Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[iceberg]

"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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

 

[candycorn]

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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

 

[iceberg]

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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

 

[candycorn]

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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

 

[iceberg]

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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

Perhaps the thread is needed as I have never seen this with the exception of fire arm purchases


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[candycorn]

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

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

It sounds like you’re making this up.

 

[iceberg]

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

It sounds like you’re making this up.

posted a new thread. i guess it's time to go over and scream BRIETBART FAKE.

 

[Tumblin Tumbleweed]

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

Perhaps the thread is needed as I have never seen this with the exception of fire arm purchases


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

He's referring to this: Activists Are Trying To Force Mastercard To Cut Off Payments To The Far Right

Of course, these payment institutions are only targeting extremists and hate groups. Icebrain equates these groups to 'conservatives' for whatever reason.

if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

His words, not mine.

 

[candycorn]

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

holy hell - we agree on something.

what i can open up is a state can require you to not be conservative to be on the ballot. think asking for that would be stupid?

well paypal is already working with SPLC to determine who can use the services in who to blacklist. now mastercard is being told they can't send funds to conservatives and mastercard is actually going to bring that to a vote.

the left needs to calm down with this.

Really? Who can’t you send money to?

not what i said - i said the left is *trying* to limit who MC will send money to or collect for. if you're conservative, they don't want you to be able to use MC services.

why is this the call of the left? why are they even trying this? how can they "try this" and think its fair and ok?

but this is all new thread territory.

It sounds like you’re making this up.

posted a new thread. i guess it's time to go over and scream BRIETBART FAKE.

I’m not that interested in the subject of Master Card and hate groups over seas.

 

[OKTexas]

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

So it's possible the equal protection clause could also come in to play if the law is not applied uniformly.

.

 

[OKTexas]

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...

If you disagree with any of them, feel free to challenge them in court.

.

 

[candycorn]

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...

If you disagree with any of them, feel free to challenge them in court.

.

Likewise if you don’t like the idea of a candidate showing us she/he is paying taxes….

 

[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.

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

No, I'm stating flat-out that just because something is done "customarily", that does not make it okay to force it by law. YOU are dodging by parroting, "Customarily! Customarily! *squawk*" and pretending you didn't hear the point.

And by the way, Noah Webster, "arbitrary" doesn't mean what you think it means.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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?

What part of "public forum" made your dumb ass think you were having a private chat?

 

[OKTexas]

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...

If you disagree with any of them, feel free to challenge them in court.

.

Likewise if you don’t like the idea of a candidate showing us she/he is paying taxes….

If States pass such foolishness you can bet on it.

.

 

[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.

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

More to the point, a majority of the states ratified it. AND it was a change to the Constitution, which actually GETS to change Presidential election requirements. Which means any attempt to call this a parallel situation is a serious overreach.

 

[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.

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?

Awwww, now you’re not even trying. You don’t even get an E for effort, Teach.

 

[Seawytch]

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?

What part of "public forum" made your dumb ass think you were having a private chat?

When there is a topic being discussed, I’d agree with you. You feeling the need to help the poor Admiral is just you being a fat assed busybody. Now, you have every right to be a fat asses busybody if that’s really how you want to portray yourself. You have succeeded there...

 

[Seawytch]

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.

so - you misread every word i posted.

got it.

you don't answer a single point i made on the issue and instead think i'm out to sue vs. understand.

do you even read before you reply anymore? let me dumb it down - if signatures is not in the constitutional process, why are they allowed? if they are allowed, why wouldn't asking for tax returns be allowed?

it's a question - but it was pretty well thought out so i can see why you misunderstood.

This from Wikipedia:

The Supreme Court has not expressly ruled on the maximum level of restrictions that can be imposed on an otherwise qualified candidate or political party seeking ballot access. As a result, lower courts have often reached difficult conclusions about whether a particular ballot access rule is unconstitutional.

I’m with you; I don’t know what the answer is. To me it sets a terrible precedent. Again, if Maine wants you to be a resident of Maine to run for POTUS….can they do that? I don’t know.

This particular change has to be made at the federal level, but it would not require a constitutional amendment, just an FEC rule change.