Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
RoofGardener

Washington State democrats....

105 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RoofGardener
Posted (edited)

I blundered across  an interesting story thismorning. Apparently Washington State has passed a law requiring anyone wanting to stand for election (including Federal elections such as House elections and the Presidency) must release their tax records for public scrutiny. If they don't do this, they won't appear on any voting slips in Washington State.

So a Presidential Candidate from Spigot, Arkansas, wouldn't be able to receive ANY votes from Washington state unless they had released their tax records first.

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434412-washington-senate-passes-bill-that-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot

Umm.. isn't this disenfranchisement ? Isn't this contrary to the Constution of the USA ?

Edited by RoofGardener
  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles

I can't see how this could hold up.   This would open a can of worms in many states.   

If you do not open your bedroom night stand for random searches, you cannot be on the ballot.   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps

Washington State may have a say as to who can run for election in their state but they have NO RIGHT dictating the terms for candidates in a federal level election.

I'm the sure the Dems know all this.  We know what this is all about. They write laws just to get Trump. That's what the Dems call "equal protection".

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities unable to vote in Federal elections as they cannot ensure illegals do not vote. Seems fair.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
18 minutes ago, South Alabam said:

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities unable to vote in Federal elections as they cannot ensure illegals do not vote. Seems fair.

Excellent stroke, SoAl!!   :clap:

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

despite of those laws electors will be still voting as they always do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
4 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Umm.. isn't this disenfranchisement ? Isn't this contrary to the Constution of the USA ?

Wouldn't have thought so. They're not stopping anyone running, they just won't print the name on their ballot papers. Voters could still write it in. 

2 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities unable to vote in Federal elections as they cannot ensure illegals do not vote. Seems fair.

^This is disenfranchisement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
2 hours ago, South Alabam said:

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities unable to vote in Federal elections as they cannot ensure illegals do not vote. Seems fair.

I think it would need to be worded like this:

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities from being able to list any candidates on ballots.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

My state is full of people with TDS, and this is just an attempt to ensure that the sitting president does not appear on the ballot in 2020.  There is no law in the nation requiring political candidates to release tax records, but most presidential candidates have done so.  When Trump refused (as is his right) peoples heads exploded.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
49 minutes ago, Myles said:

I think it would need to be worded like this:

Then Trump ought to write executive orders prohibiting states that have sanctuary cities from being able to list any candidates on ballots.

Does the federal government produce any ballot papers? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Setton said:

Wouldn't have thought so. They're not stopping anyone running, they just won't print the name on their ballot papers. Voters could still write it in. 

Oh please. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
14 minutes ago, Setton said:

Does the federal government produce any ballot papers? 

Probably not.    I suppose other states could have candidates names removed from ballets for almost any reason they see fit.   I have to think both sides think this is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener

Ummm... just a little bit ? It strikes at the very heart of representative democracy. 

Removing somebodies name from the ballot IS disenfranchisement. It is about the most dangerous and damaging thing you can DO to a democracy. 

Whoever controls the ballots, controls the elections. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
14 minutes ago, OverSword said:

My state is full of people with TDS, and this is just an attempt to ensure that the sitting president does not appear on the ballot in 2020.  There is no law in the nation requiring political candidates to release tax records, but most presidential candidates have done so.  When Trump refused (as is his right) peoples heads exploded.

Surely though you recognise it looks suspicious. I kind of get not releasing them during the campaign - if he lost, he'd still have a business to protect. But he promised he would if elected then went back on it. 

Why? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Setton said:

Surely though you recognise it looks suspicious. I kind of get not releasing them during the campaign - if he lost, he'd still have a business to protect. But he promised he would if elected then went back on it. 

Why? 

I think a more pertinent question to this topic would be: Why has Washington State abandoned the Representation of the People just to "get Trump". 

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
39 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Ummm... just a little bit ? It strikes at the very heart of representative democracy. 

Removing somebodies name from the ballot IS disenfranchisement. 

How is it? Like I said, they can still write a candidate in. They still have the right to vote for whoever they want. In other words, they still have franchise.

Do you really think, in this day and age, people won't know who's running unless the names are on the paper for them? IMO this is more a symbolic move to show the state expects transparency from elected officials. Which is also a cornerstone of democracy... 

 

Or is it that you're worried Trump supporters might struggle to spell Donald? 

 

OK, cheap shot... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Setton said:

Surely though you recognise it looks suspicious. I kind of get not releasing them during the campaign - if he lost, he'd still have a business to protect. But he promised he would if elected then went back on it. 

Why? 

Sure, it looks suspicious.    But it is not against a law.   Wash State and Illinois removing him from ballots for something that is legal is wrong.   You agree right?

 

Edited by Myles
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
6 minutes ago, Setton said:

Surely though you recognise it looks suspicious. I kind of get not releasing them during the campaign - if he lost, he'd still have a business to protect. But he promised he would if elected then went back on it. 

Why? 

 

regardless, it is not a requirement.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
3 minutes ago, Setton said:

How is it? Like I said, they can still write a candidate in. They still have the right to vote for whoever they want. In other words, they still have franchise.

Do you really think, in this day and age, people won't know who's running unless the names are on the paper for them? IMO this is more a symbolic move to show the state expects transparency from elected officials. Which is also a cornerstone of democracy... 

 

 

So you would be OK with removing the dem candidate for nearly any reason put forward in the name of "transparency"?    Give up your phone records or else.    Let us search your house or else.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

it is totally fine in subject's mentality, free citizens however find it unacceptable, and criminal

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
8 minutes ago, Setton said:

How is it? Like I said, they can still write a candidate in. They still have the right to vote for whoever they want. In other words, they still have franchise.

Do you really think, in this day and age, people won't know who's running unless the names are on the paper for them? IMO this is more a symbolic move to show the state expects transparency from elected officials. Which is also a cornerstone of democracy... 

 

Or is it that you're worried Trump supporters might struggle to spell Donald? 

 

OK, cheap shot... 

It makes it MUCH harder to vote for that candidate. C'mon Setton. It is a CLEAR infringement on voting rights, and a direct attack on US Democracy. 

Some people on this forum fulminate that Trump is bad for democracy, and is a 'dictator in waiting. But what the Democrats in Washington State have just done eclipses this ! 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

My state is full of people with TDS, and this is just an attempt to ensure that the sitting president does not appear on the ballot in 2020.  There is no law in the nation requiring political candidates to release tax records, but most presidential candidates have done so.  When Trump refused (as is his right) peoples heads exploded.

Yes indeed. Hillary got a greater percentage in her loss than Bill in either of his wins in your state. Still, your state is 6th in numbers, 8th as a percentage with regards Trump haters! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
4 minutes ago, Myles said:

So you would be OK with removing the dem candidate for nearly any reason put forward in the name of "transparency"? 

Well I'll tell you what.  Many folks suspected Hillary of all sorts of shenanigans, a portion of them being how she converted influence to personal wealth.  I would be in favor of exposing that sort of behavior before election.  So Yes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Tatetopa said:

Well I'll tell you what.  Many folks suspected Hillary of all sorts of shenanigans, a portion of them being how she converted influence to personal wealth.  I would be in favor of exposing that sort of behavior before election.  So Yes.

Seriously ? You'd favour a system that allows State Government to effectively disqualify anyone they want from standing for election ? 

I mean... REALLY ? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.