CA Law Requires Tax Returns for Candidates

[+OverSword]

29 minutes ago, Robotic Jew said:

The hypocrisy of republicans screaming relentlessly FOR YEARS to see Obama's birth certificate

Still haven’t seen it. Oh wait we saw 3 different birth certificates  

[GLCsector3295]

The tax records are nothing but a political game, everyone knows it, It does not matter if Trumps tax records are clean as can be or dirty, either way it will be used to try an attack Trump. If his taxes are clean then the narrative is either, look Trump claims he is so rich but he really isn't ha ha ha ha ha ha or it is ignored, and if is questionable ( which it wouldn't be ) then that gets hammered to no end. Point is, it doesn't do Trump any favors by releasing his taxes so there for there is no reason for him to just willingly give them over.

Same with obama and his birth record , there was nothing for obama to gain by releasing it,  even if Obama was technically born in another country an his parents packed up an moved with in two years of his birth, the country would of still voted for Obama, and were not going to let him go over a small technicality at least to socialists. I would imagine that his birth record if anything would for what ever reason of caused Obama a lot of embarrassment  at least personally. An it was a stupid attack on Obama to try an stop him from becoming president over a conspiracy theory, when there were other  easier proven factual evidence of why he should of never been elected. A moot point now though and more over the country just didn't care, they were too razzle dazzled  and  voters bought into the lies and more over were too afraid to be called racist for not voting for him. If anything Obama was merely elected because he wasn't white and had excellent handlers to write his propaganda. Which is about as idiotic and racist as one can get to elect someone .  

 

There is no appeasing the new socialist party, you are either with them, or against them and if you are against them, you are a racist, homophobic , Islamiphobic , war mongering, deplorable, climate change denier who causes climate change, and a moron, who loves guns and wants to see more people die by gun violence and then if you are a Christian you are even double on their evil list.

 

It is a double standard on laws that socialists play by that one has to constantly adjust to , to keep fighting against.

[+susieice]

Are they trying to influence the election and my vote? This is going to end up in court.

Edited July 31, 2019 by susieice

[aztek]

good, now trump can show he can win without single vote from CA, just like he did in 2016, 

[+susieice]

4 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I'm not sure why anyone would have a problem with this. There's a reason that it's the standard for Presidential elections. Before Trump decided to go against this standard, I'll bet that not a single person would have anything negative to say about such a law. Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

We should have a right to known none of them are corrupt. Right down to a city mayor. I want to see how long it takes AOC to go from a bartender to a millionaire on $174,000 a year. 

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Shouldn't you have a right to know that your prospective President isn't corrupt?

Absolutely, but it's only being done in this one case to get Trump, and only in one state. That's all. 

The bottom line is, the state of California has no right to set rules for a candidate's entry into a federal election. That is for the Feds only to determine.
If the Feds determine that Trump can run for office, then what California is doing is taking away people's right to vote, which is a crime.

Yeah, it's yet another way the dems are pushing for totalitarianism. they suck.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

No one said it was a requirement of the Constitution.

correct. so if you introduce your *own* requirement, such an act is "unconstitutional"

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, Robotic Jew said:

The hypocrisy of republicans screaming relentlessly FOR YEARS to see Obama's birth certificate and then criticising democrats for wanting to see tax returns is head explodingly ridiculous. 

Yes it is hypocritical, but conservative states, like Arizona, *never* passed a law that a presidential candidate had to show his birth certificate before Obama ran for his second term in 2012. Does that put the skullduggery of it all into proper perspective?

I hope so.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Wouldn’t the IRS have already been aware if he was and ruined his life years before he ran for president? Think people.

People do think. Unfortunately, the democrats think *criminally*. depriving people of their right to vote, and election fraud are crimes. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by Earl.Of.Trumps

[RoofGardener]

Typical American democratic "virtue signaling". 

This state law would be immediately crushed by the Supreme Court, if the idiots in California where to attempt to enforce it. 

It is clearly undemocratic. In fact, it is fascistic.

But then, thus is the modern American Democratic Party. They are increasingly authoritarian, and racist. 

Edited July 31, 2019 by RoofGardener

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

That is for the Feds only to determine.

Except in the case of people running as independents, in which case the candidate must petition the states and each state can set their own conditions.  So yeah, it seems that CA does not have the right to do this.  Just one more example of government representatives wasting time and money that could have been used to make life better for their constituents.

[Earl.Of.Trumps]

3 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Except in the case of people running as independents, in which case the candidate must petition the states and each state can set their own conditions.  So yeah, it seems that CA does not have the right to do this.  Just one more example of government representatives wasting time and money that could have been used to make life better for their constituents.

OverSword… in my view - and I am up for discussion on this, nobody has the right to tack on any requirements to run for president. The constitution spells it out. We must always observe first what the laws of the constitution say, and we must be in line with those laws - or, amend the constitution!

I can be swayed, perhaps, but laws are laws. simple as that. ignoring laws makes one an anarchist. And then you have chaos.

 

[+OverSword]

6 minutes ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

OverSword… in my view - and I am up for discussion on this, nobody has the right to tack on any requirements to run for president. The constitution spells it out. We must always observe first what the laws of the constitution say, and we must be in line with those laws - or, amend the constitution!

I can be swayed, perhaps, but laws are laws. simple as that. ignoring laws makes one an anarchist. And then you have chaos.

 

Ballot access for presidential candidates

[ExpandMyMind]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

Wouldn’t the IRS have already been aware if he was and ruined his life years before he ran for president? Think people.

Let's say a President has received a ton of money from a pharmaceutical company and when he gets into office he immediately gives massive tax breaks to that company. That's just a rough example.

And not to do with corruption, imagine a President who has promised to fix the debt and economy being revealed to be in debt up to his eyeballs and bankrupt multiple times. 

It's only sensible to release tax returns and something I think should be a standard for all politicians.

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, susieice said:

We should have a right to known none of them are corrupt. Right down to a city mayor. I want to see how long it takes AOC to go from a bartender to a millionaire on $174,000 a year. 

I agree and I actually just made this point before reading your reply.

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Let's say a President has received a ton of money from a pharmaceutical company and when he gets into office he immediately gives massive tax breaks to that company. That's just a rough example.

And not to do with corruption, imagine a President who has promised to fix the debt and economy being revealed to be in debt up to his eyeballs and bankrupt multiple times. 

It's only sensible to release tax returns and something I think should be a standard for all politicians.

What if?

List of Presidents either bankrupt or in deep debt.

• Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
• William Henry Harrison (1841)
• Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
•  Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
• William McKinley (1897-1901)
• Harry Truman (1945-1953)

[ExpandMyMind]

1 hour ago, Earl.Of.Trumps said:

Absolutely, but it's only being done in this one case to get Trump, and only in one state. That's all. 

Okay, let's say that's true. So, what's the problem?

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

What if?

List of Presidents either bankrupt or in deep debt.

• Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809)
• William Henry Harrison (1841)
• Abraham Lincoln (1861-1865)
•  Ulysses S. Grant (1869-1877)
• William McKinley (1897-1901)
• Harry Truman (1945-1953)

And if they had used their station to profit, you'd have no problem?

 

[RoofGardener]

Perhaps.. but all of that is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the State of California has enacted an illegal law that is both fascistic and authoritarian, and seeks to disenfranchise millions of Californians. 

Could somebody please explain to me why the Californian Legislature hasn't been arrested for insurrection ? 

. 

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Okay, let's say that's true. So, what's the problem?

Do you think there is a problem when a state dominated by one party enacts legislation to prevent the opposition from appearing on the ballot?  Hmmmm...Seems like they do that in some places.  Nazi Germany comes to mind.  China in which President Xi has enacted legislation that states everything he says is true...Probably Iran...Yes, I'm sure it's not a problem if we do it here as well.

[+OverSword]

9 minutes ago, RoofGardener said:

Perhaps.. but all of that is irrelevant.

The bottom line is that the State of California has enacted an illegal law that is both fascistic and authoritarian, and seeks to disenfranchise millions of Californians. 

Could somebody please explain to me why the Californian Legislature hasn't been arrested for insurrection ? 

. 

Trump Derangement Syndrome.  Anything that is anti-trump seems reasonable to individuals suffering from it. 

[ExpandMyMind]

6 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Do you think there is a problem when a state dominated by one party enacts legislation to prevent the opposition from appearing on the ballot?

Nothing about it prevents him from running and he, in fact, promised to release his tax returns anyway. Also, it applies to all candidates in all future elections, so it's hardly going to favour one side over the other. It's not like the law is requiring only Republican candidates must release their tax returns.

The fact remains, there is only one reason to not release them: he has something to hide.

Edited July 31, 2019 by ExpandMyMind

[+OverSword]

17 minutes ago, ExpandMyMind said:

And if they had used their station to profit, you'd have no problem?

Where did I say that?  And if they had they wouldn't be on this list.  Thirdly, our current fuherer is a billionaire and probably doesn't need to be elected president in order to become wealthy.

[aztek]

i'm sure he lost millions since 2016, he would be a lot richer if he did not run

[+OverSword]

1 minute ago, ExpandMyMind said:

Nothing about it prevents him from running. He, in fact, promised to release his tax returns anyway and it applies to all candidates in all future elections, so it's hardly going to favour one side over the other. It's not like the law is requiring only Republican candidates must release their tax returns.

The fact remains, there is only one reason to not release them: he has something to hide.

There is nothing lawful that would compel him to do so.  Now suppose he just says "No I'm not releasing my taxes"?  So CA is simply not going to allow the incumbent president and opposition leader to appear on the ballot?  And nothing about that strikes a wrong chord with you?  And this is just a perfectly reasonable little piece of legislation that has nothing specifically to do with trump?  Geeze.

[ExpandMyMind]

5 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Where did I say that?  And if they had they wouldn't be on this list.  Thirdly, our current fuherer is a billionaire and probably doesn't need to be elected president in order to become wealthy.

Is he though? That's an extremely debatable topic, considering his past lies about his wealth and the fact that no US bank will even touch him, leaving his only option for loans as Russia.

His level of wealth is probably the main reason he won't release his tax returns, to be honest.