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

Setton
16 minutes ago, OverSword said:

 

regardless, it is not a requirement.

 

19 minutes ago, Myles said:

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?

 

Well, Washington says it is a requirement to appear on the ballot in their state. Or are you advocating federal interference in state government? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
19 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"?    Give up your phone records or else.    Let us search your house or else.   

No, but I'd be fine with removing any candidate from the ballot paper if the same expectation is placed on all candidates

14 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

It makes it MUCH harder to vote for that candidate. C'mon Setton.

Personally, I don't find writing two words that much harder than a cross. 

Quote

It is a CLEAR infringement on voting rights, and a direct attack on US Democracy. 

You've still not explained how it's an attack on democracy. Anyone is still allowed to stand. Anyone is still allowed to vote. All they've done is set the standard you have to meet. There are clearly already other standards, otherwise every citizen would be on every ballot paper. 

Why is formalising this long standing expectation so bad? 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DarkHunter
1 minute ago, Setton said:

You've still not explained how it's an attack on democracy. Anyone is still allowed to stand. Anyone is still allowed to vote. All they've done is set the standard you have to meet. There are clearly already other standards, otherwise every citizen would be on every ballot paper. 

Why is formalising this long standing expectation so bad? 

Are you going to be so fine with other states adding similar requirements.  What is to stop a state from only allowing candidates on the ballot who visit the state n number of times, or maybe a candidate should be required to get some number of people to sign a petition to get on the ballot, or any other arbitrary thing to keep a candidate off a ballot.

Ultimately this is extremely dangerous and opens up the door for red states to keep democrats off the ballot and blue states to keep republicans off the ballot.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

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

I mean... REALLY ? 

Want and law are two different things.  If laws are passed by the legislature or popular referendum and followed consistently for all,  then the executive branch of state government does its job by enforcing them.  If we have a problem with legislation, we either vote out or recall the representatives.

Does not a significant portion of the political traffic on this site consist of rants or despair about how lost and corrupt the United States Government has become?  So yeah, a head start during the job interview process might be beneficial in cleaning up who we elect to public office.

In case you haven't noticed, Democrats are just as sneaky and corrupt as Republicans.  They are as likely to be targets of this as conservatives.

If popular demand swept AOC into the Presidency, would it be allowed?  She is not 35 years old.  Should we forget that rule because the people want it?  Should every state be required to let felons vote?  States do have some rights, and a say in elections is one.  Federal elections are another matter, and probably pretty easy for the courts to handle.  That is our third equal branch of government.  If the law is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court can strike it down.  American government does not need to operate by executive order alone.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jerry Gallo
14 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.

Callous! She bought a man a $600K beach house to remove himself from the ballot. How can you punish generosity? :lol:

On a more serious note, pretty messed up society where some folks are cool with removing a sitting president's name from the ballot over legal tax returns (assume if Lois Lerner types at the IRS had anything illegal on Trump, we'd have heard about it by now), but same folks are uncool with asking people to verify they are an actual citizen, or alive, before counting their vote. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agent0range

The same people that demanded a birth certificate and college transcripts from one President are cool with Trump not producing his taxes.  But hey, when he tells you he's a genius, and great businessman, you can buy in to it all you want.  He lied directly to the American people.  He didn't misspeak, he didn't try to put a spin on it.  The man literally said that if he was elected he would produce his tax returns.  Isn't it a wee bit strange what he is going through to ensure they will never be seen?  

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

 

Well, Washington says it is a requirement to appear on the ballot in their state. Or are you advocating federal interference in state government? 

No.  I'm advocating that each state follow uniform requirements when it comes to federal elections.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
2 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The same people that demanded a birth certificate and college transcripts from one President are cool with Trump not producing his taxes.

yes, absolutely fine,  birthplace matters as far as  presidency as per constitution, income taxes are not.   

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Are you going to be so fine with other states adding similar requirements.  What is to stop a state from only allowing candidates on the ballot who visit the state n number of times, or maybe a candidate should be required to get some number of people to sign a petition to get on the ballot, or any other arbitrary thing to keep a candidate off a ballot.

Ultimately this is extremely dangerous and opens up the door for red states to keep democrats off the ballot and blue states to keep republicans off the ballot.

Should we let everybody vote and run for office legal or not? Is it OK if child molesters and people with large collections of *** Blocked ***ography are not allowed to run for school board positions or other public office?  Do you feel that an infringements on your rights? 

Yes I know this is different, but the same checks and balances are set up to handle all sorts of unconstitutional behavior.  Would any Supreme Court agree with letting party affiliation determine voting right?.  Crazy voters and crazy laws are stopped by the judiciary.

  Separation of powers as written in the Constitution is a pretty adaptable system.  Legislators can write any irresponsible law they want.  Executives can writer any  whimsical executive order they desire.  Courts have the power to determine the Constitutionality of a law.  They can stop the nonsense.  If state voters do not agree with their legislatures, they can change them.

If there are sane voters in the state then they also take a hand in shelving abnormal legislation.

 

I still trust the Constitution and the separation of powers to handle aberrations without running up the oh my god tree.  I don't get too excited when some town in Minnesota elects a dog or cat as mayor.  I don't treat it as reverse discrimination against humans.  I treat it for what it is, a publicity stunt.  So is this, and is likely to amount to even less.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
14 minutes ago, Jerry Gallo said:

On a more serious note, pretty messed up society where some folks are cool with removing a sitting president's name from the ballot over legal tax returns (assume if Lois Lerner types at the IRS had anything illegal on Trump, we'd have heard about it by now), but same folks are uncool with asking people to verify they are an actual citizen, or alive, before counting their vote. 

Yep, a publicity stunt to make conservatives spit in their morning coffee.  Give it a little slack.  Liberals are having a pretty hard time.

Sitting Presidents cannot be kept off the ballot, especially the nominated candidate of their party.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
11 minutes ago, Agent0range said:

The same people that demanded a birth certificate and college transcripts from one President are cool with Trump not producing his taxes.  But hey, when he tells you he's a genius, and great businessman, you can buy in to it all you want.  He lied directly to the American people.  He didn't misspeak, he didn't try to put a spin on it.  The man literally said that if he was elected he would produce his tax returns.  Isn't it a wee bit strange what he is going through to ensure they will never be seen?  

I would have been against a state removing his name from a ballot for not producing a birth certificate.    Wouldn't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
52 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.

Not me.   Not for anyone.    Removing a name from a ballot because of something that is not illegal is a horrible precedent.   

If Trump runs against Biden for the presidency, would you be OK with Ohio removing Bidens name is he does not provide is full home movie collection?   If Trump does of course.   

Share this post


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

I would have been against a state removing his name from a ballot for not producing a birth certificate.    Wouldn't you?

Actually  i think he had to produce it, it just did not have to be made public. But neither birth certificate nor college transcripts were used to take his name off the ballot in any state. That's what the issue is about. I would be okay if they passed a bill saying if you run for office or while you are serving your term your returns have to be published for the public to see. Make it a requirement for all or none. I want to see how all these congressmen and women become millionaires on a $150,000 a year job. I'm not sure what the big flap is about to insist on seeing Trumps returns in the 1st place. Imo he's leading them on and making look like fools again for going all in on this and then once they are released and there's nothing to find they'll lose even more voters. They fall for it every time. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS

Biden, along with all other incumbent and former politicians are the ones who should produce their tax returns for eligibility of an office. Freshman hopefuls get a one time pass. Any further aspirations and we should  see how you use/don't use the power and influence of your position. 

Really though this is more desperate retardation typical of Democrats who can't win on their own merit. Lies, deception, hatred and misdirection is all they know.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
F3SS
13 minutes ago, skliss said:

Actually  i think he had to produce it, it just did not have to be made public. But neither birth certificate nor college transcripts were used to take his name off the ballot in any state. That's what the issue is about. I would be okay if they passed a bill saying if you run for office or while you are serving your term your returns have to be published for the public to see. Make it a requirement for all or none. I want to see how all these congressmen and women become millionaires on a $150,000 a year job. I'm not sure what the big flap is about to insist on seeing Trumps returns in the 1st place. Imo he's leading them on and making look like fools again for going all in on this and then once they are released and there's nothing to find they'll lose even more voters. They fall for it every time. 

He's probably saving it for later in the campaign. Just like the Russia thing he's going to let them flap their gums for another year and look like fools when he releases multiple years of dirt free tax returns in October of 2020. 

Not only does the IRS doubtlessly still have Lois Lerners and Peter Stzorks and others filled with TDS among their ranks, Trump has had the full weight of the media, the DC establishment, every alphabet agency foreign and domestic, behind-the-scenes power players and mobs of angry liberals in pink hats give him relentless hell and investigation for a few years and they still have yet to uncover a bombshell. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Setton
53 minutes ago, DarkHunter said:

Are you going to be so fine with other states adding similar requirements.  What is to stop a state from only allowing candidates on the ballot who visit the state n number of times, or maybe a candidate should be required to get some number of people to sign a petition to get on the ballot, or any other arbitrary thing to keep a candidate off a ballot.

Ultimately this is extremely dangerous and opens up the door for red states to keep democrats off the ballot and blue states to keep republicans off the ballot.

Please read previous post as I've already answered this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skliss
2 minutes ago, F3SS said:

He's probably saving it for later in the campaign. Just like the Russia thing he's going to let them flap their gums for another year and look like fools when he releases multiple years of dirt free tax returns in October of 2020. 

Not only does the IRS doubtlessly still have Lois Lerners and Peter Stzorks and others filled with TDS among their ranks, Trump has had the full weight of the media, the DC establishment, every alphabet agency foreign and domestic, behind-the-scenes power players and mobs of angry liberals in pink hats give him relentless hell and investigation for a few years and they still have yet to uncover a bombshell. 

I remember Trump saying a few years before he ran that he has been getting audited every year for the past 10 or 15 years. If there were something to see it would have been brought out during the 2016 campaign. I really think he just said "No." to be contrary but figured out right away how it works to his advantage.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
1 hour ago, skliss said:

Actually  i think he had to produce it, it just did not have to be made public. But neither birth certificate nor college transcripts were used to take his name off the ballot in any state. That's what the issue is about. I would be okay if they passed a bill saying if you run for office or while you are serving your term your returns have to be published for the public to see. Make it a requirement for all or none. I want to see how all these congressmen and women become millionaires on a $150,000 a year job. I'm not sure what the big flap is about to insist on seeing Trumps returns in the 1st place. Imo he's leading them on and making look like fools again for going all in on this and then once they are released and there's nothing to find they'll lose even more voters. They fall for it every time. 

If Obama had not produced his birth certificate for public viewing, I would not be in favor of removing his name from any ballot.   

I'd be OK with your bolded part.   My issue with what Wash State and Illinois are trying to do is that there is no law saying Trump has do do it.    

Share this post


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

I remember Trump saying a few years before he ran that he has been getting audited every year for the past 10 or 15 years. 

I also remember him saying he'd publish then if elected. Hard to take a compulsive liar's word for anything. 

Share this post


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

This is disenfranchisement. 

I don't see it that way, I see it as: 13% of illegals in a poll have said they have voted in Federal elections. That disenfranchises legal voters when their candidate loses by a margin small enough they should have won. We all know California does not allow illegals to  vote, however they have made it easier for non citizens to vote,and this is clearly by design.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act/

What's True

California has implemented a law providing for the automatic voter registration of motorists who obtain or renew driver's licenses, and critics contend that the law will make it easier for non-citizens to unlawfully vote.

What's False

California has not implemented a law authorizing non-citizens to vote in federal elections.

And until they can ensure illegals do not vote in Federal elections, well, let's get that Executive order written.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
2 hours ago, Agent0range said:

The same people that demanded a birth certificate and college transcripts from one President are cool with Trump not producing his taxes.  But hey, when he tells you he's a genius, and great businessman, you can buy in to it all you want.  He lied directly to the American people.  He didn't misspeak, he didn't try to put a spin on it.  The man literally said that if he was elected he would produce his tax returns.  Isn't it a wee bit strange what he is going through to ensure they will never be seen?  

If he produces them on his last day in Office, would he be lying?

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I don't see it that way, I see it as: 13% of illegals in a poll have said they have voted in Federal elections. That disenfranchises legal voters when their candidate loses by a margin small enough they should have won. We all know California does not allow illegals to  vote, however they have made it easier for non citizens to vote,and this is clearly by design.

 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-motor-voter-act/

What's True

California has implemented a law providing for the automatic voter registration of motorists who obtain or renew driver's licenses, and critics contend that the law will make it easier for non-citizens to unlawfully vote.

What's False

California has not implemented a law authorizing non-citizens to vote in federal elections.

And until they can ensure illegals do not vote in Federal elections, well, let's get that Executive order written.

 

But you are proposing preventing all citizens of a state from voting because you suspect their elected representatives are letting others vote (which, as I'm sure you know, every study has found no evidence for). 

That is disenfranchisement (removing the right to vote). Expecting candidates to meet certain conditions to appear on a ballot does not prevent anyone voting. So not disenfranchisement. 

Making someone's vote count for less by having more voters (or redrawing districts) does not prevent anyone voting. So not disenfranchisement. 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


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

Vetting should be on a federal level AND  the criteria determined BEFORE the Dems know who us running

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Earl.Of.Trumps
2 hours ago, Setton said:

You've still not explained how it's an attack on democracy.

Oy vey  :cry:

Share this post


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

"This is Massachusetts. Y'all want to get your name on the ballot to run for president or senator...?  Donate $10 million to the Clinton Trust Fund."

WHAT'S TO STOP THEM?

 

 

  • 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.