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 11.27%
I only support this one and can't fathom other important reasons to do something 1 1.41%
No: This is anti-Democratic. 62 87.32%
Voters: 71. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-31-2019, 07:41 PM
Status: "45 is a Puppet" (set 7 days ago)
 
18,280 posts, read 11,209,692 times
Reputation: 9603

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by NeutralZone View Post
This action by the Democratic controlled California legislature and the Democratic governor is beyond embarrassing. It is pathetic, unconstitutional, and highly anti-democratic. This is exactly what tin pot fascist regimes around the world do. That ANYONE can justify this is obscene. I would be equally opposed if a Republican legislature and a Republican governor did something similar just to keep a Democratic candidate or politician off the ballot. Your questions about the electoral college, gerrymandering, and the popular vote has nothing to do with this subject and to try to use them to argue about taking away the right of people to vote who disagree with you makes you look like a petty totalitarian. I am appalled when the two major parties collude to keep minor parties off the ballot (it happens in many states). But for one major party to use their overwhelming electoral dominance of a state to try to effectively ban the opposing party strikes at the very roots of our democratic system of government. And as others have noted on here, this could open a Pandora's box of similar legislation in other states. That would cause chaos in our political system, and would make our country unrecognizable.
The opposing party is not banned. They just need to provide five years of tax returns. That is not banned.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-31-2019, 10:02 PM
 
Location: Portland, Oregon
563 posts, read 442,309 times
Reputation: 1012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
The opposing party is not banned. They just need to provide five years of tax returns. That is not banned.
Give me a break.

This is one party trying to prevent the opposing party from having their presidential candidate on the ballot. If this were to pass constitutional muster (which it won't), don't you think this actively discourages Republicans and Republican leaning independents from voting at all? Democrats talk a big game about "voter suppression" when anyone mentions voter ID. This is outright, blatant, discriminatory voter suppression and political intimidation of the opposing party. How anyone that claims to believe in democratic, constitutional government can support this is beyond my comprehension.

And as an aside, there has never been a law requiring this for any Democrat or Republican. Trump, whether you love him or hate him, has filed his taxes with the IRS. If the IRS doesn't have any problem with his returns, why do you Democrats obsess over them? Is it because you lost the election, and you just can't find it in you to respect the democratic process? I used to be a Democrat (I'm now an independent) and have sat back and watched the Democratic Party use any and all means, legal or not, ethical or not, to first, try to overturn and subvert the election, and then to remove Trump from office. It's really unbelievable. The way to remove him from office is to win the 2020 presidential election. That's the American, democratic way of doing it. This backhanded, unethical, anti-democratic attempt at preventing Trump from appearing on the ballot is the way of Putin, Maduro, Mugabe, and assorted other thugs, fascists, and tyrants. If this is what the Democratic Party represents, then even though I'm not very happy with the Republicans, I can't see myself voting for any Democrat, for any office, at any time, for the rest of my life.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 10:21 PM
 
Location: the Sticks
8,867 posts, read 2,533,841 times
Reputation: 4675
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
The opposing party is not banned. They just need to provide five years of tax returns. That is not banned.
But asking for an ID is worse?

I am happy to show my ID but my tax returns are no ones business.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-31-2019, 10:24 PM
 
5,309 posts, read 2,715,296 times
Reputation: 3556
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?
We might want an intellectually sound leader but all we got is Donald Trump, an intellectually retarded one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 12:31 AM
 
51,044 posts, read 26,903,293 times
Reputation: 16010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tall Traveler View Post
Best and most accurate post you've ever made.
SMH...get outta here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:44 AM
 
Location: Northern Wisconsin
8,897 posts, read 7,772,590 times
Reputation: 15397
What authority does an editorial from the LA times have? Could care less about a journalists opinion. Did you know journalism students have the lowest entrance test scores.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:31 PM
 
Location: Middle of the Pacific Ocean
11,905 posts, read 6,378,552 times
Reputation: 11717
The law is unconstitutional. Interestingly, I'd argue that if the political parties, which are private entities, decided to require such in order for someone to have a shot serving as the party's standard bearer, that would withstand judiciary scrutiny. Its the state/government trying to impose additional requirements on the presidency that runs afoul of the Constitution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:42 PM
 
Location: Bran's tree
11,153 posts, read 4,912,480 times
Reputation: 12462
Considering that the President will be forcibly taking and spending our tax dollars whether we like it or not (even living in another country as a dual citizen, you have to), I think it's fair that taxpaying voters see whether candidates have been honest taxpayers themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 03:51 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,007 posts, read 11,881,080 times
Reputation: 10959
pure voter suppression!


suppressing the conservative vote, a legacy form the 'rogue IRS office in Cincinnati'.


suppress the vote for cons and not a problem.


CA is off the rails. Are there voters in CA who reject this nonsense? where are they?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 04:36 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,036 posts, read 7,820,264 times
Reputation: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifty Seven View Post
Democrats are showing they are willing to set dangerous precedents in order to achieve short term satisfaction. California is a one party state so there's nobody to talk sense to them and it will be up to the courts to decide. Even if it turns out what they are doing is legal, it will be, as you have pointed out, emulated by other states with other political makeups, with unforeseen consequences. And in the short term Trump will be left off the ballot in a state he has no chance to win in the first place. All the democrats will win is a few minutes with a **** eating grin and the continuation of their popular vote talking point in to Trump's second term. Which may be all they are looking to get anyway.
They’ve been showing that for years.
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