no tax return, no place on ballot

[LuckyDuck]

Wrong. They are adding a requirement to run for President. If the founders wanted states to make their own requirements, they would have stated so in the Constitution. The state of Commie Fornia decided to change the requirements which is unconstitutional, and they know it.

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

 

[daveman]

Other countries protect drug companies form the slip and fall lawyers, the US doesn't. That makes the cost of doing business in the US many times more expensive. You children that have never been in business have no clue what you're talking about.

.

That old trial lawyer bullshit was trotted out during the Gingrich years, I do believe.

It was the sole reason our healthcare costs were so high. If we could just have tort reform, it would all be fixed.

In modern times, in order to get medical treatment at most places, you are required to give up your access to our United States court system because you are forced to sign an arbitration agreement.

The medical provider selects the arbitrator and the decision is final and binding.

Your arguments are 30 years out of date.

I guess you haven't seen all the ads on TV, it's very relevant today. Successful plaintiffs attorneys are multimillionaires, where do you think that money comes from?

.

I have not seen one ad about that in recent times. Seriously. We aren't seeing that where I live in California.

I guess they save that kind of advertising for the poor stupid red states. They probably don't even know they are signing arbitration agreements.

I think you're lying, one of the ads running now is in connection to an aids drug. With all the fagots in CA they have to be running there.

.

Never seen it. We handle our healthcare differently than the stupid red states. They probably aren't relevant here.

You sure do handle healthcare differently. You give free healthcare to illegals, and fine people who can't afford Obamacare to pay for it.

How is it you believe that's a better system?

 

[daveman]

Yeah, because the government forcing people to buy something under penalty of law, and taking other people's money by threat of force to help pay for it, is not at all totalitarian.

Yeah, you sure showed me, didn't you?

Ok, so you think pretty much all wesern democracies are communist.

Do you hate being forced to pay for potholes too?

Repairing potholes benefit society equally. Forcing one person to pay for another's healthcare is one benefiting at the disadvantage of another.

Repairing potholes benefit society but Medicare doesn't? OK, that's a new one.

That's not a new one... are you an idiot? I'm not benefiting from Medicare, and have not my entire life. Most people do not benefit from Medicare.

Most people don't benefit from a potholes being fixed on streets they don't personally drive on either. If you make it to retirement, you'll benefit from Medicare, if not you then someone in your family.

How can people like you even say stuff like that? Medicare covers barely 55 million people. There are 330 Million people in this country. Is math that hard for you?[/quote[

At one time, that's a lot of people. Chances are the local fire department didn't save your house either, you're still paying for them to save others.

Clearing pot holes benefits absolutely everyone, including the people on Medicare. Medicare benefits a minority, at the expense of the majority. I have been paying for Medicare, that has never benefited me yet in my life. I am harmed by Medicare, because I have to pay for it, while I get nothing in return.

Like pot hole repairs it benefits most at some point in their life. Maybe you should go protest all those potholes that have been fixed on all the roads you don't drive on.

Meanwhile, Medicare is going broke.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics

We have $122 Trillion in unfunded liabilities with Medicare.

Do you see a slight difference? Clearing pot holes benefits everyone, and doesn't bankrupt the country. Medicare benefits a few, and can very easily bankrupt the country.

Yes, stupid.... Repairing pot holes benefits society, and Medicare most certainly does not. Facts over opinions.

Maybe stop pushing tax cuts for the wealthy if you're concerned about debt and unfunded mandates.

The wealthy don't have enough money to pay for your handout programs, let alone the debt and unfunded mandates.

 

[MaryL]

Hell yeah, every other president made their tax returns public. I like that. And whilst we are at it, tie in to that public disclosure stuff, a really nasty issue that will piss off liberals. Sanctuary cities, I would tie into that a big federal investigation as to the legality and constitutional nature of sanctuary cities. And those that made it happen, and how they sort of sidestepped their constituents wants and needs. Piddly stuff like that. Being sanctuary cities harm American citizens, the very people that vote, and the fact it was never on any ballot or questionnaire or public debate or inquiry, and that perhaps our noble Dem lib leaders were compromised by the need of groups that profit from exploiting cheap labor illegals represent...I welcome looking to all those deep dark dank secrets of the entitled and greedy. Of whatever ilk. And lets follow all the legal implications.

 

[daveman]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

there is no wall, and will never be a wall.

Trump settled for a fence barrier duplicating portions of the old fence - you know, the one THAT DIDNT FUCKING WORK STOPPING IMMIGRANTS -

liberals: SEE FENCES DON'T WORK THEY DON'T STOP ANYBODY

normal people: uhhh...build more fence, dumbass

 

[Flopper]

Tax returns contain important information about a candidate that voters need to know, particularly in today's world of false news, twitter attacks, and an Internet which amplifies all false claims.

A candidate’s tax returns include information about what a candidate owns, which can let voters know of possible conflicts of interest and whether there are entanglements with foreign businesses and foreign governments. They reveal whether a candidate owes money and to whom.

So tell us why any voter would need to know these things. We don't. What we need to know is outlined in the US Constitution. That's why they wrote the requirements. Also, tell me how many tax returns that you filed that stated what you own. The closest you'd come is a house or more, and that's only if you have a mortgage and wrote off the interest.

Entanglements with foreign governments or businesses? Didi you read up on Joe Biden and his crooked son the last six months? Tell me we will get to know all about that in his tax returns.

The problem here is if a Republican were low enough to create similar requirements such as revealing college transcripts or original birth certificates before Hussein ran, you on the left would have been rioting. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

So all you need to know about a candidate is their age and they are a native born US citizen? That must be because your candidates never lie about themselves. They don't boast and exaggerate their achievements, hide their dealing with foreign governments, mobsters, and shady businesses. They tell you all you need to know.

No, I want to know everything I can about any candidate, but at their option or their opponents research, not a government mandate.

The only thing a tax return can tell us is how much they made, how much they contributed to charity, and how much they wrote off. In other words for the presidency, it tells us nothing. It only tells us of their personal dealings which is really none of the voters business.

Now if they have or had any shady or illegal dealings, do you think they would put those deals on their tax return?

First, California is not forcing Trump to do anything. Trump is choosing to put his name on the primary ballot and thus must meet the same requirement as other candidates both presidential and gubernatorial which is well within the purview of the state.

Second, the republican party in California will send Trump delegates to the convention whether he is on the ballot or not. The presidential primary election in California just shows voter preference. The state committee actually decides who the delegates will be.

Tax forms tell us far more about a candidate than just the money they made and charitable contributions. It tells us how the money was made, the candidate's financial connections domestic and abroad, to who the candidate owes money, investments both domestic and foreign. In short, tax returns reveal where conflicts of interest may lie. Without tax forms, the voter has to rely on the honesty of the candidate and political hacks that create false news as fast as Trump tweets. This is why all modern day presidential candidates except for Trump have released their tax returns.

If your tax preparer is listing who you owe money to, how you are connected to the money, how your money was made, you better first fire them, and secondly, call the authorities.

Your tax form will contain a W2 if you are working for somebody else that has the various taxes and gross income listed. But nowhere does it say who you owe money to perhaps outside of a bank, and the only reason for that is if you are deducting interest rates. It doesn't say how you made that money either. The IRS has no idea I'm a truck driver.

It is a nice list of extremely poor excuses to get Trump's tax returns, when in reality, it has nothing to do with his presidency or anybody running for President. This law is nothing more than blackmail which just about any non-commie court can clearly see.

You cannot make additional requirements to the Constitution as a political attack (which this is) yet alone make additional requirements for any other reason.

Now if this law had a chance at hell in not being defeated by the courts, then Trump or anybody can make up a phony return saying anything he wanted to. There is no way to check that against the IRS files because the IRS files are off limits to everybody.

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Write offs requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one of the reasons candidates release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest, transactions that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide them from voters.

 

[daveman]

So tell us why any voter would need to know these things. We don't. What we need to know is outlined in the US Constitution. That's why they wrote the requirements. Also, tell me how many tax returns that you filed that stated what you own. The closest you'd come is a house or more, and that's only if you have a mortgage and wrote off the interest.

Entanglements with foreign governments or businesses? Didi you read up on Joe Biden and his crooked son the last six months? Tell me we will get to know all about that in his tax returns.

The problem here is if a Republican were low enough to create similar requirements such as revealing college transcripts or original birth certificates before Hussein ran, you on the left would have been rioting. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

So all you need to know about a candidate is their age and they are a native born US citizen? That must be because your candidates never lie about themselves. They don't boast and exaggerate their achievements, hide their dealing with foreign governments, mobsters, and shady businesses. They tell you all you need to know.

No, I want to know everything I can about any candidate, but at their option or their opponents research, not a government mandate.

The only thing a tax return can tell us is how much they made, how much they contributed to charity, and how much they wrote off. In other words for the presidency, it tells us nothing. It only tells us of their personal dealings which is really none of the voters business.

Now if they have or had any shady or illegal dealings, do you think they would put those deals on their tax return?

First, California is not forcing Trump to do anything. Trump is choosing to put his name on the primary ballot and thus must meet the same requirement as other candidates both presidential and gubernatorial which is well within the purview of the state.

Second, the republican party in California will send Trump delegates to the convention whether he is on the ballot or not. The presidential primary election in California just shows voter preference. The state committee actually decides who the delegates will be.

Tax forms tell us far more about a candidate than just the money they made and charitable contributions. It tells us how the money was made, the candidate's financial connections domestic and abroad, to who the candidate owes money, investments both domestic and foreign. In short, tax returns reveal where conflicts of interest may lie. Without tax forms, the voter has to rely on the honesty of the candidate and political hacks that create false news as fast as Trump tweets. This is why all modern day presidential candidates except for Trump have released their tax returns.

If your tax preparer is listing who you owe money to, how you are connected to the money, how your money was made, you better first fire them, and secondly, call the authorities.

Your tax form will contain a W2 if you are working for somebody else that has the various taxes and gross income listed. But nowhere does it say who you owe money to perhaps outside of a bank, and the only reason for that is if you are deducting interest rates. It doesn't say how you made that money either. The IRS has no idea I'm a truck driver.

It is a nice list of extremely poor excuses to get Trump's tax returns, when in reality, it has nothing to do with his presidency or anybody running for President. This law is nothing more than blackmail which just about any non-commie court can clearly see.

You cannot make additional requirements to the Constitution as a political attack (which this is) yet alone make additional requirements for any other reason.

Now if this law had a chance at hell in not being defeated by the courts, then Trump or anybody can make up a phony return saying anything he wanted to. There is no way to check that against the IRS files because the IRS files are off limits to everybody.

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Every write off requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one the reason they release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest transaction that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide hide them from voters.

It doesn't matter if Trump releases his returns or not. Democrats will still make up shit.

 

[pknopp]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

there is no wall, and will never be a wall.

Trump settled for a fence barrier duplicating portions of the old fence - you know, the one THAT DIDNT FUCKING WORK STOPPING IMMIGRANTS -

View attachment 272467

liberals: SEE FENCES DON'T WORK THEY DON'T STOP ANYBODY

normal people: uhhh...build more fence, dumbass

With our borders, that is the best you can do. There are thousands and thousands miles of border that can't be fenced.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Wrong. They are adding a requirement to run for President. If the founders wanted states to make their own requirements, they would have stated so in the Constitution. The state of Commie Fornia decided to change the requirements which is unconstitutional, and they know it.

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

The state of Oklahoma did not give its citizens who are Republican the right to vote for the true Conservative Evan McMullin. Should the Fed Govt strip the statehood of Oklahoma?

 

[Flopper]

Minimum wage was started so employers could not take advantage of desperate employees. Of course back then we didn't have nearly the social programs we have today, nor the opportunities. Today, most starting jobs pay more than minimum because not many people will work for that kind of money depending on the job. Minimum wage workers are about 4% of our workforce.

Immigrants will work for that kind of money. That's why there is such a market for their labor.

Correct, and that's why we need a wall to stop them from coming here.

there is no wall, and will never be a wall.

Trump settled for a fence barrier duplicating portions of the old fence - you know, the one THAT DIDNT FUCKING WORK STOPPING IMMIGRANTS -

View attachment 272467

liberals: SEE FENCES DON'T WORK THEY DON'T STOP ANYBODY

normal people: uhhh...build more fence, dumbass

Good analogy to a 100 mile wall on a 2000 mile border.

 

[HappyJoy]

Ok, so you think pretty much all wesern democracies are communist.

Do you hate being forced to pay for potholes too?

Repairing potholes benefit society equally. Forcing one person to pay for another's healthcare is one benefiting at the disadvantage of another.

Repairing potholes benefit society but Medicare doesn't? OK, that's a new one.

That's not a new one... are you an idiot? I'm not benefiting from Medicare, and have not my entire life. Most people do not benefit from Medicare.

Most people don't benefit from a potholes being fixed on streets they don't personally drive on either. If you make it to retirement, you'll benefit from Medicare, if not you then someone in your family.

How can people like you even say stuff like that? Medicare covers barely 55 million people. There are 330 Million people in this country. Is math that hard for you?[/quote[

At one time, that's a lot of people. Chances are the local fire department didn't save your house either, you're still paying for them to save others.

Clearing pot holes benefits absolutely everyone, including the people on Medicare. Medicare benefits a minority, at the expense of the majority. I have been paying for Medicare, that has never benefited me yet in my life. I am harmed by Medicare, because I have to pay for it, while I get nothing in return.

Like pot hole repairs it benefits most at some point in their life. Maybe you should go protest all those potholes that have been fixed on all the roads you don't drive on.

Meanwhile, Medicare is going broke.
Unfunded Govt. Liabilities -- Our Ticking Time Bomb | RealClearPolitics

We have $122 Trillion in unfunded liabilities with Medicare.

Do you see a slight difference? Clearing pot holes benefits everyone, and doesn't bankrupt the country. Medicare benefits a few, and can very easily bankrupt the country.

Yes, stupid.... Repairing pot holes benefits society, and Medicare most certainly does not. Facts over opinions.

Maybe stop pushing tax cuts for the wealthy if you're concerned about debt and unfunded mandates.

The wealthy don't have enough money to pay for your handout programs, let alone the debt and unfunded mandates.

Something tells me you would benefit the most.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

The state of Oklahoma did not give its citizens who are Republican the right to vote for the true Conservative Evan McMullin. Should the Fed Govt strip the statehood of Oklahoma?

McMullin had the capacity to complete petitions in states in which 5,000 signatures were required. He successfully got that many valid signatures in Kentucky and Virginia, both of which require 5,000. Pennsylvania only required 5,000 signatures, and Wisconsin only required 2,000, but McMullin couldn’t qualify in those two states because the deadlines were too early. Pennsylvania’s was August 1 and Wisconsin’s was August 2.

States could have had late August or early September petition deadlines, without harming election administration. In 2016, these six states had September deadlines: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Rhode Island (the Florida deadline was the minor party deadline, not the independent deadline). These states had deadlines in the last week of August: Idaho, Oregon, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Did Ballot Access Laws that Barred Evan McMullin from the Ballot in Some States Alter the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election? | Ballot Access News

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So tell us why any voter would need to know these things. We don't. What we need to know is outlined in the US Constitution. That's why they wrote the requirements. Also, tell me how many tax returns that you filed that stated what you own. The closest you'd come is a house or more, and that's only if you have a mortgage and wrote off the interest.

Entanglements with foreign governments or businesses? Didi you read up on Joe Biden and his crooked son the last six months? Tell me we will get to know all about that in his tax returns.

The problem here is if a Republican were low enough to create similar requirements such as revealing college transcripts or original birth certificates before Hussein ran, you on the left would have been rioting. Nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.

So all you need to know about a candidate is their age and they are a native born US citizen? That must be because your candidates never lie about themselves. They don't boast and exaggerate their achievements, hide their dealing with foreign governments, mobsters, and shady businesses. They tell you all you need to know.

No, I want to know everything I can about any candidate, but at their option or their opponents research, not a government mandate.

The only thing a tax return can tell us is how much they made, how much they contributed to charity, and how much they wrote off. In other words for the presidency, it tells us nothing. It only tells us of their personal dealings which is really none of the voters business.

Now if they have or had any shady or illegal dealings, do you think they would put those deals on their tax return?

First, California is not forcing Trump to do anything. Trump is choosing to put his name on the primary ballot and thus must meet the same requirement as other candidates both presidential and gubernatorial which is well within the purview of the state.

Second, the republican party in California will send Trump delegates to the convention whether he is on the ballot or not. The presidential primary election in California just shows voter preference. The state committee actually decides who the delegates will be.

Tax forms tell us far more about a candidate than just the money they made and charitable contributions. It tells us how the money was made, the candidate's financial connections domestic and abroad, to who the candidate owes money, investments both domestic and foreign. In short, tax returns reveal where conflicts of interest may lie. Without tax forms, the voter has to rely on the honesty of the candidate and political hacks that create false news as fast as Trump tweets. This is why all modern day presidential candidates except for Trump have released their tax returns.

If your tax preparer is listing who you owe money to, how you are connected to the money, how your money was made, you better first fire them, and secondly, call the authorities.

Your tax form will contain a W2 if you are working for somebody else that has the various taxes and gross income listed. But nowhere does it say who you owe money to perhaps outside of a bank, and the only reason for that is if you are deducting interest rates. It doesn't say how you made that money either. The IRS has no idea I'm a truck driver.

It is a nice list of extremely poor excuses to get Trump's tax returns, when in reality, it has nothing to do with his presidency or anybody running for President. This law is nothing more than blackmail which just about any non-commie court can clearly see.

You cannot make additional requirements to the Constitution as a political attack (which this is) yet alone make additional requirements for any other reason.

Now if this law had a chance at hell in not being defeated by the courts, then Trump or anybody can make up a phony return saying anything he wanted to. There is no way to check that against the IRS files because the IRS files are off limits to everybody.

Trump's total tax return is reported to be over 125 pages without supporting worksheets and forms. For anyone who operates and managing an organization the size of the Trump Organization there is a huge amount of information in his tax returns.

To report interest paid on loans you must list who holds the loans. Write offs requires supporting data. Every source of income must be listed. Sale of assets have to be reported.

Yes, if a candidate does not release his tax returns, then his opponent can make up all kinds shit about his finances. This is one of the reasons candidates release their returns.

Of course if the candidate has financial transaction that would indicate a conflict of interest, transactions that would point to possible criminal conspiracies, or transactions that would be difficult for the president to explain then the president might well chose to hide them from voters.

Everything you claim can be found out without any tax return. It's likely a billionaire has few loans (if any) out where he's paying interest.

So how long do you think it would take the Trump team to compose a phony tax return to give to the commies in Cali? They couldn't call him a liar because they would have nothing to check it against. They couldn't deny him anything because the commie law says he only has to submit a copy of his returns.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

The state of Oklahoma did not give its citizens who are Republican the right to vote for the true Conservative Evan McMullin. Should the Fed Govt strip the statehood of Oklahoma?

McMullin had the capacity to complete petitions in states in which 5,000 signatures were required. He successfully got that many valid signatures in Kentucky and Virginia, both of which require 5,000. Pennsylvania only required 5,000 signatures, and Wisconsin only required 2,000, but McMullin couldn’t qualify in those two states because the deadlines were too early. Pennsylvania’s was August 1 and Wisconsin’s was August 2.

States could have had late August or early September petition deadlines, without harming election administration. In 2016, these six states had September deadlines: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Rhode Island (the Florida deadline was the minor party deadline, not the independent deadline). These states had deadlines in the last week of August: Idaho, Oregon, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Did Ballot Access Laws that Barred Evan McMullin from the Ballot in Some States Alter the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election? | Ballot Access News

Thanks for proving my point. None of that stuff is listed in the Constitution as a requirement to be president...yet the good people of Oklahoma could not even write him in and have their vote count.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. They are adding a requirement to run for President. If the founders wanted states to make their own requirements, they would have stated so in the Constitution. The state of Commie Fornia decided to change the requirements which is unconstitutional, and they know it.

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

All they would have to do is rule their EC ballots don't count for anything. They are in violation of the US Constitution.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, the person can still run for president, they are not stopping them. You are just making things up.

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

All they would have to do is rule their EC ballots don't count for anything. They are in violation of the US Constitution.

Which part of the US Constitution...specifically.

And why were the states that did not allow McMullen on their ballots not in violation of the US Constitution

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

The state of Oklahoma did not give its citizens who are Republican the right to vote for the true Conservative Evan McMullin. Should the Fed Govt strip the statehood of Oklahoma?

McMullin had the capacity to complete petitions in states in which 5,000 signatures were required. He successfully got that many valid signatures in Kentucky and Virginia, both of which require 5,000. Pennsylvania only required 5,000 signatures, and Wisconsin only required 2,000, but McMullin couldn’t qualify in those two states because the deadlines were too early. Pennsylvania’s was August 1 and Wisconsin’s was August 2.

States could have had late August or early September petition deadlines, without harming election administration. In 2016, these six states had September deadlines: Arizona, Florida, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, and Rhode Island (the Florida deadline was the minor party deadline, not the independent deadline). These states had deadlines in the last week of August: Idaho, Oregon, Virginia, and Wyoming.

Did Ballot Access Laws that Barred Evan McMullin from the Ballot in Some States Alter the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election? | Ballot Access News

Thanks for proving my point. None of that stuff is listed in the Constitution as a requirement to be president...yet the good people of Oklahoma could not even write him in and have their vote count.

The only point I proved is that his denial for running in those states were because of deadlines, not additional constitutional requirements. Those are procedural requirements, not qualification requirements. They are there to make sure ballots are printed in plenty of time and it was not a waste of time because nobody knew of the candidate.

What Cali is doing is called BLACKMAIL. It's a specific requirement aimed at a specific candidate running for a specific party.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The only point I proved is that his denial for running in those states were because of deadlines, not additional constitutional requirements. Those are procedural requirements, not qualification requirements. They are there to make sure ballots are printed in plenty of time and it was not a waste of time because nobody knew of the candidate.

What Cali is doing is called BLACKMAIL. It's a specific requirement aimed at a specific candidate running for a specific party.

Are the deadlines in the Constitution? How are deadlines not an additional requirement?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, what they are saying is HE CAN'T run for President in their state. Again, totally unconstitutional.

That's like my state saying before the Romney election, all contenders must provide their college transcripts and original birth certificate. Do you think my state would have been able to do that for DumBama's reelection?

It doesn't say he can't run for President it says he cannot be on ballot, one can always write his name in. With that being said if they are going to pass such law they need to include anyone running for any office in the state.

Well how can he run for President and not be on the ballot? How would you like Trump to run in California and the Democrat have to be a write in???

If California stands by its claim that Trump won't be on the ballot, thus denying citizens who are republican, the right to vote for their candidate, the federal government should simply strip California of its statehood, set up border checkpoints and build a larger wall. The resident republicans can pack up and move to Texas or some other pro-republican state.

All they would have to do is rule their EC ballots don't count for anything. They are in violation of the US Constitution.

Which part of the US Constitution...specifically.

And why were the states that did not allow McMullen on their ballots not in violation of the US Constitution

I have no idea why you ask the same questions over and over again regardless how many times they've been answered. You cannot add additional requirements to run for President to the US Constitution without an amendment to the document.

 

[Uncensored2008]

This will be interesting. Obviously a state can pass such a law. I think it's fair to want a candidate to be transparent. I'm not sure the courts will allow it.

Disenfranchising millions of voters violates the 14th Amendment.

Bolshevik thug Newsom knows he will be shot down by the courts, but is pulling a publicity stunt.

See, the piles of shit who vote democrat will actually applaud his attempt to rig the presidential election.