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

Farmer77
Posted (edited)
On 4/15/2019 at 2:49 PM, RoofGardener said:

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. 

It does strike to the very heart of representative democracy, which is why its so important that all states adopt these measures. 

All the Trumpians are butt hurt because , well theyre Trumpians and everything is about their dear leader however, America will (hopefully) still be standing when all the cheeseburgers and KFC finally catches up to the racist conman and such a law will protect all citizens in the future and frankly should have been in place decades ago.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

It does strike to the very heart of representative democracy, which is why its so important that all states adopt these measures. 

All the Trumpians are butt hurt because , well theyre Trumpians and everything is about their dear leader however, America will (hopefully) still be standing when all the cheeseburgers and KFC finally catches up to the racist conman and such a law will protect all citizens in the future and frankly should have been in place decades ago.

 

Farmer77... I'm not sure whether I'm mis-reading your post ? You seem to suggest that all states should enact laws that make demands on candidates for office that are NOT supported by the constitution, nor are relevant to their platform. Consider the precedent you set. In your frantic surge to remove President Trump from office, you are opening the door to a future authoritarian government, with the legal authority to ban legitimate political candidates from standing for office. 

Your attempts to remove the lawfully elected President could destroy America as a liberal democracy. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

In your frantic surge to remove President Trump from office,

 

1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

All the Trumpians are butt hurt because , well theyre Trumpians and everything is about their dear leader however

 

I mentioned to you in another thread how Trump and the GOP have displayed how lucky America has been because so many of our regulations regarding office holders are really dependent on the good nature of the candidates. This is a great example.

It has nothing to do with removing Trump himself as its become clear the GOP will do anything to support their guy  - and everything to do with preventing the next Trump regardless of party from ever getting in the race.

 

3 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

You seem to suggest that all states should enact laws that make demands on candidates for office that are NOT supported by the constitution, nor are relevant to their platform.

A candidate's financial details are very very relevant to their platform. Thats in fact why every one before Trump put his out there, so we knew their platform wasnt created by their financial interests.

As for the constitution, IDK , it gives the states the right to oversee elections and I would be very interested in seeing the outcome of a SCOTUS case.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

A candidate's financial details are very very relevant to their platform.

No they are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Just now, RoofGardener said:

No they are not. 

Holy hell you and I need to get together, I have some investment opportunities I think you'd be interested in!

Seriously did you just fall off the turnip truck last night? First day in the big city Country Mouse?

If you meant to say they shouldn't be then I apologize and we are in agreeance. Which is why requiring a candidate show his tax history is vitally important since we have been shown that we can no longer trust the candidates to do it on their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Holy hell you and I need to get together, I have some investment opportunities I think you'd be interested in!

Seriously did you just fall off the turnip truck last night? First day in the big city Country Mouse?

If you meant to say they shouldn't be then I apologize and we are in agreeance. Which is why requiring a candidate show his tax history is vitally important since we have been shown that we can no longer trust the candidates to do it on their own.

From a strict constructionist perspective, a candidates personal finances are NOT relevant to their platform, nor their right to stand for election. 

Now, in reality, people ARE interested in a candidates finances, if only to measure against their financial policy. If a candidate refuses to give their tax returns, then it is up to the voters to evaluate that behaviour, and NOT for the States to legislate for it. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, RoofGardener said:

Now, in reality, people ARE interested in a candidates finances, if only to measure against their financial policy. If a candidate refuses to give their tax returns, then it is up to the voters to evaluate that behaviour, and NOT for the States to legislate for it. 

Why? This is a suicidal mentality.

Its like being offended your pilot has to take a drug test.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RoofGardener
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Why? This is a suicidal mentality.

Its like being offended your pilot has to take a drug test.

No, it is not. 

Farmer77, this topic started with a state passing legislation that places restrictions on who is allowed to appear on the ballot paper at elections, including that of President. 

If you can't see the dangers inherent in allowing this law to stand, then wait until it is modified, and used to attack a Democrat president. Or a democratic congressman. Or yourself. 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
5 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

If you can't see the dangers inherent in allowing this law to stand, then wait until it is modified, and used to attack a Democrat president. Or a democratic congressman. Or yourself. 

There are literally zero dangers in allowing this law to stand. No one is disenfranchised , you know why? Because everyone can show their taxes if they want to run for office. Literally anyone and everyone can be on a ballot in any of the 50 states, nothing is prohibiting them except for their own choices.

As for it being used to "attack" a democrat POTUS. Two points, one I dont care what party someone is in they should have to prove they are above board -  I have to for my career it doesnt seem too much of an ask for the guy trying to get his hands on the nuclear codes. 

Two is a great example of the alternate reality ya'll are working so hard to create. Somehow asking the current POTUS to live up to the standards that every POTUS before him lived up to is now attacking him? Why isnt his refusal to adhere to tradition seen as an attack on the American system in your eyes, yet, trying to hold him to the standards of the system he is attacking is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

There are literally zero dangers in allowing this law to stand. No one is disenfranchised , you know why? Because everyone can show their taxes if they want to run for office. Literally anyone and everyone can be on a ballot in any of the 50 states, nothing is prohibiting them except for their own choices.

As for it being used to "attack" a democrat POTUS. Two points, one I dont care what party someone is in they should have to prove they are above board -  I have to for my career it doesnt seem too much of an ask for the guy trying to get his hands on the nuclear codes. 

Two is a great example of the alternate reality ya'll are working so hard to create. Somehow asking the current POTUS to live up to the standards that every POTUS before him lived up to is now attacking him? Why isnt his refusal to adhere to tradition seen as an attack on the American system in your eyes, yet, trying to hold him to the standards of the system he is attacking is?

I can't believe you take this position.   I think it is very wrong to remove any candidates name from a ballot for something that is not against the law.   

I'd also be against Wyoming removing a candidates name because they didn't visit their state.  Most candidates did in the past so since Biden didn't, his name is not going to be on the ballot.

Edited by Myles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
South Alabam
35 minutes ago, Myles said:

I can't believe you take this position.   I think it is very wrong to remove any candidates name from a ballot for something that is not against the law.   

I'd also be against Wyoming removing a candidates name because they didn't visit their state.  Most candidates did in the past so since Biden didn't, his name is not going to be on the ballot.

"Cuzz Trump"

Only reason.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Myles said:

I can't believe you take this position.   I think it is very wrong to remove any candidates name from a ballot for something that is not against the law.   

My position is that it should be against the law for any candidate to take national office without proving he is above board financially.  We've been lucky in the past that candidates were willing to do so without a law being necessary. Now that the seal is broken so to speak on candidates not showing their taxes its time to make it a law.

10 hours ago, South Alabam said:

"Cuzz Trump"

Cuzz America.....

So tell me are youre OK with the next POTUS spending a lifetime secretly on Soros' payroll ? Of course not thats unacceptable but now that the precedent is set that could be the case with the next POTUS. Our nation is worth too much to just give blind faith to those seeking the highest rungs of power.

 

Edited by Farmer77

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

If someone is in the Secret employ of someone, be it Soros or Putin or Martha Stewart, does anyone honestly think their tax returns will say “secret money from my secret employer”? Of course not. “Ohh, but lying on a tax return is a crime”, yes it is, but how do you prove that just by looking at a tax return? You need other things like spendings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
17 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

From a strict constructionist perspective, a candidates personal finances are NOT relevant to their platform, nor their right to stand for election. 

Now, in reality, people ARE interested in a candidates finances, if only to measure against their financial policy. If a candidate refuses to give their tax returns, then it is up to the voters to evaluate that behaviour, and NOT for the States to legislate for it. 

Yeah, pretty much this. We have requirements that must be met to hold the office of the president. Disclosure of tax returns is not among those requirements. If voters or the parties backing a candidate feel that not disclosing tax returns or any other personal and privileged information is an issue or a deal killer then don’t nominate/vote for said candidate. At this point I think we all agree that Clinton finances are highly questionable but I have a feeling the same people clamoring for trumps tax returns would be mute or dismissive on the subject had she been elected. Actually I’m positive she would be under less scrutiny than any other president in history, in that way trump is a bit of a blessing. This is in fact, due to the extreme scrutiny this administration is under, the most transparent regime in US history 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Myles
2 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

My position is that it should be against the law for any candidate to take national office without proving he is above board financially.  We've been lucky in the past that candidates were willing to do so without a law being necessary. Now that the seal is broken so to speak on candidates not showing their taxes its time to make 

 

It's a bad precedent.  

Could a state claim that most candidates have said God Bless America.  So if a Dem doesn't say it, they can be left off the ballot even if it is not illegal?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

It's a bad precedent.  

Could a state claim that most candidates have said God Bless America.  So if a Dem doesn't say it, they can be left off the ballot even if it is not illegal?

Excellent point. I could see that happening in a few of the Bible Belt states. 

We need to have uniform requirements for candidates across all states for the only election every registered voter can participate in. Do what you want state to state for congressional and senatorial elections but one standard for all states when it comes to presidential elections

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, Myles said:

It's a bad precedent.  

Could a state claim that most candidates have said God Bless America.  So if a Dem doesn't say it, they can be left off the ballot even if it is not illegal?

Of course not, seperation of church and state and all of that.

IMO its worth sorting through whatever unintended consequence type scenarios in order to make this law stand. I would assume the big picture goal of these states is to pressure the federal government to adopt the same measures.

On a federal level we require anyone with access to intelligence to prove their financial status on a regular basis (FBI, Secret Service etc) I simply cant wrap my brain around the logic that says those people need to prove their financial status yet the man with the nuclear codes doesnt.

That simply comes across as dangerous partisanship to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 hour ago, OverSword said:

. At this point I think we all agree that Clinton finances are highly questionable but I have a feeling the same people clamoring for trumps tax returns would be mute or dismissive on the subject had she been elected.

Agreed, yet despite that she actually released her taxes. Kinda speaks volumes of someone who refuses to doesnt it?

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

Disclosure of tax returns is not among those requirements.

Right, and it wasnt necessary for it to be one because until now every candidate released theirs willingly. Trump has displayed this flaw in the system for all of us and now that we know about it its time to fix it.

1 hour ago, OverSword said:

This is in fact, due to the extreme scrutiny this administration is under, the most transparent regime in US history 

Not even kind of :lol: Telling lies to answer questions youre trapped into answering isnt transparency

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword

@Farmer77 presidents did not release their tax returns until the 70’s so not every candidate, factually most did not. Regardless it’s not a requirement like it or not so this is the absolute last time I will respond and the summary is like it or not it doesn’t matter who feel they need to because facts not feelings are the only thing that matters when it comes to legal debate. The democrats are masters at distracting their constituents with meaningless emotional sidetracking. Quit letting them pull your strings.

And like I said this is the most transparent regime ever not because they want to be but because of scrutiny not seen since Watergate 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, OverSword said:

The democrats are masters at distracting their constituents with meaningless emotional sidetracking. Quit letting them pull your strings.

Its not about emotion for me. Its about common sense. Can you tell me why it makes sense for agents with access to intelligence to have to prove their financial stability but not the POTUS? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OverSword
Just now, Farmer77 said:

Its not about emotion for me. Its about common sense. Can you tell me why it makes sense for agents with access to intelligence to have to prove their financial stability but not the POTUS? 

What you or I think makes sense is irrelevant and your arguments is based on emotion because you feel it doesn’t make sense. You’re talking about law and only facts are relevant. Write your congressman and tell them to write a law to require nominees for president to release taxes. Why do you think they haven’t done that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

Of course not, seperation of church and state and all of that.

IMO its worth sorting through whatever unintended consequence type scenarios in order to make this law stand. I would assume the big picture goal of these states is to pressure the federal government to adopt the same measures.

On a federal level we require anyone with access to intelligence to prove their financial status on a regular basis (FBI, Secret Service etc) I simply cant wrap my brain around the logic that says those people need to prove their financial status yet the man with the nuclear codes doesnt.

That simply comes across as dangerous partisanship to me.

Because, and it’s not something many people want to believe, that the President Of The United States is a figurehead, not an important person at all when it comes to protecting the nation, possessing secrets or firing nuclear bombs. 

Does the President set policy? No.

Does the President set laws? No.

Does the president enact laws or policy? No.

When the President says “shoot that missile at that nation” and shooting that missile at that nation isn’t a good idea, does someone have the right to say “no”? Yes, yes they do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Farmer77
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Because, and it’s not something many people want to believe, that the President Of The United States is a figurehead, not an important person at all when it comes to protecting the nation, possessing secrets or firing nuclear bombs. 

Does the President set policy? No.

Does the President set laws? No.

Does the president enact laws or policy? No.

When the President says “shoot that missile at that nation” and shooting that missile at that nation isn’t a good idea, does someone have the right to say “no”? Yes, yes they do.

 

The exact same argument can be made for that FBI agent though. The fact is they both have access to sensitive information that people would be willing to pay money for.  We as a nation have decided that people with that kind of access to that kind of information have to prove they arent a risk due to financial insolvency, it just makes sense that the same should be extended to all folks with access to that kind of information.

That aside I asked someone else earlier : would you be comfortable with a candidate becoming POTUS after secretly being on Soros' payroll? Or should there be some defenses built in to ensure the American public knew who was financing the person they were voting for? IDK it just seems like common sense to me.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tatetopa
20 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

No they are not. 

Well, I think the Teapot Dome Scandal under Warren Harding was kind of the end of innocence on that argument.

Then too, if you are worried about Constitutionality, there is the emoluments clause.

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress. The Clause is subject to interpretation.[2] Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the federal officeholders of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." 

Forget about the current President.  Grandfather him in.

Consider lawmakers on a local level. If an individual runs for a position on a county zoning board, it might influence voter's choice if they  know he owns a large chunk of land for development and that his vote might decide the  position of services that would triple the value of his land.  Maybe taxes submissions help expose conflict of interest.

Or maybe someone is in  charge of procurement at the Pentagon and about to award a $50 billion contract to Lockheed or Boeing.  It might interest people to know that he owns 50,000 shares of Boeing stock.  Then the citizens legitimate concern becomes:  "Is this guy doing what is best for the nation, or himself.

We talk about how corrupt our government is so if it turns out to be our guy who is corrupt, does it then become OK?
You argue that legitimate candidates would be prevented from running.  Why would not a legitimate candidate reveal his taxes?  Maybe there are reasons, can you think of some logical ones?  

 

  • 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.