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 11.43%
I only support this one and can't fathom other important reasons to do something 1 1.43%
No: This is anti-Democratic. 61 87.14%
Voters: 70. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 04:44 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
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.
State's rights. That has been the motto of the GOP since forever. Several states have passed popular vote laws and now a state is saying five years of tax returns. Trump can get on the ballot, he just needs to provide his tax returns. After all, Trump was the one demanding Obama show his birth certificate, which he did. The irony is delicious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 07:55 PM
 
Location: 130 Miles E of Sacramento
5,499 posts, read 3,324,840 times
Reputation: 3681
But this is not interfering with the election results?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:16 PM
 
Location: The Republic of Texas
66,718 posts, read 33,987,365 times
Reputation: 14331
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?
A state may not add additional language into the US Constitution. This is not a 10th Amendment issue. The qualifications are clearly outlined in the US Constitution. The States have no additional say.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:26 PM
 
9,438 posts, read 4,325,034 times
Reputation: 11083
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?
If anyone is hoping our great republic will come crashing down, they should support such measures. Why stop with obvious ideological shenanigans designed to scuttle a particular candidate like what CA might approve?
I doubt this will hold up in Federal court, so it is more likely virtue signaling.

Regardless, if the certain state constitution said no person could be on the ballot unless proved to be a certain % or a particular religion or race, would the same people in CA have voted for such a measure?


`
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:33 PM
 
3,680 posts, read 2,345,953 times
Reputation: 1985
I have not seen this posted in this thread but yesterday ABC reported that Bernie Sanders does not meet the law's criteria to appear on CA's ballot either.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:35 PM
 
Location: FL
15,900 posts, read 8,875,336 times
Reputation: 3872
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?
Why should he have to do that? Trump hasn't!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 08:43 PM
 
Location: New Mexico
6,707 posts, read 3,730,923 times
Reputation: 12632
The states will keep doing this and similar laws as long as Congress is paralyzed by partisan bickering and obstruction. It is interesting that Trumpers think California's law is undemocratic or even unconstitutional while they support blatant voter suppression and gerrymandering.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Jacksonville, FL
7,036 posts, read 7,820,264 times
Reputation: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
State's rights. That has been the motto of the GOP since forever. Several states have passed popular vote laws and now a state is saying five years of tax returns. Trump can get on the ballot, he just needs to provide his tax returns. After all, Trump was the one demanding Obama show his birth certificate, which he did. The irony is delicious.
Individual rights don’t include anything which directly impacts another individual or society in a harmful way. This has been the standard of law since the inception of our nation.

Similarly, state’s rights do not allow any law which directly impacts another state or the nation in a harmful way. That was - depending upon who you ask - the reason, a reason, an excuse, or the excuse for the Civil War. Either way, the question of how far state’s rights extended was settled pretty decisively.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:13 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,728 posts, read 4,305,660 times
Reputation: 10031
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.
Next time it will be 15 years of tax returns, elementary, junior high and high school records, and whatever else the democrats can think up.

Our system we've used for the past 250 years is failing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 04:16 AM
 
Location: Pennsylvania
12,728 posts, read 4,305,660 times
Reputation: 10031
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggunsmallbrains View Post
We might want an intellectually sound leader but all we got is Donald Trump, an intellectually retarded one.
Call Trump retarded (that's politically incorrect these days, by the way)….. but at least he was smart enough to figure out that it was the electoral vote, and not the popular one, that was going to matter in 2016.
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