Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 they can, unless:
Supremacy Clause: Any state law that conflicts with federal law is unconstitutional.
So trying to stack the deck by removing the electoral college or insisting on non constitutional demands in an effort to harm a candidate isn't going to wash.
Sorry, but we are going to re-elect Trump, in spite of liberal trickery.
hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.
Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
Orange promised to release his tax returns to the American public. He reneged on that promise, so it's open season on his ass until he concedes. As an American citizen, I fucking demand them now.
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.
Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
Orange promised to release his tax returns to the American public. He reneged on that promise, so it's open season on his ass until he concedes. As an American citizen, I fucking demand them now.
Most could not care less.
Next?
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.
Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
all this disenfranchising voters to me is premature until we understand if the states can even modify requirements for the role of President, of which setting different standards than federal would do.
maybe. like i said - i don't know and it will get challenged sooner or later.well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
all this disenfranchising voters to me is premature until we understand if the states can even modify requirements for the role of President, of which setting different standards than federal would do.
The federal requirements are you’re a citizen and you’re 35 basically. The States have put thresholds on signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot in some cases…. Wouldn’t that be an additional burden placed beyond the Federal requirements that has long been accepted by the States?
i just don't like it when its done in a pouty move cause you lost.
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.hey, it's also a good point that taxes are not a requirement, stop asking for them but let me know if those attacks are personal at this point, or still "best interest of the country" as billed.
Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
all this disenfranchising voters to me is premature until we understand if the states can even modify requirements for the role of President, of which setting different standards than federal would do.
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.Who cares how it's billed? Your Cult45 brainwashing withstanding, there's absolutely nothing wrong with making state requirements for getting on the ballot. You non-conservatives only care about states rights when it benefits your candidates. Your only gripe here is that it could affect Orange. Lame.
Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
all this disenfranchising voters to me is premature until we understand if the states can even modify requirements for the role of President, of which setting different standards than federal would do.
The federal requirements are you’re a citizen and you’re 35 basically. The States have put thresholds on signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot in some cases…. Wouldn’t that be an additional burden placed beyond the Federal requirements that has long been accepted by the States?
Entertain me.
more like no answer you will accept that doesn't also demonize what you already hate.Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
Are you that partisan? Why yes, yes you are. Signature requirements aren't in the Constitution either but are necessary in several states, so a precedent has already been set. And why aren't you bitching about that? Because it might affect your Orange messiah.
Those signature requirements are waived after sufficient voters cast ballots for the party wishing to have their nominees included. That is why Libertarians fought so hard to get on the ballots. Now, they will not have to ever do that again as long as there are sufficient voters in any given election.
How does that change the fact signature requirements are not in the constitution but still legal?
Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com
He will have no cogent answer for this. Watch.
watch.
Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?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. .
Who knew?
Setting arbitrary political tests is fascism. Who knew you didn't know what the fuck you're talking about? Everyone.
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President. [/quote]"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
maybe. like i said - i don't know and it will get challenged sooner or later.
in all im all for making changes to our processes as we discover things that need to be addressed. i just don't like it when its done in a pouty move cause you lost.
like doing away with the electoral college or giving all votes to whoever wins popular vote. not done for the benefit of the country but the PERCEIVED benefit of a side.
well you have to get on the ballot before anyone votes for you. my understanding of the topic is that we're trying to determine if states can supercede federal qualifications for the role of President.Are you that stupid? States can make rules in accordance with the Constitution, but they cannot make additional requirements. The courts have already ruled on this. Remember term limits?
We’re talking about qualifications to get on the ballot ass-pirate, not telling voters who they cannot vote for someone whom they have already considered
"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"
all this disenfranchising voters to me is premature until we understand if the states can even modify requirements for the role of President, of which setting different standards than federal would do.
The federal requirements are you’re a citizen and you’re 35 basically. The States have put thresholds on signatures of registered voters to get on the ballot in some cases…. Wouldn’t that be an additional burden placed beyond the Federal requirements that has long been accepted by the States?
Not really, since it's directly related to the entire purpose of being on the ballot, ie. people voting for you. If there aren't enough people willing to vote for you to get you on the ballot in the first place, there won't be enough people voting for you with the ballot to make your presence there necessary or relevant. As such, it imposes no requirement on the candidate other than what already exists, which would be "getting people to support you".
Please do explain to us, Cornball, how mandatory public release of private tax returns relates as directly to the ballot as voter signatures do.
Silly man. Your "joke" was so stupid even a Trump supporter would "get" it.Are you obtuse, stupid or trying (and failing) to make a joke?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?
You didn't get the meaning because YOU are too stupid to understand it!
I highlighted your comment with red text. Then I mentioned bank records. If I can bank on it, how would you know unless you had access to my bank records!
Dumbass!
So you were stupidly making an obtuse joke. It bombed.
Just because you do not have the ability to understand it does not make it a stupid joke. It means you are stupid for not getting it!
Funny, I never heard one Republican suggest that the democrat nominee should be taken off the ballot.
Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?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. .
Who knew?
Setting arbitrary political tests is fascism. Who knew you didn't know what the fuck you're talking about? Everyone.
Since all candidates of all parties have shown their taxes in the past, I do not think it is a partisan issue.
Right, Obama appointed the head of the IRS and it was revealed that he did not pay his taxes, yet Obama appointed him anyway.
Yep, it's not a partisan issue. GOP bad, DNC good.
But for the life of me, what the hell is the IRS doing anyway? Why can't we rely on them to do their jobs instead of violating the privacy of the individual like this?
Right, Obama appointed the head of the IRS and it was revealed that he did not pay his taxes, yet Obama appointed him anyway.
Obama did a lot a really bad and stupid and dangerous shit. He was a shitty POTUS, but he is gone...move on dude.
Yep, it's not a partisan issue. GOP bad, DNC good.
GOP bad, DNC bad...there is basically no difference between them.
But for the life of me, what the hell is the IRS doing anyway? Why can't we rely on them to do their jobs instead of violating the privacy of the individual like this?
They are harassing private citizens that do not have the money to pay an army of tax lawyers.
