Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Rhode Island
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-22-2018, 04:45 PM
 
8,498 posts, read 4,561,677 times
Reputation: 9753

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by 16 Acres View Post
True



Probably True too.

But the bottom line is:

Is he breaking any kind of Federal Law in doing so?

The way I understand it, it is totally voluntary.



No one ever said he broke any law. RI is just passing a law so that future candidates have to provide this information just as they do with campaign finance data. If DJT doesn't want to abide by this law, he can choose not to be on the ballot in RI. Wouldn't really matter much for him as he has no chance of winning the state's electoral votes. With only four such votes, it matters even less for him.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-22-2018, 05:07 PM
 
Location: Beautiful Rhode Island
9,290 posts, read 14,905,031 times
Reputation: 10382
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
No one ever said he broke any law. RI is just passing a law so that future candidates have to provide this information just as they do with campaign finance data. If DJT doesn't want to abide by this law, he can choose not to be on the ballot in RI. Wouldn't really matter much for him as he has no chance of winning the state's electoral votes. With only four such votes, it matters even less for him.
True, but I think RI should not be trying to block people who do want to vote for Trump. That is unfair bias.

I would love to see the legislation on a federal level.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2018, 05:15 PM
 
Location: SW Virginia
2,189 posts, read 1,404,630 times
Reputation: 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
No one ever said he broke any law. RI is just passing a law so that future candidates have to provide this information just as they do with campaign finance data. If DJT doesn't want to abide by this law, he can choose not to be on the ballot in RI. Wouldn't really matter much for him as he has no chance of winning the state's electoral votes. With only four such votes, it matters even less for him.
True, Trump has no chance in RI anyway.

I don't believe he would actually "choose" not to be on it, but my point is that it would be unfair to Rhode Islanders to have the state decide who they can vote for and who they can't.

I still feel it would be un-Constitutional for the state to take away this right, especially when no laws are broken to begin with.

But even if I'm wrong, and for some crazy reason they can make it stick, my main point is why would they want to implement something to help drive out more people, when they are having problems in that department as it is. If I was a Republican there, I would not be taking this too kindly.

It also could start a precedent and backfire. Try to picture it the other way around someday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-22-2018, 06:28 PM
 
8,498 posts, read 4,561,677 times
Reputation: 9753
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollytree View Post
True, but I think RI should not be trying to block people who do want to vote for Trump. That is unfair bias.

I would love to see the legislation on a federal level.



They would not be blocking him. He would be deciding he did not want to follow the rules to make the ballot. Each state sets up its own election rules - filing deadline, signatures, campaign finance filings, etc...If a candidate did not file on time of get the necessary signatures, they would not be allowed on the ballot. Mandating the release of tax returns would be just another requirement. As for constitutionality, the US Supreme Court upheld state rights to dictate their presidential election processes back in 2000. Besides, if a RI voter wanted to vote for Trump, I believe that they could still do so via the write-in method. The rule would likely only apply to getting on the official ballot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2018, 04:45 AM
 
8,031 posts, read 4,698,379 times
Reputation: 2278
Why wouldn't any voter want or deserve to know what's in a presidential candidate's tax returns? Knowing this information in advance of voting may one day save this country from electing a deceptive president with extensive financial ties to an enemy foreign country. Financial interests which may allow them to blackmail him or at least make him a puppet, critically beholden to that foreign power. Why wouldn't voters deserve to know this in advance?? Such advance knowledge could actually save the democracy from the severe damage such a charlatan could bring. For once, Bravo RI!

Last edited by independent man; 06-23-2018 at 04:55 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2018, 06:51 AM
 
Location: Beautiful Rhode Island
9,290 posts, read 14,905,031 times
Reputation: 10382
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
They would not be blocking him. He would be deciding he did not want to follow the rules to make the ballot. Each state sets up its own election rules - filing deadline, signatures, campaign finance filings, etc...If a candidate did not file on time of get the necessary signatures, they would not be allowed on the ballot. Mandating the release of tax returns would be just another requirement. As for constitutionality, the US Supreme Court upheld state rights to dictate their presidential election processes back in 2000. Besides, if a RI voter wanted to vote for Trump, I believe that they could still do so via the write-in method. The rule would likely only apply to getting on the official ballot.
This would certainly be putting him at a huge disadvantage- which is the purpose of course!

If nothing else, we could be accused of steering. It is a state strategy which comes very close to tactics like making it harder to register to vote. Manipulation of "presidential election processes" can steer elections. What other requirements could be voted in- only persons born in New England can appear on our ballot?

Full disclosure: I consider myself an independent thinker and am no fan of Trump's and did not vote for him.

It's difficult when our two parties are at two extremes. There is little room for moderate position anymore. Even certain posters seem only able to resort to name calling and juvenile insults on this forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2018, 08:44 AM
 
23,565 posts, read 18,707,417 times
Reputation: 10824
Just an easy way for the Senate to appease their base, is what I see.


They could be blowing tax dollars on booze and hookers, while driving the state into bankruptcy; yet all they have to do is stand up and say "I Hate Trump", and they coast right back into office.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2018, 09:34 AM
 
48 posts, read 23,133 times
Reputation: 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by massnative71 View Post
Just an easy way for the Senate to appease their base, is what I see.


They could be blowing tax dollars on booze and hookers, while driving the state into bankruptcy; yet all they have to do is stand up and say "I Hate Trump", and they coast right back into office.
Bingo. They got their base eating out of the palm of their hand in this state. Play em like a fiddle lol.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 06:16 AM
 
Location: RI, MA, VT, WI, IL, CA, IN (that one sucked), KY
41,936 posts, read 36,962,945 times
Reputation: 40635
Quote:
Originally Posted by 16 Acres View Post
To have a candidate, Legally and meeting all Federal Requirements on a Ballot running for a US Public Office and your state will not allow you to vote for them?


You could still vote for them. Nothing is to prevent you from voting for them. Who is pre "printed" on a ballot is a different thing all together.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-25-2018, 07:50 AM
 
Location: SW Virginia
2,189 posts, read 1,404,630 times
Reputation: 2016
Quote:
Originally Posted by timberline742 View Post
You could still vote for them. Nothing is to prevent you from voting for them. Who is pre "printed" on a ballot is a different thing all together.
I believe you are referring to a "Write-In".

But my point still stands.

If anyone out there is having a hard time understanding my point, just picture it the other way around. I believe the Democrats would be outraged.

Although remember, my main point was about influencing even more people to move out. If a state is having a problem holding onto it's population as it is, why would they want to enrage another portion of it?
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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


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 > U.S. Forums > Rhode Island

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top