no tax return, no place on ballot

[Andylusion]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

 

[karpenter]

That is because each state added them to the "automatic" list...which is and of itself is bullshit.

You Are Full Of Bullshit
Libertarian Party Garnered Enough Votes NATION-WIDE In 1992
(When They Were NOT On The Ballots Of All 50 States)
That They No Longer Had To Petition
To Be On The Ballots Of ANY Of The 50 States

Show How That Is State Rules
And Not Federal

If the Feds make the rules why was McMullin only on the ballots in 11 states?

He Had To Petition To Be On The Ballots
'Independent' Isn't A Political Party That Can Garner Votes
He Ran On His Own, With-Out Any Party Endorsement
Just Like The Other 'Independents'

You Really Don't Know What You're Talking About
Do You ??

Trump Will Be On The Ballot Of Every State
Including California And New York
And There's Nothing They Can Do About It

 

[karpenter]

We went to Baltimore high schools to find an educated democrat and couldn't find a single kid who could read or write at grade level

That's The Actual Democrat Base
Although They Try To Convince Everyone Otherwise

They Don't Know How Our Elections Work Either

 

[karpenter]

Using your standards, that pretty much excludes Trump from being on the ballot in all 50 states.

Nope
They Are NOT Trying To Remove Trump From The Ballot
They Are Actually Trying To Remove The Republican Party NOMINEE From The Ballot
They Just Don't Have That Authority

 

[pknopp]

sounds good to me -

Trump’s tax returns required under new California election law

Does this apply to Pelosi?

Yes when she runs for president she will be required to release her tax returns. Just like everyone else who runs for president.

Except of course, trump. Even though he said he would release his tax returns he has not and has fought to keep it secret.

It's as legitimate of a question to ask of everyone. This is why nothing gets done. Everyone is willing to overlook in their politician what they will not overlook in someone else's.

I don't think so.

What exactly do you think would get done, if Trump released his tax returns? Nothing. His tax returns would simply be a political football to kick around by the Democrats, and he knows that.

My reply was in discussion about why this would not apply to other politicians if people were wanting transparency. But since you said what you did, I will once again note that Trump said more than once he would release them. Why Lie?

Even more ironic, having that political football to kick around, would serve as a distraction from getting stuff done. People would be screaming back and fourth over his tax return, and accomplishing nothing.

He isn't getting stuff done.

And while you say it is a legitimate question to ask of everyone.... why? What business is it of yours? Are you suggesting that there is something illegal in his tax return, that magically the IRS which prosecutes people every single year on this, was giving him a free pass on? Do you have any evidence to warrant that accusation? If so, file it in court, to have his tax return made public.

But of course there is nothing to suggest that Trump has done anything wrong.

So why is someone's tax return your business? Why is someone who has done nothing wrong, and no evidence of doing anything wrong, to have his tax returns looked through?

Because he said he would.

 

[MAGAman]

You spout the constitution. Where in it does it specifically cover this? Just throwing that out there may sound good in your head but to the rest of us it sounds like throwing crap at a wall and hoping something sticks.

I didn't spout the constitution. I read it.

I've color coded a few important parts for your convenience.

This part of the Constitution determines who is eligible to be elected as POTUS:
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
- ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5

This part determines that the Federal government cannot determine who has the right to be the Republican nominee in their state:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
-AMENDMENT 1

This Part of the Constitution ensures that states cannot remove rights from citizens provided in the Bill of Rights, and other rights:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within"
-AMENDMENT 14


Imagine what would have happened if Democrats, after losing their slaves, Jim Crow laws, and Segregation battles, had been allowed to make it illegal for Blacks to run for President.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law

They are not overriding it, it will still be confidential until such time as the candidates volunteer to make it not so.

Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason

You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election. Evan McMullin only was on 11 ballots in 2016 because every state has different rules.

Why should "major" party candidates get special treatment? Where is that in the Constitution?

The Constitution sets the rule for Presidential elections.

End of the story

Then show me the part of the Constitution that list the deadlines to get put on a ballot and the part of the Constitution that requires people to collect signatures to be a state’s ballot.

So in your fictitious nation, the State can impose a standard that a Candidate must be a Crossdresser under the age of 35 to be on the ballot?

Think, McFly! Think!

States CANNOT preempt Federal law.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law

They are not overriding it, it will still be confidential until such time as the candidates volunteer to make it not so.

Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason

You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election. Evan McMullin only was on 11 ballots in 2016 because every state has different rules.

Why should "major" party candidates get special treatment? Where is that in the Constitution?

The Constitution sets the rule for Presidential elections.

End of the story

Then show me the part of the Constitution that list the deadlines to get put on a ballot and the part of the Constitution that requires people to collect signatures to be a state’s ballot.

So in your fictitious nation, the State can impose a standard that a Candidate must be a Crossdresser under the age of 35 to be on the ballot?

Think, McFly! Think!

States CANNOT preempt Federal law.

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

 

[Flopper]

Trump is a known liar. I want to see what he sent to the IRS.

Want in one hand and shit in the other and see which fills up the fastest. Federal law says tax returns are confidential and release without the taxpayers consent is a felony. Neither you or CA has the authority to force a taxpayer to release their returns.

.

California is not forcing Trump to release his tax return. It's his choice.

And so if every state is allowed to add their own requirements of the Constitution, then the Republican can't run in those states and he's not deprived of the constitutional right to run for President?

California did not change the constitutional requirements for being president nor did they add any candidate requirements for listing on the ballot of the presidential general election.

They added requirements for all presidential and state gubernatorial candidates seeking to be listed on state primary ballots. The state does nothing with presidential primary results accept publish them. It is up to the political parties to use those as they sees fit.

What happens in California is not going have any effect on the outcome of the presidential race. Trump people have written off California just as they did in 2016.

That is not the point. The point is what they are doing is totally unconstitutional. If Trump allows them to get away with this because it's meaningless, then what's next?

What's next is that if CA gets away with it, some commie in a swing state might do the same. You have to stop anti-Americans in their track at the first sign of trouble, or like any other child, they will advance to the next step.

How can it be unconstitutional for the state to require tax returns for gubernatorial and presidential candidates in a state primary? This is certainly within the purview of the states.

The purpose of a presidential primary is to show voter preference which can be used by state party committees in selecting delegates to the national convention. Neither states nor the federal government require a presidential primary. It's an alternative to a caucus which is organized and manage by the party. If republicans in California don't like the state primary rules, they can call a caucus and make their selection without the primary.

If the state passed a law that the tax returns were required in a general presidential election, then all the federal elections laws would apply. The state claims the law would be constitution in a general presidential election. I'm not sure about that.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

This State Law Over-Rides Pre-Existing Federal Law
That Says Federal Income Tax Returns Are Confidential To The IRS
So California Doesn't Have Legal Standing To Enact This Law

They are not overriding it, it will still be confidential until such time as the candidates volunteer to make it not so.

Can You Show That States Make The Rules On Federal Elections
Because It Would Seem The Federal Gov't Makes The Rules On National Elections
Would That Be Why The Libertarian Party
Is Now Automatically On The Ballots Of All Fifty States
Where Does An Individual State Have The Authority
To Drop The Republican Candidate From Any Election, For Any Reason

You are wrong, the Fed Govt does not make the rules on National Election. Evan McMullin only was on 11 ballots in 2016 because every state has different rules.

Why should "major" party candidates get special treatment? Where is that in the Constitution?

The Constitution sets the rule for Presidential elections.

End of the story

Then show me the part of the Constitution that list the deadlines to get put on a ballot and the part of the Constitution that requires people to collect signatures to be a state’s ballot.

So in your fictitious nation, the State can impose a standard that a Candidate must be a Crossdresser under the age of 35 to be on the ballot?

Think, McFly! Think!

States CANNOT preempt Federal law.

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

There are only 2 possible outcomes to CA lawless and reckless behavior: Trump sends in 82nd Airborne to force CA to comply with the law or its Torches and Pitchforks time, folks

 

[MAGAman]

Because he said he would. (Release his taxes)

Apparently he changed his mind.

His tax returns aren't your business.

Feel free to post your tax returns in your reply.

 

[pknopp]

Because he said he would. (Release his taxes)

Apparently he changed his mind.

His tax returns aren't your business.

Feel free to post your tax returns in your reply.

No, he lied. I don't care about his tax returns. I've stated that repeatedly. I care about a president honoring his word.

 

[MAGAman]

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

Please list the additional standards states impose that could stop a party from nominating the candidate of it's choice for elections in that state.

So would you think it constitutional for Texas to require all nominees to have an NRA membership and show all of their college and medical records?

 

[MAGAman]

Because he said he would. (Release his taxes)

Apparently he changed his mind.

His tax returns aren't your business.

Feel free to post your tax returns in your reply.

No, he lied. I don't care about his tax returns. I've stated that repeatedly. I care about a president honoring his word.

Then I guess you're voting for Jesus Christ this election?

What candidate hasn't lied?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

Please list the additional standards states impose that could stop a party from nominating the candidate of it's choice for elections in that state.

So would you think it constitutional for Texas to require all nominees to have an NRA membership and show all of their college and medical records?

Every state has signature requirements for any candidate not of a select few parties.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

Please list the additional standards states impose that could stop a party from nominating the candidate of it's choice for elections in that state.

So would you think it constitutional for Texas to require all nominees to have an NRA membership and show all of their college and medical records?

By the way, we are all still waiting on that classified data you said would be made public yesterday...any updates on that?

 

[MAGAman]

How can it be unconstitutional for the state to require tax returns for gubernatorial and presidential candidates in a state primary? This is certainly within the purview of the states.

The purpose of a presidential primary is to show voter preference to be used by state party committees in selecting representatives to the national convention. Neither states nor the federal government require a presidential primary. It's an alternative to a caucus which is organized and manage by the party. If republicans in California don't like the state primary rules, they can call a caucus and make their selection without the primary.

If the state passed a law that the tax returns were required in a general presidential election, then all the federal elections laws would apply. The state claims the law would be constitution in a general presidential election. I'm not sure about that.

Read the Constitution and you'll figure it out as far as POTUS nominees go.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How can it be unconstitutional for the state to require tax returns for gubernatorial and presidential candidates in a state primary? This is certainly within the purview of the states.

The purpose of a presidential primary is to show voter preference to be used by state party committees in selecting representatives to the national convention. Neither states nor the federal government require a presidential primary. It's an alternative to a caucus which is organized and manage by the party. If republicans in California don't like the state primary rules, they can call a caucus and make their selection without the primary.

If the state passed a law that the tax returns were required in a general presidential election, then all the federal elections laws would apply. The state claims the law would be constitution in a general presidential election. I'm not sure about that.

Read the Constitution and you'll figure it out as far as POTUS nominees go.

Can you highlight the part of the Constitution that list the requirement for 10,000 signatures?

 

[MAGAman]

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

Please list the additional standards states impose that could stop a party from nominating the candidate of it's choice for elections in that state.

So would you think it constitutional for Texas to require all nominees to have an NRA membership and show all of their college and medical records?

Every state has signature requirements for any candidate not of a select few parties.

That's not what I asked.

Currently, the GOP, Democrat Party, and other parties will all decide their own nominees without asking permission from the States as to who they can put on the ballot.

You are saying the the state of California can disqualify a party's nominee because they're butt-hurt.

Please link me to a state that has ever denied a party the right to pick it's own nominee for their ballot.

 

[MAGAman]

I am saying that states already impose standards that are not in the Constitution. They have been upheld by the courts.

Whether this one will be is yet to be seen.

And no, a rule he must be under 35 would violate the constitution directly.

Please list the additional standards states impose that could stop a party from nominating the candidate of it's choice for elections in that state.

So would you think it constitutional for Texas to require all nominees to have an NRA membership and show all of their college and medical records?

By the way, we are all still waiting on that classified data you said would be made public yesterday...any updates on that?

I never said that.

Would you care to address the post, or continue to deflect in order to hide your failure?