Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3256953" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>The CA law is intentional political targeting. California doesn't elect the president, the nation as a whole does. If CA thinks its important to know the tax and financial status of a candidate for president (which they control neither the office nor the individual's federal returns), then why did they not make it mandatory for all state level offices, including governor? What defense do they have for this overt omission?</p><p></p><p>They don't. This is 100% about denying ballot access, unless they can force Trump to give them potential political dirt against himself. That's not for the state to decide, it's for the voters. By the same token, they perpetually claim they can use Trump's words and actions against him in federal court (which happens just about every day now). Even when they aren't mentioned in the Trump Administration directives at all, they claim whatever he said during the '16 campaign or what he tweeted after eating a Big Mac are equal to canonized law. So they know they passed this one law to use against one person, we know it and Trump knows it. They've repeatedly stated as much when they've repeatedly singled Trump out over his tax returns. It's on record.</p><p></p><p>Every state sets certain thresholds to obtain ballot access. To date it invariably involves the viability of a campaign. They don't want to print a ballot with 10,000 candidates for POTUS. The Constitution explicitly lays out the minimum standards to become president.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Notice you don't see anywhere in that list the public disclosure of sensitive financial information. That's on purpose. It's not an inadvertent omission. The State of California has no legitimate purpose to require this. It's morally, ethically and yes, legally indefensible. I mean if we're going to go down this warped rabbit hole, other states could use this CA law as the basis to deny ballot access to specific candidates or groups of candidates. Oklahoma could make it virtually impossible for any Democratic candidate to get on the ballot in Oklahoma. Hell, they could just flatly state that Oklahoma's electoral votes automatically go to the GOP candidate and no popular votes will be tallied, therefore denying some meaningless "moral" victory by saying the GOP candidate actually lost the election because more people voted for the Dem. Oh, and that "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" the Dems want so desperately? Well what happens when states just do away with popular votes altogether? States rights, right?</p><p></p><p>The only real question here, is just how stupid do we want to get on voting in service of partisan politics? California is currently in the lead on stupid. How far will it go?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3256953, member: 1132"] The CA law is intentional political targeting. California doesn't elect the president, the nation as a whole does. If CA thinks its important to know the tax and financial status of a candidate for president (which they control neither the office nor the individual's federal returns), then why did they not make it mandatory for all state level offices, including governor? What defense do they have for this overt omission? They don't. This is 100% about denying ballot access, unless they can force Trump to give them potential political dirt against himself. That's not for the state to decide, it's for the voters. By the same token, they perpetually claim they can use Trump's words and actions against him in federal court (which happens just about every day now). Even when they aren't mentioned in the Trump Administration directives at all, they claim whatever he said during the '16 campaign or what he tweeted after eating a Big Mac are equal to canonized law. So they know they passed this one law to use against one person, we know it and Trump knows it. They've repeatedly stated as much when they've repeatedly singled Trump out over his tax returns. It's on record. Every state sets certain thresholds to obtain ballot access. To date it invariably involves the viability of a campaign. They don't want to print a ballot with 10,000 candidates for POTUS. The Constitution explicitly lays out the minimum standards to become president. [COLOR=#000000][/COLOR] Notice you don't see anywhere in that list the public disclosure of sensitive financial information. That's on purpose. It's not an inadvertent omission. The State of California has no legitimate purpose to require this. It's morally, ethically and yes, legally indefensible. I mean if we're going to go down this warped rabbit hole, other states could use this CA law as the basis to deny ballot access to specific candidates or groups of candidates. Oklahoma could make it virtually impossible for any Democratic candidate to get on the ballot in Oklahoma. Hell, they could just flatly state that Oklahoma's electoral votes automatically go to the GOP candidate and no popular votes will be tallied, therefore denying some meaningless "moral" victory by saying the GOP candidate actually lost the election because more people voted for the Dem. Oh, and that "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact" the Dems want so desperately? Well what happens when states just do away with popular votes altogether? States rights, right? The only real question here, is just how stupid do we want to get on voting in service of partisan politics? California is currently in the lead on stupid. How far will it go? [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Do you think this helps conservatives?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom