump doesn't use their standards for the primary, and of course, he's the Republicans nominee, they will put him on the general election ballot?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have no idea what you mean by that. The money was appropriated by Congress for the military spending before Trump even brought up the idea.

I mean what I said. It's not being paid for. Something Trump is known for.

Try to follow this:

Money was previously appropriated for military funding.

Trump is taking money from that fund that was appropriated and paying for the wall.

Any other questions?

We didn't pay for that funding. Fact.

We didn't, then who did?

We are 21 Trillion in debt. (officially, it's probably really far higher)

Okay, if that's the route you want to go. Then Planned Parenthood give aways are not paid for. Food stamps are not paid for. Welfare is not paid for. Commie Care was never paid for. Nothing in our federal budget is paid for.

Happy now?

 

[Flopper]

So all you need to know about a candidate is their age and they are a native born US citizen? That must be because your candidates never lie about themselves. They don't boast and exaggerate their achievements, hide their dealing with foreign governments, mobsters, and shady businesses. They tell you all you need to know.

No, I want to know everything I can about any candidate, but at their option or their opponents research, not a government mandate.

The only thing a tax return can tell us is how much they made, how much they contributed to charity, and how much they wrote off. In other words for the presidency, it tells us nothing. It only tells us of their personal dealings which is really none of the voters business.

Now if they have or had any shady or illegal dealings, do you think they would put those deals on their tax return?

First, California is not forcing Trump to do anything. Trump is choosing to put his name on the primary ballot and thus must meet the same requirement as other candidates both presidential and gubernatorial which is well within the purview of the state.

Second, the republican party in California will send Trump delegates to the convention whether he is on the ballot or not. The presidential primary election in California just shows voter preference. The state committee actually decides who the delegates will be.

Tax forms tell us far more about a candidate than just the money they made and charitable contributions. It tells us how the money was made, the candidate's financial connections domestic and abroad, to who the candidate owes money, investments both domestic and foreign. In short, tax returns reveal where conflicts of interest may lie. Without tax forms, the voter has to rely on the honesty of the candidate and political hacks that create false news as fast as Trump tweets. This is why all modern day presidential candidates except for Trump have released their tax returns.

If your tax preparer is listing who you owe money to, how you are connected to the money, how your money was made, you better first fire them, and secondly, call the authorities.

Your tax form will contain a W2 if you are working for somebody else that has the various taxes and gross income listed. But nowhere does it say who you owe money to perhaps outside of a bank, and the only reason for that is if you are deducting interest rates. It doesn't say how you made that money either. The IRS has no idea I'm a truck driver.

It is a nice list of extremely poor excuses to get Trump's tax returns, when in reality, it has nothing to do with his presidency or anybody running for President. This law is nothing more than blackmail which just about any non-commie court can clearly see.

You cannot make additional requirements to the Constitution as a political attack (which this is) yet alone make additional requirements for any other reason.

Now if this law had a chance at hell in not being defeated by the courts, then Trump or anybody can make up a phony return saying anything he wanted to. There is no way to check that against the IRS files because the IRS files are off limits to everybody.

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Every write off requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one the reason they release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest transaction that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide hide them from voters.

It doesn't matter if Trump releases his returns or not. Democrats will still make up shit.

And whether Trump releases his tax returns or not, he will still be the republican nominee.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You do know your article is from 2012, don't you? That's seven years ago, very post recession.

The claims it was paid back are even older than that. Nothing has changed since the post. We lost big time on the bail outs and then were lied to.

It's funny because it was the Obama administration that lied to us but here you are defending them.

I'm not defending anybody. I'm a believer in the words of James Madison:

"I canot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution, that grants Congress the right, of expending on articles of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, annals of Congress, 1794

Now when you insist that the loans were not really paid back (and they were) I am merely pointing out your false allegation. So you respond by posting a seven year old article to make your point. Well guess what? Everybody has been doing much better since 2012. I'm sure every dime of borrowed money was paid back.

He presents old (but it's proof anyway) data and you say he's wrong. You present newer proof yet it shows that YOU are wrong. And then it's Obama's fault. Wow, james Madison must be churning in the grave knowing you are quoting him on this and then misinterpreting him big time. Or Bigly time. The fact remains, not all have yet to pay back all bailout funds. The biggies have but there was more to it than just what the news covered. The smaller ones just weren't news worthy. And still aren't. And they'll probably get away with it.

Fine, then provide current proof of that, or at least within the last year. Seven years is a long time for people to repay loans. I Googled it every way possible and there are no stories on that claim since 2012.

Nothing new is needed. It's been proven to you. Banks repaid Tarp with Harp funds. They were not obligated to repay Harp funds.

Give a bank 5 million. Give them another 5 million which they use to repay the first 5 million. We are still out 5 million.

We are not out anything because the money they borrowed was already appropriated by the US Congress. In other words, no additional funding was needed. It's the exact same thing with the wall. Congress approved of X amount of money for our military budget. That money will spent whether it's on a wall or new aircraft. Either way it's spent because Congress approved of it's spending.

 

[daveman]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

there is no wall, and will never be a wall.

Trump settled for a fence barrier duplicating portions of the old fence - you know, the one THAT DIDNT ******* WORK STOPPING IMMIGRANTS -

View attachment 272467

liberals: SEE FENCES DON'T WORK THEY DON'T STOP ANYBODY

normal people: uhhh...build more fence, dumbass

With our borders, that is the best you can do. There are thousands and thousands miles of border that can't be fenced.

So the liberal solution is to invite more illegals in and shield them from the law.

Brilliant.

Democrats simply don't take national security seriously.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I want to know everything I can about any candidate, but at their option or their opponents research, not a government mandate.

The only thing a tax return can tell us is how much they made, how much they contributed to charity, and how much they wrote off. In other words for the presidency, it tells us nothing. It only tells us of their personal dealings which is really none of the voters business.

Now if they have or had any shady or illegal dealings, do you think they would put those deals on their tax return?

First, California is not forcing Trump to do anything. Trump is choosing to put his name on the primary ballot and thus must meet the same requirement as other candidates both presidential and gubernatorial which is well within the purview of the state.

Second, the republican party in California will send Trump delegates to the convention whether he is on the ballot or not. The presidential primary election in California just shows voter preference. The state committee actually decides who the delegates will be.

Tax forms tell us far more about a candidate than just the money they made and charitable contributions. It tells us how the money was made, the candidate's financial connections domestic and abroad, to who the candidate owes money, investments both domestic and foreign. In short, tax returns reveal where conflicts of interest may lie. Without tax forms, the voter has to rely on the honesty of the candidate and political hacks that create false news as fast as Trump tweets. This is why all modern day presidential candidates except for Trump have released their tax returns.

If your tax preparer is listing who you owe money to, how you are connected to the money, how your money was made, you better first fire them, and secondly, call the authorities.

Your tax form will contain a W2 if you are working for somebody else that has the various taxes and gross income listed. But nowhere does it say who you owe money to perhaps outside of a bank, and the only reason for that is if you are deducting interest rates. It doesn't say how you made that money either. The IRS has no idea I'm a truck driver.

It is a nice list of extremely poor excuses to get Trump's tax returns, when in reality, it has nothing to do with his presidency or anybody running for President. This law is nothing more than blackmail which just about any non-commie court can clearly see.

You cannot make additional requirements to the Constitution as a political attack (which this is) yet alone make additional requirements for any other reason.

Now if this law had a chance at hell in not being defeated by the courts, then Trump or anybody can make up a phony return saying anything he wanted to. There is no way to check that against the IRS files because the IRS files are off limits to everybody.

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Every write off requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one the reason they release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest transaction that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide hide them from voters.

It doesn't matter if Trump releases his returns or not. Democrats will still make up shit.

And whether Trump releases his tax returns or not, he will still be the republican nominee.

That's the point I'm making. If the little commies come up with some scheme to have a primary race for the Republicans in their state, and Trump tells them to beat a salt bag with their additional requirements, they may try to use that as disqualification from being on their general ballot.

Flopper, they are doing this for a reason. What do you suppose that reason is?????

 

[daveman]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

there is no wall, and will never be a wall.

Trump settled for a fence barrier duplicating portions of the old fence - you know, the one THAT DIDNT ******* WORK STOPPING IMMIGRANTS -

View attachment 272467

liberals: SEE FENCES DON'T WORK THEY DON'T STOP ANYBODY

normal people: uhhh...build more fence, dumbass

Good analogy to a 100 mile wall on a 2000 mile border.

So we should tear down what we have, right? Change the Border Patrol's ROE to make them crossing guards and hand illegals directions to the nearest welfare office and Democrat Party voter registration cards?

 

[Flopper]

As usual, California ignores the Constitution. Article II creates three requirements for the President: citizenship, age, and a period of U.S. residency. NO STATE can impose additional qualifications or requirements. NOT EVEN CALIFORNIA!!

Fuckin' loons.

California did not add any requirements to becoming president. The California tax return law applies only to the primary, not the general election. If Trump's name is not on the primary ballot in California, it will be because Trump, not the state made that decision.