Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Ben on March 17, 2019, 09:02:07 AM
-
The WA Senate passed a bill that would keep Trump off the ballot unless he releases his tax returns. They say this is constitutional, but I wonder about that. The tax return thing has only been going on for around 40 years. I don't know that there are any actual requirements other than US citizen and 35 years old.
Apparently 25 states have pushed this legislation. I don't know that any of the others have passed it yet. This is clearly a TDS move, and something that will someday bite these states in the ass, all because they wanted to "get Trump" now. In many of these 25 states, they're dissing 50% of their voters/taxpayers.
I find it interesting in that many (maybe all of?) these states are into the "kill the electoral college" thing. So they want to do the popular vote / "one person one vote" thing on the one side, but then tell their residents who that one person is?
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434412-washington-senate-passes-bill-that-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot
-
There is not a federal requirement for a candidate to release his tax info. And there shouldn't be, in my opinion.
As you said, this is just TDS writ large.
-
I find it interesting in that many (maybe all of?) these states are into the "kill the electoral college" thing. So they want to do the popular vote / "one person one vote" thing on the one side, but then tell their residents who that one person is?
Where else do we see that method of free and open elections?
:rofl:
-
Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.
Heck, they can require a valid birth certificate be provided too while they're at it. :angel:
-
Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.
Heck, they can require a valid birth certificate be provided too while they're at it. :angel:
That's already been declared racist
And a possible carcinogen by the state of California
-
Democrats:
Trump is a threat to our Democracy!!
Also Democrats:
You rubes voted wrong, we need to make sure you can't do that again!!
-
Where else do we see that method of free and open elections?
:rofl:
A once-wealthy country whose name begins with 'V' comes to mind ...
Of course, if events in the U.S. follow that model, our 2020 election will "elect" Bernie, with AOC as veep, and then 40 countries around the world will recognize Trump as the legitimate president of the U.S.
-
No participation in a federal election with the stated candidates as voted by their respective constituents? Okay, then you also don't get to participate in federal programs or receive federal money.
Brad
-
Since we vote entirely by mail we'll go blue regardless of who is, or isn't, on the ballot.
-
No participation in a federal election with the stated candidates as voted by their respective constituents? Okay, then you also don't get to participate in federal programs or receive federal money.
Brad
Oh, hell. Don't put all the candidates on the ballot, your state's votes don't count. Congratulations, President Trump.
-
Fine with me. There are always candidates that make it on the ballot in some states but not others for various reasons.
Not fine with me. States shouldn't be able to do that. I would never want to see an Obama or Hillary or communist kept off the ballot. Just because I wouldn't vote for them doesn't mean others don't have the right to vote their conscience or political beliefs.
As far as I'm concerned, there can be 100 presidential candidates on the ballot.
-
This seems like something that would get swatted down by the courts pretty quickly. If not, Trump will just release his tax returns.
I understand why people want to see politicians' tax returns, but the way some people make it some kind of moral failing on Trump's part? ;/
-
Just because I wouldn't vote for them doesn't mean others don't have the right to vote their conscience or political beliefs.
Write in should always be an option.
-
Let me get this straight.
Even though there is no evidence of any wrong-doing. I mean none. Not even the slightest hint of a whiff any criminality. As in a judge would laugh you out of court for the complete lack of any probable cause (other then severe TDS and Orange Man Bad). But the state (and the Democrat controlled HoR) want to go on a fishing expedition, so they are making their own rules on who is eligible for president (and VP, I presume) above and beyond what is called for in the Constitution (Native Born, 35+ Years Old, and a US Resident for 14 years).
Yeah, that will be a fun case to watch. Violating Article II and the 4th Amendment. That will go over well with the USSC.
-
I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.
-
I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious.
Actually, I consider it to be rather egregious. Most current requirements aren't very bad.
1. You have to register by a set date, maybe pay a nominal fee(I haven't seen one that exceeds $1k).
2. You need to come up with a nominal number of signatures to show that you might have a chance of winning.
Requiring the release of your 1040 is, I think, egregious because it really doesn't have anything to do with your campaigning for office. I mean, at least a birth certificate requirement would be demonstrating that you meet the eligibility requirements for the office.
Really, I know that many past presidents have released it, but it's still information protected by various privacy rules. I mean, random people can't petition the IRS for a copy of my returns. They're properly considered private information.
-
I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.
Where do you draw the line, then? Can a state require a complete social media and web search history? List of all past romantic/sexual relationships? A 10,000-word essay explaining why the holocaust is a hoax and Hitler did nothing wrong?
-
I'm pretty sure every state already has some eligibility requirements to get on the ballot, this one doesn't seem egregious. Signatures, polling minimum, probably plenty of fees & paperwork in some places. I guarantee there are people who wanted to be on the ballot but couldn't get on there and as far as I know the courts haven't done much about it. Releasing tax returns isn't discriminatory - everyone can do it pretty easily if they want to run.
Ahh, the old "why are you against this law, restriction, requirement, loss of privacy if you have nothing to hide?" canard.
Sent from my Moto E (4) Plus using Tapatalk
-
Where do you draw the line, then?
Is this a slippery slope argument or do you care where I personally would draw the line?
I think to get on the general election presidential ballot, candidates should be required to provide:
- Birth Certificate
- Full criminal history - anything down to speeding ticket since they turned 18
- College transcripts
- 10 years of tax returns
- Results of a simple, but standardized health screening including prescribed medications over the past 5 years. Something on par with what most workplaces are doing for health insurance these days.
And actually I wouldn't mind some SAT/ACT type tests & essays but concede that's probably egregious.
Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.
-
Is this a slippery slope argument or do you care where I personally would draw the line?
I think to get on the general election presidential ballot, candidates should be required to provide:
- Birth Certificate
- Full criminal history - anything down to speeding ticket since they turned 18
- College transcripts
- 10 years of tax returns
- Results of a simple, but standardized health screening including prescribed medications over the past 5 years. Something on par with what most workplaces are doing for health insurance these days.
And actually I wouldn't mind some SAT/ACT type tests & essays but concede that's probably egregious.
Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.
How about if we disallow anyone who uses DittoHead as an online name? =)
I think the Constitution covered it. Prove you were born here and 35 or over. Other than that, I think some or most states require a major party nomination or a certain number of petition signatures. I think that is just to weed out the nut jobs..... and fistful.
Adding arbitrary requirements is just moving things closer to governments choosing who is "qualified" to run for office so we vote for the right people. Who is "qualified"? That all depends on who is in power at the time.
-
I'm not saying anyone who has a speeding ticket, or failed a college class, or has something shady in their taxes, or has high blood pressure should be disqualified - just that it needs to be disclosed to the public. There is a big difference.
-
Where do you draw the line, then? Can a state require a complete social media and web search history? List of all past romantic/sexual relationships? A 10,000-word essay explaining why the holocaust is a hoax and Hitler did nothing wrong?
Can a state require that all candidates must be a member of the Democratic Party?
-
Anyone who isn't comfortable with that is more than welcome to keep their privacy and not get on the ballot. If you don't want to fill out an SF86 then you don't get to work in a job that requires a security clearance. That obviously stays private but since the public is the one doing the hiring in this case, the public deserves information to make an informed decision.
With the caveat that the minimal constitutional requirements are the law of the land, the above is an example that makes an interesting debate topic.
Do I want a President that can't get past the same SF-86 process that I went through? The same might go for a drug addiction. A non-FOIAble process (SF-86s are currently exempt from FOIA, other than in a redacted format, AFAIK) to "apply" as it were, would likely eliminate a good number of presidential candidates. Would Kennedy have been President? Nixon? Clinton? Obama? Trump?
Though the negative part is that a portion of the SF-86 process relies on an investigator. What if the investigator's name is Peter Strzok?
Also, of the names I listed above, a large portion of the US population, at one time or another, considered them good presidents and were happy that they were elected, even if they couldn't have made it through the SF-86 process.
Which kind of leads us back to "minimal requirements". Otherwise we go to what we joke around about here once in a while - a comprehensive IQ test for every US citizen over 35, and whoever gets the highest score is dragged out of their home kicking and screaming and forced to be President. :laugh:
-
Though the negative part is that a portion of the SF-86 process relies on an investigator. What if the investigator's name is Peter Strzok?
I considered including in my list a requirement for filling out an SF-86 and disclosing any 'red flags' that came up, but decided that was excessive and agree that standardizing and eliminating political bias in what is a 'red flag' doesn't seem possible. So I left that off.
-
Which kind of leads us back to "minimal requirements". Otherwise we go to what we joke around about here once in a while - a comprehensive IQ test for every US citizen over 35, and whoever gets the highest score is dragged out of their home kicking and screaming and forced to be President. :laugh:
Then we'd just end up with the guy not smart enough to tank the test, or WORSE, the "smart" one who WANTED to be president.
-
Which kind of leads us back to "minimal requirements". Otherwise we go to what we joke around about here once in a while - a comprehensive IQ test for every US citizen over 35, and whoever gets the highest score is dragged out of their home kicking and screaming and forced to be President. :laugh:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q
I knew that would pop up at some point! :laugh:
I actually have to watch that movie again - it has been years.
-
AOC is requesting more time to work on the bucket question.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJIjoE27F-Q
:lol:
That movie has become funnier the older it gets. Who knew it would seem to be predicting the future. Much worse than global warming.
-
:lol:
That movie has become funnier the older it gets. Who knew it would seem to be predicting the future. Much worse than global warming.
I'm afraid I'm starting to look at it as the opposite of funny these days. Every "It's funny because it's so far-fetched" thing from the last few decades is starting to come true.
-
There are plenty of clean living IYI’s (intellectuals yet idiots) out there who through hubris would inadvertently be disastrous Presidents.
High IQ is the best indicator of success in many/most vocations. You need more than just IQ to be a good prez
-
I agree with Ron. High IQ is excellent, but not sufficient by itself for a good leader.
Look at Woodrow Wilson, a professor and a disaster as a president.
One of the smartest kids I went to school with was a communist. (He has since evolved into a left-wing anarchist which is sort of an improvement I guess).
-
There are plenty of clean living IYI’s (intellectuals yet idiots) out there who through hubris would inadvertently be disastrous Presidents.
High IQ is the best indicator of success in many/most vocations. You need more than just IQ to be a good prez
Yes of course that's true, hence my emoji to show the joke. The point was that the most qualified person to be president probably wouldn't want the job. :)
-
Yes of course that's true, hence my emoji to show the joke. The point was that the most qualified person to be president probably wouldn't want the job. :)
Sometimes I think that should be part of the job requirement. The problem is how to identify them and draft them.
-
I’ve voted for some real clunkers over the years.
In hindsight it might have turned out better that “our side” didn’t win against Obama.
Romney and McCain both have turned out to be the worst kind of swamp creatures.
Swamp creatures of the right have never conserved anything and are really leftists for all practical purposes.
-
I’ve voted for some real clunkers over the years.
In hindsight it might have turned out better that “our side” didn’t win against Obama.
Romney and McCain both have turned out to be the worst kind of swamp creatures.
Swamp creatures of the right have never conserved anything and are really leftists for all practical purposes.
Because Gerald Ford was hated (as a connection to Nixon) we got Jimmy Carter.
Because Jimmy Carter was a disaster, we got Ronald Reagan.
Because Reagan was so well loved, we got George H.W. Bush. He was supposed to be a good president, following on a great president.
Because George H.W. Bush was awful and duplicitous (and Ross Perot! who was a symptom of how fed up people were) we got Bill Clinton.
Because Clinton was embarrassing and a worse liar, we got George W. Bush.
Because George W. Bush was maligned (mostly wrongly, but he never defended himself on that front) and because we didn't have the will for what needed to be done in Iraq and Afghanistan, we got Obama.
Because Obama was so disastrous (although people loved him!) AND because the Democrats nominated Hillary, we got Trump. Who is turning out to be a good President so far. (Although people seem to hate him.)
For all of my life+ a decade or more, we have gotten Presidents (except for one!) because people were sick of the last one. Not because they were impressed by the quality of the candidate they voted for, but because they didn't want to continue down the path of the previous president.
What I'm trying to say is that IF we had gotten Romney or McCain, we'd have just delayed Obama or someone like him for a few years. We seem to be perpetually disgusted by our leaders. (There are times I can remember everyone being united, but they are few are far between.)
-
Swamp creatures of the right have never conserved anything and are really leftists for all practical purposes.
They may not have been as successful as they could have been, but I think people take for granted a lot that was fought for.
What has conservatism conserved? It’s conserved life, liberty, and prosperity. That makes it one of the most consequential and successful movements in American history, whatever its detractors might claim.
-
They may not have been as successful as they could have been, but I think people take for granted a lot that was fought for.
Like the Washington Generals they’ve performed their role.
-
I’ve voted for some real clunkers over the years.
In hindsight it might have turned out better that “our side” didn’t win against Obama.
Romney and McCain both have turned out to be the worst kind of swamp creatures.
Swamp creatures of the right have never conserved anything and are really leftists for all practical purposes.
I voted for McCain basically hoping he'd vapor lock and give us Palin. When I lived in AZ I voted for the libertarian candidate when his Senate seat was up. I voted for Romney largely because Obama was so bad, but I certainly wasn't excited about him. I didn't vote Trump (wrote in Opus and Bill the Cat), but at this rate I'm likely to vote for him in 2020. Not like it matters much, being in deep blue WA.
-
They may not have been as successful as they could have been, but I think people take for granted a lot that was fought for.
Methinks the mewling capitulator doth protest too much.
I note that most of the "victories" he points to are at the state level. Conservatism has done a very good job in the states.
At the national level, he mostly talks about how the Republicans stopped the left. You know, after having handed them power because the right did nothing with it.
Our problem is exactly the problem writ large that Lawdog talked about with the gun rights cake. The left demands the whole cake, the "elite" right agree to give them half and calls it a win. And then when the left demands the whole (half) a cake, the "elite" right gives them half of that, and calls it a win. Ad infinitum.
No, our problem is that, when in power, the right does nothing to advance the goals it claims to have. THEY COULDN'T EVEN DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD. Control of all three branches, and couldn't even do that.
Because they are a bunch of cowards, who, I am starting to suspect, don't really believe the things they claim to in order to get elected.
-
I think makattak is right on the federal level, esp with his example of funding Planned Parenthood. Their refusal to fund the wall or do the slightest thing to cut down on illegal immigration makes it clear that they only care to do what big business wants them to do.
Immigration is an existential threat to conservatism, and those "Rupublican" rat %$^&* in congress don't care.
-
Immigration is an existential threat to conservatism, and those "Rupublican" rat %$^&* in congress don't care.
It's important to note:
They are not unconcerned about the threat because they don't think it will harm conservatism. It's that they are unconcerned about the threat because they know immigration will harm conservatism, but they don't really care about conservatism, anyway.
-
Threat to conservatism? Will it "harm conservatism?" Really?
Why do so many people talk this way, as if we were just worried about our side, and our policy victories are victories for our side? This isn't about us, and it's not about one side, or so-called conservatives. When gun rights are defended, everyone wins. When taxes come down, or the border is enforced, or [insert policy here], everyone wins - lefties, righties, whites, blacks, Christians, Muslims, homosexuals, and homosexual, Muslim, artisanal beard oil salesmen.
-
Threat to conservatism? Will it "harm conservatism?" Really?
Why do so many people talk this way, as if we were just worried about our side, and our policy victories are victories for our side? This isn't about us, and it's not about one side, or so-called conservatives. When gun rights are defended, everyone wins. When taxes come down, or the border is enforced, or [insert policy here], everyone wins - lefties, righties, whites, blacks, Christians, Muslims, homosexuals, and homosexual, Muslim, artisanal beard oil salesmen.
No, while all those people are better off by living in a more sane, just, and prosperous country, the vast majority of identities don't "win," because they aren't interested in a more sane, just, or prosperous country, but in one where they are in charge.
-
Demographic replacement is a tried and true method of toppling empires and taking the remains over.
It’s playing the long game.
Short of a miracle, heritage Americans have already lost the long game.
We live in cargo cult America now.
-
No, while all those people are better off by living in a more sane, just, and prosperous country, the vast majority of identities don't "win," because they aren't interested in a more sane, just, or prosperous country, but in one where they are in charge.
Possibly. On the other hand:
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/embourgeoisement
-
No majority is voting for conservatives or conservative values except for older white people, mostly men.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-if-only-men-voted-only-women-only-nonwhite-voters/