Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[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.

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

What change is that?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

 

[iceberg]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

why not state also?

give me good reasons this is needed OTHER THAN TRUMP. you can't change an entire policy and way of doing things cause you don't like 1 person.

that's asinine.

 

[iceberg]

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.

then can the states rule on it at all?

again - i'd think setting state requirements higher than federal would run into problems with federal but there's nothing about collecting signatures either but we must do it.

 

[Avatar4321]

Kind of sad that Democrats are so afraid of Trump that they need to keep Trump off thr ballot in states they generally win

 

[candycorn]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

why not state also?

give me good reasons this is needed OTHER THAN TRUMP. you can't change an entire policy and way of doing things cause you don't like 1 person.

that's asinine.

Its always better to have more information on those running for office. Trump will be out of public life in either 500 days or a little over 5 years.

What some would call asinine is wanting to know less about who is leading your nation.

 

[rightwinger]

In 2018, Dems ran on the threat to healthcare
Republicans ran on the threat of immigrant carivans

Republicans lost bigly as the Dems got out the anti Trump vote

 

[iceberg]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

why not state also?

give me good reasons this is needed OTHER THAN TRUMP. you can't change an entire policy and way of doing things cause you don't like 1 person.

that's asinine.

Its always better to have more information on those running for office. Trump will be out of public life in either 500 days or a little over 5 years.

What some would call asinine is wanting to know less about who is leading your nation.

the line to me gets crossed when you are not looking on what was done, but what you can attack. the dems are looking for ANYTHING they can to hold against him. to think anything there is illegal is to think the IRS is incompetent.

 

[SavannahMann]

Why stop here? Why not have the candidates release their browser history from the ISP? That way we can see what kind of wild and kinky porn they’re into.

Why not mandate that all candidates must release their medical records? Or take a Psych Eval, or anything else? If we can do it for Tax Returns, why can’t we do it for anything else? And if we can, you know we will. How many of you on the left cheering this asinine move, will be up in arms when some State Legislature requires that the complete, without redactions, medical records must be made public? Sure there is a law that says that your health care provider must keep this information confidential, but hey, what do you have to hide?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

why not state also?

give me good reasons this is needed OTHER THAN TRUMP. you can't change an entire policy and way of doing things cause you don't like 1 person.

that's asinine.

That would have to be state law. The thread is about requiring it of candidates for federal office. States can’t do it (making this thread moot)

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Lol, and I'm stating because it is a long established custom it certainly can't be described as "arbitrary". It's not like no-one has ever asked before, and it's also no like he didn't promise to show them either.

 

[candycorn]

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

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

why not state also?

give me good reasons this is needed OTHER THAN TRUMP. you can't change an entire policy and way of doing things cause you don't like 1 person.

that's asinine.

Its always better to have more information on those running for office. Trump will be out of public life in either 500 days or a little over 5 years.

What some would call asinine is wanting to know less about who is leading your nation.

the line to me gets crossed when you are not looking on what was done, but what you can attack. the dems are looking for ANYTHING they can to hold against him. to think anything there is illegal is to think the IRS is incompetent.

It better to know more about who seeks the office. Bottom line.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I am no longer a teacher. Have a nice day!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Bullshit!

The Constitution lays out the requirements. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

What change is that?

A change to require tax returns from federal candidates.

Bullshit! You should get a job at John Deere with all the manure you spread!

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Bullshit!

The Constitution lays out the requirements. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say candidates must file financial disclosure paperwork? Every candidate running is required to do so.

 

[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.

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.

I am no longer a teacher. Have a nice day!

I will knowing that, thank you!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Bullshit!

The Constitution lays out the requirements. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say candidates must file financial disclosure paperwork? Every candidate running is required to do so.

That is not a Constitutional requirement but deals with funding campaigns, not eligibility. Why are you such a dumbass?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

I am no longer a teacher. Have a nice day!

I will knowing that, thank you!

So what do you do, other than being a professional moron?

 

[Seawytch]

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.

Bullshit!

The Constitution lays out the requirements. No ifs, ands, or buts about it!

Really? Where in the Constitution does it say candidates must file financial disclosure paperwork? Every candidate running is required to do so.

That is not a Constitutional requirement but deals with funding campaigns, not eligibility. Why are you such a dumbass?

It is still a requirement to run for office...and it's not in the Constitution. Neither are signature gathering requirements.

I think the next democratic president should change the FEC rules and see what the courts have to say.