Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?!"

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?

No, those are not the requirements. Is there anything else you can fuck up worse?

 

[keepitreal]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

You simply amaze me at how truly fucking ignorant you are. Do they let you access the computer at all times, or is it restricted to certain times there at the Home for Terminally Bewildered?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

In Congress, 47 Democrats in the House and 16 Senators voted for the Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

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?

It was his Treasury Secretary, not head of the IRS, Timothy Geitner, who then became known as Turbo Tax Timmy!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

 

[keepitreal]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

As well as that may be...
TOO FUCKING BAD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT

There is NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER, in my mind
her husband and many others in or connected to Congress members,
benefited from putting us trillions in debt...Bailout and stimulus

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

As well as that may be...
TOO FUCKING BAD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT

There is NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER, in my mind
her husband and many others in or connected to Congress members,
benefited from putting us trillions in debt...Bailout and stimulus

Most people don't know that Pelosi's husband owned a fish cannery in one of the American islands in the Pacific. She had it written into the minimum wage law that it would not apply to the territory where the factory was located so he could maintain his pool of slave labor and reduce his costs.

 

[candycorn]

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?

.

It’s a proposal that probably varies by state

 

[keepitreal]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

As well as that may be...
TOO FUCKING BAD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT

There is NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER, in my mind
her husband and many others in or connected to Congress members,
benefited from putting us trillions in debt...Bailout and stimulus

Most people don't know that Pelosi's husband owned a fish cannery in one of the American islands in the Pacific. She had it written into the minimum wage law that it would not apply to the territory where the factory was located so he could maintain his pool of slave labor and reduce his costs.

Fucking corrupted bitch...she'll get hers

When shit hits the fan...and it will
When the snapping starts, they'll be picked off

 

[candycorn]

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.

.

And every 4 years the states utilize barriers of all sorts to limit the ballot choices. Filing fees, signature thresholds, etc...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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. .

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

As well as that may be...
TOO FUCKING BAD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT

There is NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER, in my mind
her husband and many others in or connected to Congress members,
benefited from putting us trillions in debt...Bailout and stimulus

Most people don't know that Pelosi's husband owned a fish cannery in one of the American islands in the Pacific. She had it written into the minimum wage law that it would not apply to the territory where the factory was located so he could maintain his pool of slave labor and reduce his costs.

Fucking corrupted bitch...she'll get hers

When shit hits the fan...and it will
When the snapping starts, they'll be picked off

Snapping?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

.

And every 4 years the states utilize barriers of all sorts to limit the ballot choices. Filing fees, signature thresholds, etc...

Those do not apply to recognized political parties who have demonstrated a voter threshold How many times are you going to beat yourself over the head with this pathetic attempt at reasoning and logic? You do not have anywhere near the mental faculties to even remotely have a chance of pulling it off!.

 

[keepitreal]

I want to see Congressional members tax returns....
ESPECIALLY PELOSI AND WATERS

I want to see the tax filings
for Pelosi's husband, since 2006

You couldn't anyway as they are only required to be maintained for 7 years.

As well as that may be...
TOO FUCKING BAD, GIVE ME WHAT I WANT

There is NO DOUBT, WHATSOEVER, in my mind
her husband and many others in or connected to Congress members,
benefited from putting us trillions in debt...Bailout and stimulus

Most people don't know that Pelosi's husband owned a fish cannery in one of the American islands in the Pacific. She had it written into the minimum wage law that it would not apply to the territory where the factory was located so he could maintain his pool of slave labor and reduce his costs.

Fucking corrupted bitch...she'll get hers

When shit hits the fan...and it will
When the snapping starts, they'll be picked off

Snapping?

Going postal...snapping

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

.

The Constitution does not lay out the requirement for collecting a certain number of signatures as a qualification, yet that still exist and you have never complained about it and still do not.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

.

And every 4 years the states utilize barriers of all sorts to limit the ballot choices. Filing fees, signature thresholds, etc...

Those do not apply to recognized political parties who have demonstrated a voter threshold How many times are you going to beat yourself over the head with this pathetic attempt at reasoning and logic? You do not have anywhere near the mental faculties to even remotely have a chance of pulling it off!.

There is nothing in the Constitution about recognized political parties or voter threshold

 

[iceberg]

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!

he can demand all he wants. i've gone back to ignoring the useless. he's most certainly on the list. his "demands" show he's likely screaming either up from the basement or his attic greg brady apartment to mom or grandma to get him a grape nehi anyway.

 

[iceberg]

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?

No, those are not the requirements. Is there anything else you can fuck up worse?

guess you can scream at me also cause i see these as valid questions. maybe it was my college professor pounding programming flow charts into my head in 1987, i've drank most of those memory cells dead anyway.

but if the argument is the requirements at the state level cannot supercede those at the federal level for the office of the president, then asking questions to compare is usually a good thing as it leads to a deeper understanding, not this surface level place most of us stay in discussions.

if they can require a certain number of signatures to get you on the ballot and that is *not* listed as a federal requirement, then how is asking for tax returns any less of a requirement? you still need to go through an action to get a result. those actions must either be clearly different in nature or substance to warrant a different reasoning behind them, or they're not; ergo something the states *can* do.

i have zero idea on this one but the point is very valid and to be discussed, imho; not dismissed.

i think it's stupid as it's done as a knee jerk reaction by whining democrats; but that's usually what forces change anyway. no one changes things when they're happy with it. can't remember the last time i sat around the house going "god damn i'm happy, this must stop". so regardless of what brought the topic up - it's obviously up.

should tax returns be shown in order to hold a public office? are there other public offices out there where you must show them? i have zero problem with this being added to the list of requirements as long as it's legal and is added to our system via the processes we have in place to come about such change. if it doesn't make it through that damnation ally, then it does and we move on w/o it. but if it does make it through the gauntlet, then its not just the whiners who agree it should be there.

the entire time the left has bitched that trump won't show his taxes fell on deaf ears for me. not a requirement, STFU. change the process, i said. so that's what they're trying to do. lets see if it works.

this to me makes more sense as a requirement that trying to change the electoral college. both are done in losers rage but again, that's usually what brings changes like this.

so - to wrap up - if collecting names is a requirement to be on the ballot, and this is NOT spelled out at a federal level, then why is showing taxes "taboo"? i'd rather hear legal reasons than personal anger from either side. in the end i think this will wind up in court anyway and be challenged. here is where trump has put conservatives back on the map and if they approve, then it's not just liberal rage.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

No, those are not the requirements. Is there anything else you can fuck up worse?

guess you can scream at me also cause i see these as valid questions. maybe it was my college professor pounding programming flow charts into my head in 1987, i've drank most of those memory cells dead anyway.

but if the argument is the requirements at the state level cannot supercede those at the federal level for the office of the president, then asking questions to compare is usually a good thing as it leads to a deeper understanding, not this surface level place most of us stay in discussions.

if they can require a certain number of signatures to get you on the ballot and that is *not* listed as a federal requirement, then how is asking for tax returns any less of a requirement? you still need to go through an action to get a result. those actions must either be clearly different in nature or substance to warrant a different reasoning behind them, or they're not; ergo something the states *can* do.

i have zero idea on this one but the point is very valid and to be discussed, imho; not dismissed.

i think it's stupid as it's done as a knee jerk reaction by whining democrats; but that's usually what forces change anyway. no one changes things when they're happy with it. can't remember the last time i sat around the house going "god damn i'm happy, this must stop". so regardless of what brought the topic up - it's obviously up.

should tax returns be shown in order to hold a public office? are there other public offices out there where you must show them? i have zero problem with this being added to the list of requirements as long as it's legal and is added to our system via the processes we have in place to come about such change. if it doesn't make it through that damnation ally, then it does and we move on w/o it. but if it does make it through the gauntlet, then its not just the whiners who agree it should be there.

the entire time the left has bitched that trump won't show his taxes fell on deaf ears for me. not a requirement, STFU. change the process, i said. so that's what they're trying to do. lets see if it works.

this to me makes more sense as a requirement that trying to change the electoral college. both are done in losers rage but again, that's usually what brings changes like this.

so - to wrap up - if collecting names is a requirement to be on the ballot, and this is NOT spelled out at a federal level, then why is showing taxes "taboo"? i'd rather hear legal reasons than personal anger from either side. in the end i think this will wind up in court anyway and be challenged. here is where trump has put conservatives back on the map and if they approve, then it's not just liberal rage.

Go ahead and sue about the signatures required for ballot access. It's no skin off my nore for you to waste your money.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

"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?

No, those are not the requirements. Is there anything else you can fuck up worse?

guess you can scream at me also cause i see these as valid questions. maybe it was my college professor pounding programming flow charts into my head in 1987, i've drank most of those memory cells dead anyway.

but if the argument is the requirements at the state level cannot supercede those at the federal level for the office of the president, then asking questions to compare is usually a good thing as it leads to a deeper understanding, not this surface level place most of us stay in discussions.

if they can require a certain number of signatures to get you on the ballot and that is *not* listed as a federal requirement, then how is asking for tax returns any less of a requirement? you still need to go through an action to get a result. those actions must either be clearly different in nature or substance to warrant a different reasoning behind them, or they're not; ergo something the states *can* do.

i have zero idea on this one but the point is very valid and to be discussed, imho; not dismissed.

i think it's stupid as it's done as a knee jerk reaction by whining democrats; but that's usually what forces change anyway. no one changes things when they're happy with it. can't remember the last time i sat around the house going "god damn i'm happy, this must stop". so regardless of what brought the topic up - it's obviously up.

should tax returns be shown in order to hold a public office? are there other public offices out there where you must show them? i have zero problem with this being added to the list of requirements as long as it's legal and is added to our system via the processes we have in place to come about such change. if it doesn't make it through that damnation ally, then it does and we move on w/o it. but if it does make it through the gauntlet, then its not just the whiners who agree it should be there.

the entire time the left has bitched that trump won't show his taxes fell on deaf ears for me. not a requirement, STFU. change the process, i said. so that's what they're trying to do. lets see if it works.

this to me makes more sense as a requirement that trying to change the electoral college. both are done in losers rage but again, that's usually what brings changes like this.

so - to wrap up - if collecting names is a requirement to be on the ballot, and this is NOT spelled out at a federal level, then why is showing taxes "taboo"? i'd rather hear legal reasons than personal anger from either side. in the end i think this will wind up in court anyway and be challenged. here is where trump has put conservatives back on the map and if they approve, then it's not just liberal rage.

Go ahead and sue about the signatures required for ballot access. It's no skin off my nore for you to waste your money.

Can you point us all to the part of the Constitution that lays out recognized political parties or voter threshold