Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[Harpy Eagle]

But there is a difference between them. The media becomes irate when the GOP and taxes, as well as the Swamp.

However, when the Dims do it all is well with the world.

Why is that do you reckon?

It is all part of the game. The left has their share of the media doing their thing, the right has there's and the followers from both sides are told 100 times a day how amazing their side is and how much the other side wants to kill them and take their shit...

They both have their pet social wedge issue to keep the country divided, because a divided people are easier to control

meanwhile the leaders from both are sitting back in a room somewhere having a beer together laughing their asses off

 

[iceberg]

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.

The problem is that both sides truly believe that only their side is a benefit to the country so they justify these actions as being a benefit to the country.

when it comes up as a reaction, i doubt its needed.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

But there is a difference between them. The media becomes irate when the GOP and taxes, as well as the Swamp.

However, when the Dims do it all is well with the world.

Why is that do you reckon?

Because the media is left leaning. Like, always.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

But there is a difference between them. The media becomes irate when the GOP and taxes, as well as the Swamp.

However, when the Dims do it all is well with the world.

Why is that do you reckon?

Because the media is left leaning. Like, always.

parts of it are for sure...but it is not like the right does not have a voice. There is non-stop talk radio repeating the same story and talking points every hour of the day with different host all saying the same thing...not to mention the most watched cable news network

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

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.

But there is a difference between them. The media becomes irate when the GOP and taxes, as well as the Swamp.

However, when the Dims do it all is well with the world.

Why is that do you reckon?

Because the media is left leaning. Like, always.

parts of it are for sure...but it is not like the right does not have a voice. There is non-stop talk radio repeating the same story and talking points every hour of the day with different host all saying the same thing...not to mention the most watched cable news network

True. The right has the talk radio market cornered for decades. Their voices have gotten louder by embracing new media and state-run Faux News, but this has been a much more recent trend. The left still outnumbers them in print and television news.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

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!

Silly man. Your "joke" was so stupid even a Trump supporter would "get" it.

Oh, did he post a picture of you in a bathing suit?

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

It brings to my mind the Republican controlled congress and the 22nd amendment limiting a person to two presidential terms.

In regards to more recent action, it reminds me of some state legislatures pulling power from the governor's office after their party was voted out of that office and also the national popular vote legislation that a number of states have passed. I haven't much use for those in office playing their partisan politics games in their many forms.

Really? It brings to your mind some biased and completely uneducated idea about history? How very interesting.

And then it reminds you of something completely different which is totally unrelated to this AND unarguably within the state's power to change, but which you want to piss and moan about. Hmmm.

But you are correct that it's similar to the utterly inappropriate attempt to disenfranchise voters, ALSO being carried out by Democrats. So I guess third time's the charm.

 

[Crepitus]

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. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?

Who knew?

Setting arbitrary political tests is fascism. Who knew you didn't know what the fuck you're talking about? Everyone.

Nothing arbitrary about it. It's has been customary for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.

It's not like we suddenly decided no one orange could run.

 

[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. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is 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.

It is a Trump issue

 

[Cecilie1200]

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. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?

Who knew?

Setting arbitrary political tests is fascism. Who knew you didn't know what the fuck you're talking about? Everyone.

Nothing arbitrary about it. It's has been customary for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.

It's not like we suddenly decided no one orange could run.

You do comprehend the difference between "customary" and "legally required", right? Boils down to this funny little word: voluntary.

 

[Crepitus]

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. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?

Who knew?

Setting arbitrary political tests is fascism. Who knew you didn't know what the fuck you're talking about? Everyone.

Nothing arbitrary about it. It's has been customary for presidential candidates to release their tax returns.

It's not like we suddenly decided no one orange could run.

You do comprehend the difference between "customary" and "legally required", right? Boils down to this funny little word: voluntary.

You're dodging. I'm saying it's not just an arbitrary challenge, but something that has been customary for decades

 

[candycorn]

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?!"

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.

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?

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.

That’s your perception...

 

[iceberg]

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?!"

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.

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?

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.

That’s your perception...

well it would be pretty stupid for me to give you someone elses, wouldn't it?

 

[Seawytch]

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

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!

Silly man. Your "joke" was so stupid even a Trump supporter would "get" it.

Oh, did he post a picture of you in a bathing suit?

Who rattled your cage? Is your ass so large you just can’t help but “butt” in?

 

[candycorn]

"We're only talking about keeping people off the ballot. How could you think that's keeping voters from voting for them?!"

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.

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?

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.

That’s your perception...

well it would be pretty stupid for me to give you someone elses, wouldn't it?

Just as it would to perceive a new measure offers a perceived benefit to “one side” when it would affect all candidates IMHO.

 

[BS Filter]

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. .

It is called states having the authority to make state law according to the respective states' desire.

Fascism is what Trump stands for & he can shove it just like you can.

Bullshit. Taking Trump off the ballot is pure fascism. You're obviously scared of the people that vote for Trump.

Trump is not yet on the ballot, nobody is yet. He cannot be taken off of what he is not on.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

It's a given that he intends to be on the ballot in every state.

 

[OKTexas]

Not if it's a clear violation of the laws regarding privacy on tax returns. It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution. The courts won't allow such laws to stand.

.

Where does the Constitution lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures to be on a state ballot?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Regardless, it would be a pristine example of a state utilizing it's discretion on who gets on the ballot.

It would also be a pristine example of how the major parties are treated in relation to independents. Do these laws apply to all candidates at all levels or just the president?

.

 

[OKTexas]

Not if it's a clear violation of the laws regarding privacy on tax returns. It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution. The courts won't allow such laws to stand.

.

Where does the Constitution lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures to be on a state ballot?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

I was responding to this part of your post....It also adds a requirement for office that is not supported by the Constitution.

Is the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures supported by the Constitution?

Are signatures required for major party candidates? It only applies to independent candidates in TX.

.

Does that some how make it better? Does the Constitution support the idea of different tiers of candidates?

And I am not even saying that the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures is wrong, just that no where will you find it supported by the Constitution, so claiming that this is not supported by the Constitution seems a weak argument against it.

The Constitution spells out the requirements for 4 offices, if States want to augment those, see Article 5.

.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

god you're a presumptuous dick.

LOL, many Americans like myself reject Orange and the Cult, and that's all there is to it.

like i said - you'll accept no answer that doesn't join in to your hate-parade.

so - you basically said i am 100% correct - which makes you worthless to talk to. thank you for proving my point.

You words are worthless partisan nonsense anyway. 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. I also don't support cons and liars. Why do you?

You have no right to demand anything, asshole!

STFU and carry on!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Golfing Gator All good points. All will be met with personal attacks and a "just cuz...." response. Watch.

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

They cannot change the qualifications for the office and keeping a nominated member of the Republican party, which has a place on the ballot, violates the supremacy clause.

Now, read that, let it sink in, and STFU with your stupid rants!