Elections California Requires Trump's Tax Returns to Appear on the Ballot

[Happy Man]

Read the wiki,

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_harvesting

Straight up illegal activity.

 

[lookslikeseen]

So when Trump says "Fuck that, I'll pass", then what?

 

[vengeful]

Yeah... we should make laws that if Candidates don't share their Education documents, they cannot appear on the ballots. Or, hey how about their religious affiliations? Or perhaps their gun ownership records? What charities they donate to should be known? Maybe they should include Medical Records too? How about a DNA test for their heredity? I can't see how this could be abused.

Don't you worry about Voter's having ID being "disenfranchisement", the Democrats have found a whole new level of taking away a citizen's candidate of choice. You can't even write him in.

He's not being taken away, he's choosing to keep himself off by not disclosing what is lawfully required. Follow the laws if you want to be on the ballot, it's not that hard. Thought you Republicans were all for "States Rights."

 

[Whippy McGee]

He's not being taken away, he's choosing to keep himself off by not disclosing what is lawfully required. Follow the laws if you want to be on the ballot, it's not that hard. Thought you Republicans were all for "States Rights."

Yes.... yes... make restrictive laws, targeted at specific candidates a state does not want and remove them from the ballots. Where is Pelosi and Feinstein's tax returns?

Stalin would have loved you. They had terms for people like you in the Soviet Union... "useful idiot".

 

[cunglaowins]

So much desperation. Wonder what’s going on inside Dems strategy meetings? No one said ‘this is not working! we need a new strategy’

 

[ocfightfan]

I’m way more concerned over their vote harvesting law.

Basically saying “let the Democratic Party vote for you”

Yep. It's an open door to abuse. That is exactly how they flipped OC. It's just too bad we don't have a functional GOP in this state. They can't grab their own ass with two hands these days.

 

[waiguoren]

Meh, that'll get challenged and struck down

On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions, the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.

i guess we'll see what the supreme court says. lol, soon to be a 6-3 split, imo

I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".

 

[Javelina]

frank thomas? the big hurt

 

[vengeful]

Yes.... yes... make restrictive laws, targeted at specific candidates a state does not want and remove them from the ballots. Where is Pelosi and Feinstein's tax returns?

Stalin would have loved you. They had terms for people like you in the Soviet Union... "useful idiot".

Yes, because that specific candidate has any chance of winning the state election in that state....if this was actually a popular vote and not an electoral one, then it would have actually mattered. But in reality if Trump is on the ballot in CA or not, he's still receiving the same number of votes that's going towards the Presidential election which is 0. It's targeted at all Presidential candidates not just the ones the state doesn't want. I'm sure whoever the democratic representative is, he/she will be releasing his/her tax returns to appear on the ballot. I'm all for a law making governors and Congressmen having to show their tax returns in order to run for office as well. So if you start with the President, I consider that a step in the right direction.


That term would more aptly describe the people that support States Rights when it comes to restricting people to the right to have an abortion, even in the case of rape and incest.....but somehow finds it objectionable that a person running for President of the country must showcase their prior tax returns.

 

[Whippy McGee]

Yep. It's an open door to abuse. That is exactly how they flipped OC. It's just too bad we don't have a functional GOP in this state. They can't grab their own ass with two hands these days.

True story. I'm in HB and watched a Democratic carpetbagger from Ohio outspend by a huge margin the 3rd poorest member of congress (Republican) and then Vote Harvest to barely pull out a post election night victory. Now we have an Ohio Land Developer as our Congressman.

 

[vengeful]

On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions (e.g., 15th Amendment), the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.


I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".

How is siding with State rights not considered "Right Wing"?

 

[ShadowRun]

Trump should not comply it’s not like he will win Cali anyways lol

 

[Rational Poster]

On what grounds? Under the US Constitution, states are supposed to administer elections as they see fit. With few exceptions, the federal government has no say in how states run their elections.


I think Thomas and Gorsuch will side with California here. If I'm right, this would be another in a long list of examples of people including @Jack V Savage mistakenly labeling Thomas's jurisprudence as "right-wing".

Came here to say this, States have almost infinite rights when it comes to regulating their elections and ballot requirements.

I'm not sure how it would actually get struck down especially with a conservative leaning supreme court.

I think a more likely scenario is that Trump simply doesn't appear on the ballot in California, and other states that might pull this, since he wasn't going to win anyway.

 

[waiguoren]

How is siding with State rights not considered "Right Wing"?

The position of @Jack V Savage and other Thomas critics, as I understand it, is that Thomas almost always chooses a "right-wing" outcome and reasons backward from that conclusion. This would be another example in which that hypothesis would be proven wrong, similar to Gonzales v Raich or Kelo v New London.

 

[cunglaowins]

Came here to say this, States have almost infinite rights when it comes to regulating their elections and ballot requirements.

I'm not sure how it would actually get struck down.

I think a more likely scenario is that Trump simply doesn't appear on the ballot in California, and other states that might pull this, since he wasn't going to win anyway.

May be they’re looking for a moral victory to energize their base

 

[TeTe]

Why just from their time in office?

Because I don't think someone's tax returns should matter unless they were a paid public servant at the time.

 

[waiguoren]

Came here to say this, States have almost infinite rights when it comes to regulating their elections and ballot requirements.

I'm not sure how it would actually get struck down.

I think a more likely scenario is that Trump simply doesn't appear on the ballot in California, and other states that might pull this, since he wasn't going to win anyway.

Well, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer certainly didn't agree with the bolded when it came to gerrymandering. Shame on them, but that's another discussion.

 

[Leagon]

Yeah... we should make laws that if Candidates don't share their Education documents, they cannot appear on the ballots. Or, hey how about their religious affiliations? Or perhaps their gun ownership records? What charities they donate to should be known? Maybe they should include Medical Records too? How about a DNA test for their heredity? I can't see how this could be abused.

Don't you worry about Voter's having ID being "disenfranchisement", the Democrats have found a whole new level of taking away a citizen's candidate of choice. You can't even write him in.

This is such twisted thinking.

Voter ID laws, whether you agree with them or not, are targeted at us, the voting public. Most of us are of minimal power to protect ourselves from most forces that aren't direct physical threats.

This law, meanwhile, is targeted at people running for president, almost all of whom are elite multimillionaires who have the power to literally kill people without being punished.

And you made a thread to stand up for the latter. How brave. For too long have the America's millionaires suffered at the hands of local and state government.

 

[Leagon]

Because I don't think someone's tax returns should matter unless they were a paid public servant at the time.

I disagree. If someone is a crook and their tax returns reveal that, I'd really like to know so that I don't throw my vote to someone who has only evaded prison because they are rich and powerful.

But I think your position is valid too.

 

[Rational Poster]

Well, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer certainly didn't agree with the bolded when it came to gerrymandering. Shame on them, but that's another discussion.

Well I think it's fair to argue that gerrymanding is a way to deliberately and intentionally alter the election results rather than simply regulating who can be on the ballot. Then add in attempts like in NC to blatantly gerrymander on racial basis, and then it's not quite the same thing. So you're right it's an entirely different argument.