Democrats move to take Trump off the ballot

[rightwinger]

It is a reasonable requirement

Trump just has to release his taxes like everyone else

 

[iceberg]

It is a reasonable requirement

Trump just has to release his taxes like everyone else

it
is
not
a
fucking
requirement

 

[candycorn]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

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

.

The Const

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

That is total bullshit.

We are choosing a candidate. How We have a right to know how he is enterswined with foreign governments, etc

so explain uranium one again for us. or the Ukraine issues in helping hillary. or what obama meant by "let me get re-elected and i'll help".

when you hold values equally you have a point. til then, you're just...this shit.

lie

 

[Harpy Eagle]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

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

.

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

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

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

 

[rightwinger]

It is a reasonable requirement

Trump just has to release his taxes like everyone else

it
is
not
a
fucking
requirement

Of course it is if a state passes a law
It is their electoral votes for president
They can set the terms for winning them

 

[Crepitus]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?

Who knew?

What other litmus tests will you then add to the election process? Religion? Party affiliation? Who you associate with? What neighborhood you live in?

Will you require EVERY candidate, to tell the truth, or just those you disagree with?

Every candidate.

 

[justoffal]

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?

What other litmus tests will you then add to the election process? Religion? Party affiliation? Who you associate with? What neighborhood you live in?

Will you require EVERY candidate, to tell the truth, or just those you disagree with?

Every candidate.

You have already failed that test

Jo

 

[candycorn]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

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

.

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

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

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

Wonder why they won’t answer you…. hmmmm

 

[Crepitus]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Requiring a candidate to tell the truth is fascism?

Who knew?

What other litmus tests will you then add to the election process? Religion? Party affiliation? Who you associate with? What neighborhood you live in?

Will you require EVERY candidate, to tell the truth, or just those you disagree with?

Every candidate.

You have already failed that test

Jo

Oh, so that was one of those "no correct answer" questions.

Why didn't you just say so? That way I could have ignored it.

 

[rightwinger]

If Trump can’t run in some states, it is his own fault

 

[longknife]

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. .

This will never happen.
It's unconstitutional and a whole lot of federal judges and appelate courts will overturn the efforts.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

Yeah ... The RWs love them some "states rights" -- until it disagrees with their agenda.

As for taking trump off the ballot - We should be working to take him off the planet.

Surely trumpkins would like to see him in charge of his Space Corps. He needs to be on the moon to do that. Better yet, Neptune.

 

[candycorn]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

Yeah ... The RWs love them some "states rights" -- until it disagrees with their agenda.

As for taking trump off the ballot - We should be working to take him off the planet.

Surely trumpkins would like to see him in charge of his Space Corps. He needs to be on the moon to do that. Better yet, Neptune.

Nice.

 

[OKTexas]

States move to require all presidential candidates to release taxes

All we hear from democrats are accusations that the GOP are tying to suppress the vote in a myriad of ways

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

That dear friends is called fascism. .

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

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

.

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

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

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

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

.

 

[candycorn]

Shouldn't States be able to write their own rules?

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

.

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

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

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

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

.

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

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

Candidates already file financial paperwork that is public information...and we manage to redact all the private information before it is made public. Tax returns would be treated no differently, but THIS particular change to rules has to be made at the Federal level....and it will be in the future, you can bank on it.

How will we know? Are you going to make bank records public also?

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!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

And the crazy stuff just gets more crazy, nit picking every little thing, but no OP's on the people (mostly lobbyist) that run the DOI, EPA HHS, DOD, and a unqualified billionaire Amway heiress who runs the DOED. guess every ones OK with corporations running the government.

There is no such thing as DOED. Try again, dumbass!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I question whether such a move would be constitutional. Yes, the states have the power to regulate elections, which includes ballot access. However, this does not accomplish any legitimate interest in regulating ballot access. This only establishes a political test, with the effect of secretly creating an additional qualification for an elected federal office. And the states have no power to institute new or additional qualifications for elected federal offices.

How are financial record requirements political?

How are they not in light of the right to privacy?

All candidates have to provide them, not just Republican candidates, making it apolitical. Candidates filing for office already provide other financial documents, these would simply be in addition to those. Private, personal, information can be redacted.

To what purpose are you going to put people who want to serve into legal jeopardy from political hacks such as yourself?

In order for a law like this to be Constitutional, it would have to first prove that there is a pattern in the entire system of corruption that could be quelled if the information is released. In other words, there must be a reasonable reason to violate the rights of the citizens. I don't like him is NOT a reasonable standard.

It isn't even a law now, and already the concept of it is being abused by political hacks.

That is total bullshit.

We are choosing a candidate. How We have a right to know how he is enterswined with foreign governments, etc

WTF is "enterswined"? Is that when you have sex with your pet pig?

The FEC has his financial disclosure documents. I suggest you take a look.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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

.

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


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

And signatures violate privacy laws, HOW?

.

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

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

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

.

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

My God, the stupid is strong in you!

States cannot make a requirement that is not in the Constitution. When will you STFU and understand what you have been repeatedly told and shown?

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Democrats know they are going to lose and are desperate to stop the failure.