U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you support ballot qualifications outside of the constitution?
Yes: states should put any kind of limitation that they want even for political motivations 8 14.55%
I only support this one and can't fathom other important reasons to do something 1 1.82%
No: This is anti-Democratic. 46 83.64%
Voters: 55. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 12:27 PM
 
Location: My House
34,742 posts, read 29,113,396 times
Reputation: 25710

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
Release your Medical records.

We need to verify your not a risk of a health problem, an addict or mental issues.

Hillary kept falling down. We must know why.
If she ever runs again, which I doubt, I suppose that could be considered.

Of course, I would not mind medical records on Trump by an impartial physician.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 12:28 PM
 
Location: My House
34,742 posts, read 29,113,396 times
Reputation: 25710
I think candidates should disclose their financials. And, I think there should be a federal requirement to do so.
__________________
When in doubt, check it out: FAQ
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:30 PM
 
Location: DFW
623 posts, read 171,751 times
Reputation: 973
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
"This remains a terrible, anti-democratic idea and California should be embarrassed (sic)." -Nate Silver

California's governor signed into law that you can't appear on the California ballot for president unless you hand over the past 5 years of tax returns to the California Attorney General.

The law might be unconstitutional due to putting requirements not within the constitution.


Would Democrats be fine with other limitations? Obama wouldn't release grades and test scores - could Texas make that a requirement to be on the ballot? We want an intellectually sound leader after all, don't we?
I don't know that exceedingly book smart makes for a good leader. Often times highly intellectual people sort of process information in an entirely different strata than everyone else, and people of lower intellect feel isolated and accuse the more intellectual person of looking down upon them. This is not very motivational. Motivation is one of the key aspects to leadership.
As a hard lefty, I was not a fan of W, yet he is a great example of not being the sharpest knife in the drawer, but being able to rally the people. He hired the intellect to work for him, and he trusted them. I believe he knows he is not the smartest, and it has allowed him to expand his humor and charm. The same could be said for B Clinton. However, H. Clinton I feel was on a different strata, and therefore she alienated people.

As far as the OP question, I am comme-ci, comme-ca honestly. This would be a long discussion for me. I am going to keep reading comments and see if it brings any enlightenment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:35 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,227 posts, read 2,620,260 times
Reputation: 6272
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
I think the Conservative states should say that no one can be on their ballot unless they are pro life and renounce socialism.
California is not restricting the political views of the candidate, they are trying to ensure the voting public is informed about the candidate. If you are seeking an equivalency for conservative states a more apt analog would be for them to require the birth certificate of the candidate.

I don't see anything wrong with an informed public. People should know exactly who they are voting for. Why would anyone think that is a bad thing?

Somebody above mentioned forcing college grades be published. I don't have a problem with that either. It would put an end to rumors about the candidate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:40 PM
 
Location: USA
19,973 posts, read 14,789,466 times
Reputation: 12869
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
I think the Conservative states should say that no one can be on their ballot unless they are pro life and renounce socialism.
Touche!

How about this "I want the Socialist to keep thier hands off my wallet, and the religious types to keep their hands off our bodies"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:46 PM
 
Location: Haiku
4,227 posts, read 2,620,260 times
Reputation: 6272
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarshaBrady1968 View Post
I don't know that exceedingly book smart makes for a good leader. Often times highly intellectual people sort of process information in an entirely different strata than everyone else, and people of lower intellect feel isolated and accuse the more intellectual person of looking down upon them. This is not very motivational. Motivation is one of the key aspects to leadership.
What you are saying is very true - the public, at least the conservative side of the public, seems more comfortable with a slow-witted President. Reagan was also not the sharpest knife in the drawer but he is revered by most Republicans.

While being a little bit of a dim light bulb can be not a bad thing, it does require that the person surrounds himself with high-quality competent advisers. This is where things fell apart with W - he let Cheney and Karl Rove run the country and they got us into a world of hurt with the whole Iraq WMD fiasco. And now Trump is going down the same path by getting rid of the best people in his administration and hiring nut cases like Bolton.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:48 PM
 
2,293 posts, read 663,767 times
Reputation: 1943
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios View Post

...The primary process is to accommodate political parties and is actually a cooperation between the individual states and the local (state) parties. Some states have caucuses, for example, and others have a state sponsored elections. The state controls (and pays for) and regulates the election which determines the nominee from that state for the party.

The Republican party of California is free to set up it's own nomination process, as a caucus for instance, if it wishes to do so.
True. From what I understand, this legislation affects only the eligibility of a candidate to appear on the CA primary ballot, not that of the general election. The primaries are largely orchestrated by the parties themselves, for their own benefit. As you point out, if this new prohibition presents an issue for one or more candidates the CA GOP could go to a caucus as a means of selecting a presidential nominee. For that matter, they could get the party big-wigs together in the proverbial smoke-filled room and select a nominee for the general election that way, thereby defeating the purpose of this legislation altogether.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:53 PM
 
Location: Hiding from Antifa?
6,467 posts, read 4,208,676 times
Reputation: 5739
I think a state could make such requirements to be on their ballots, as long as they do not become effective until 8 years after it is passed, so that no such law can be targeted to any one individual. It's when they target a new law like this that they get into trouble.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:54 PM
 
Location: North Beach, MD on the Chesapeake
33,996 posts, read 42,315,877 times
Reputation: 43469
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedZin View Post
I think candidates should disclose their financials. And, I think there should be a federal requirement to do so.
Since you keep whinging about this I'm going to ask if you looked at Trump's mandatory financial disclosure. I know you won't answer this, people like you never do.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/05/16/read...re-report.html

Here is the latest.

https://m.box.com/shared_item/https%...o7diicwd11pac4
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:55 PM
 
Location: SGV
24,959 posts, read 9,743,657 times
Reputation: 9767
It's wholly democratic. Democracy is mob rule. The mob has spoken.

Now bow down like a good collectivist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top