Peggy Grande: California Dems’ bid to keep Trump off the ballot should scare all of us

  
Via:  vic-eldred  •  2 months ago  •  100 comments

Peggy Grande: California Dems’ bid to keep Trump off the ballot should scare all of us
What if Texas, or all those flyover states they mock and despise, decide to set their own criteria for presidential candidate ballot qualification and tip the scales in their own political favor to ensure their state stays red?

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


Just when you think you’ve seen it all in California, there’s another surprise coming out of Sacramento.  This one not only displays unprecedented overreach, but also an absolute disregard for the United States Constitution.  The California state Senate approved a bill earlier this month to require candidates appearing on the 2020 presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years' worth of income tax returns.

A timely and conveniently biased bill, which if it becomes law, means that Trump’s name may not appear on the California primary ballot during the upcoming presidential election cycle.  And an especially egregious bill since the United States Constitution clearly states that there are only three requirements for holding the presidency.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says to serve as president, one must:

be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;

be at least thirty-five years old;

be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

These requirements have been in place since George Washington became president, but all of a sudden a small group of legislators in the Golden State have found a way to try and thwart the democratic process for voters in their state to ensure their team wins. (As if the overwhelming Democratic voter registration, the dubious practice of ballot harvesting and the fact that California hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential candidate since George H.W. Bush in 1988 doesn’t give them enough confidence that whoever the Democratic candidate is, will likely carry California and its 55 electoral votes.) I guess they don’t feel they can leave anything to chance.

Although presidential candidates traditionally release their tax returns, President Trump has not done so, stating he is currently under audit.  Tradition, however, is far different than a Constitutional requirement.  And if California, or any other state, starts to add non-Constitutional requirements for office holders, there’s no telling where that would end.  Could they require a candidate to be of a certain gender, or race, sexual orientation, or even size or shape or set an arbitrary limit on a candidate’s age?  Sounds discriminatory to me. Preposterous?  Not exactly.  In fact, the state’s legislature passed a similar bill in 2017, but then-Governor Jerry Brown, a Democrat, who did not release his own tax returns, vetoed the bill.

If this bill passes now, it sets an extremely dangerous precedent by which the rights of the voter are hijacked.  In essence the legislature could determine their preferred candidate and ensure that the selection criteria for inclusion on the ballot excludes everyone except that person.  Sound crazy?  Well California is just crazy enough to do that. And has already started down that path.

True representative government hasn’t existed in California for quite a while. The jungle primary system, whereby voters can select any candidate, regardless of party, allows the top two to advance to the general election. This provides a pathway for two Democrats to advance from the primary to the general election, in essence giving conservative voters in California the choice between two candidates, neither of which truly represent them.

The practice of ballot harvesting, illegal in several states, but recently passed in California, allows for individuals to go door to door and collect ballots from voters and submit them in bulk. In California now there’s no limit on the number of ballots that one individual can turn in, nor are they subject to the same verification process as other ballots. We saw six Congressional incumbents in California lose their seats days, some even weeks, after the midterm elections due to this practice which is a breeding ground for fraud.

In addition, the process of ballot initiatives is becoming more uncertain due to some confusing and conflicting rulings coming out of the California courts.  California allows for citizen-led signature gathering efforts to qualify a measure for inclusion on the ballot, but those rules now seem increasingly subjective, not objective, often leaving citizen groups who have legally followed the prescribed process being disqualified for no legal reason.  The Cal-3 initiative was the most recent victim of the court’s partisan and authoritarian ruling.

California courts are now unafraid to legislate political advantage rather than just apply and interpret laws.  They have a partisan agenda and are bold in advancing it, knowing there is little or no recourse for doing so.

The rest of the nation should watch this bill closely because California is often the testing ground for the left to see how far they can go in usurping power from the people and transferring it to the courts and to progressives in office.  If it gets any traction on the left coast it may seep eastward.

And for those on the left, perhaps they should consider the potential boomerang effect of such action.  What if Texas, or all those flyover states they mock and despise, decide to set their own criteria for presidential candidate ballot qualification and tip the scales in their own political favor to ensure their state stays red?
We are either states – and a nation – of law and order, or we aren’t.  We adhere to the Constitution, or we don’t.  Tragically, it appears as if the leaders of California have made it their intention to pursue lawlessness.

Voters in California should be both embarrassed about this political theater, and outraged that time is being spent on foolish partisan hackery.  California has enormous problems – from immigration to homelessness to poverty to infrastructure to education to cost of living to housing to oppressive taxes and onerous regulations which are driving their own tax base out of the state – just to name a few.  The California legislature should be focused on these issues, not on a ridiculous power play that provides no benefit to citizens of the state.

Although this California bill will likely never advance, it’s a tipping of the cards of the left showing the game they’re playing – and we know they won’t give up until they win one way or another.  Of course the losers in this, or any political stunt, are the voters of California.  When democracy is thrown aside, the Constitution might as well be shredded.  Regardless of your voting preference for 2020, it would be an affront to us all if the rulers in California pre-determine our choice.  Once again, the tarnish of the once-Golden State is being exposed, which should grieve and worry us all.


By Peggy Grande

Article is Locked

Find text within the comments Find 
 
Vic Eldred
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Anyone surprised by this outrageous anti-democratic act?


It would make Joe Stalin so proud

 
 
 
Texan1211
1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

Just sounds like more California nuttiness to me.

Problem for Cali is that since they are so reliably Democratic anyways, WTF difference is it going to make to Trump?

He already proved he could win the election while losing Cali.

And that just pisses them off no end, to be relegated to that lowly stature.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1    2 months ago

I have a hunch that a lot of people in CA don't even bother voting anymore. A banana republic in our midst.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.1    2 months ago
A banana republic in our midst.

A shithole one. My daughter just got back from a business trip out there and a little vaca. She was glad to visit it but she said what a shithole, her words not mine. And that was in reference to the cities. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.2    2 months ago

Iv'e heard. Homeless people living in tents. Streets littered with filth.

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.1.4  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 months ago

My other daughter didn't believe me about the poop patrol hotline in San Fran. I had to prove it to her. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.5  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @1.1.4    2 months ago

Iv'e got a friend living near San Francisco. You should hear the stories.

I hear they hose down the poop. That's got to do a lot for the environment & public health.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
1.1.6  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.3    2 months ago
Iv'e heard. Homeless people living in tents. Streets littered with filth.

Sounds a lot like people who can't get into an amusement park complaining about how much it sucks anyway, "Yeah, I mean, there's way too many people in there, and there's trash and high prices, why does anyone want to spend money to ride roller coasters anyway."

California has nearly 40 million people because it's an amazing State with a beautiful coastline, incredible weather, gorgeous beaches, stellar ski slopes, relaxing wine country and a booming tech industry. But I do hope conservatives keep whining to all their friends about how horrible it is, California is doing just fine without trying to cater to religious zealots, bitter bigots or homophobic misogynists.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.1.7  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.6    2 months ago
, California is doing just fine without trying to cater to religious zealots, bitter bigots or homophobic misogynists.

Evidently what CA considers the middle class, which they drove out in favor of illegal aliens.

The scene from LA:

gettyimages-489714914.jpg

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.8  Kavika   replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.6    2 months ago

It even has two mythical kingdoms, one if Anaheim (Disneyland) and of course the Mythical Kingdom of Jeffersonia...

 
 
 
bugsy
1.1.9  bugsy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @1.1.6    2 months ago
California has nearly 40 million people because it's an amazing State with a beautiful coastline, incredible weather, gorgeous beaches, stellar ski slopes, relaxing wine country and a booming tech industry.

And a shitload of illegals and homeless.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.10  Kavika   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.7    2 months ago

There are homeless in every city...It's a national problem...

This is Houston TX.

Photo-2-for-web-story-about-municipal-or

 
 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.12  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.1.11    2 months ago

Too bad that you're not aware of the problem is throughout the US...Even in Virginia Beach. 

there-are-so-many-homeless-in-virginia-b

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.13  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.1.12    2 months ago

How do you know what I'm aware of now you are the arbiter of homelessness your hubris knows bounds.Last 30 years my wife and I donated coats food and blanks and contributed money to Potters house and the southeastern food bank which I have donated to since high school.You DON'T KNOW A FUCKING THING ABOUT ME so you don't have a mother fucking clue what I'm aware of.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.14  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.1.13    2 months ago
DON'T KNOW A FUCKING THING ABOUT ME so you don't have a mother fucking clue what I'm aware of.

You're the one that made a comment by me that it's a nationwide problem into a political comment by you. It's obvious as to what your aware of, it's the political BS that you spew. 

Carry on because I certainly don't give a shit about you nor do I care what you are or are not aware of...Simple enough for you. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.15  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.1.14    2 months ago

I made a political comment you made a personal comment about what I'm aware your fucking know it all act wears thin so go take a hike. 

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.16  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.1.15    2 months ago

You need to translate that word salad into something that resembles a coherent comment.

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.17  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.1.16    2 months ago

You need to get of your unearned high horse and [deleted]

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.18  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.1.17    2 months ago

Actually it isn't a high horse at all, it's a Appaloosa and I've been riding since I was a couple of years old. Well earned as well. 

 
 
 
MUVA
1.1.19  MUVA  replied to  Kavika @1.1.18    2 months ago

I bet you ride side saddle.

 
 
 
Kavika
1.1.20  Kavika   replied to  MUVA @1.1.19    2 months ago

Naw, I leave the side saddle riding for you. You do ride don't you..The Merry Go Round doesn't count.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
1.1.21  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  MUVA @1.1.19    2 months ago

Unearned high horse?  Side saddle?

Blow it out your bazoo. Your comment made no sense whatsoever, and the only horse you've ridden sits out in front of your local grocery establishment. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.22  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Kavika @1.1.20    2 months ago

(addressing to this thread)

Knock it off. 

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.1.23  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Kavika @1.1.10    2 months ago

Thank you.  People here on NT act like their states are soooo much better when it comes to the homeless/illegals.  Their states have them too but it is easier to call us out over them.

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.24  Tessylo  replied to  Kavika @1.1.10    2 months ago

Exactly Kavika.  Homelessness is a problem in every city/state I imagine.  

 
 
 
KDMichigan
1.2  KDMichigan  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago

I'm not surprised at all. Isn't New York trying to pass a similar law? The snowflakes will stop at nothing to try to unseat President Trump. But the thing is they are so short sighted its hillaryious.

Look at dirty Harry Reid and how his nuclear option came back to bite democrats in the ass. And then they whine about it.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  KDMichigan @1.2    2 months ago
Look at dirty Harry Reid

Yes, not just his nuclear option, he was another who implied for months that candidate Romney was hiding something in his taxes. Remember when Reid (after the election) was asked about what he was implying after Romney's taxes were released showing nothing unusual?  Reid grinned (that rotten grin) and replied "Well, he lost didn't he?"

 
 
 
Jack_TX
1.3  Jack_TX  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    2 months ago
Anyone surprised by this outrageous anti-democratic act?

No.  Why would anyone be surprised?

 
 
 
Tacos!
2  Tacos!    2 months ago

Next up, you'll have to supply medical records, utility bills, high school yearbook, smartphone contacts, etc. If they can require one thing, why not another?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1  XDm9mm  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 months ago

Birth certificates?

 
 
 
epistte
2.1.1  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1    2 months ago
Birth certificates?

Are you admitting to being a birther?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
2.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @2.1.1    2 months ago
Are you admitting to being a birther?

Nope.  It's simply stating more absurdity.

Obama was a citizen by birth as his mother was a citizen.  See how simple that was.

 
 
 
Tacos!
2.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  XDm9mm @2.1    2 months ago
Birth certificates?

That one doesn't always have a pretty history, but at least being a natural born citizen is an actual constitutional requirement.

 
 
 
Texan1211
2.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @2.1.3    2 months ago
That one doesn't always have a pretty history, but at least being a natural born citizen is an actual constitutional requirement

Yeah, but what the law actually is doesn't seem to matter to some.

They seem to think that their feelings about stuff are more important than the facts.

Such an emotional bunch!

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.2  evilgenius  replied to  Tacos! @2    2 months ago
Next up, you'll have to supply medical records, utility bills, high school yearbook, smartphone contacts, etc. If they can require one thing, why not another?

Sounds like the alt+right during the Obama years. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
3  XDm9mm    2 months ago
The California state Senate approved a bill earlier this month to require candidates appearing on the 2020 presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years' worth of income tax returns.

It will be yet one more bit of the Peoples Republic of California insanity which will be declared unconstitutional.

Why don't they just, (PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE) petition the federal government for the ability to remove themselves from the 50 states of the union?  We already have a federal flag with 49 states which could easily be returned to use.  (48 if New York wants to join)

I'm sure no one will consider a war to keep them in the union, and in fact, the vast majority of states would likely have their Congressional delegations offer to help the Californians empty their offices.

 
 
 
epistte
4  epistte    2 months ago

Trump isn't going to win California 2020, so under the electoral college system that would not be any change from 2016. If we had a POTUS election by national popular vote this might be a problem be an issue but we do not. 

 What does he have to hide that is so important that he won't release 5 years worth of taxes? If he isn't doing anything wrong then he has no reason to hide. he should have thought of this issue before he declared himself a candidate in June of 2015.  The GOP would have had kittens if Hillary had no released her taxes in 2016, so why are you willing to Trump to slide on this issue?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago

So the tax return rule is just fine with you

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.1  epistte  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    2 months ago
So the tax return rule is just fine with you

I like the California tax idea, but it should be nationwide and apply to all national candidates.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.2  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4.1.1    2 months ago
I like the California tax idea, but it should be nationwide and apply to all national candidates.

You might like it, but it's not a Constitutional requirement and any state that tries to implement it, will be found to violate the Constitution.

PS:  It's hardly a new idea.  New York proposed it, it's just that California, as usual has gone of the rails first.

 
 
 
epistte
4.1.3  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.2    2 months ago
You might like it, but it's not a Constitutional requirement and any state that tries to implement it, will be found to violate the Constitution. PS:  It's hardly a new idea.  New York proposed it, it's just that California, as usual has gone of the rails first.

How does it violate the Constitution when a person voluntarily chooses to run for office?  A person shouldn't run for office if they don't like the transparency that is required with public office.  

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    2 months ago
transparency that is required with public office.

Please list the requirements for transparency.

You know--real requirements--not some fantasy.

 
 
 
Ender
4.1.5  Ender  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    2 months ago

I think it is a good idea as we have these elected officials writing tax law.

I would file it under disclosure.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.6  MUVA  replied to  Texan1211 @4.1.4    2 months ago

First you have to be able to see throw it/s

 
 
 
MUVA
4.1.7  MUVA  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    2 months ago

But showing your taxes isn't requirements. 

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.1.8  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4.1.3    2 months ago
How does it violate the Constitution when a person voluntarily chooses to run for office?

Really simple answer to a simple question, and here's the answer:  (Copied from the post itself)

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution says to serve as president, one must:

be a natural-born U.S. citizen of the United States;

be at least thirty-five years old;

be a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

Those are the THREE requirements as specified by the United States Constitution that must be met by any individual running for the office of President of the United States.  NOWHERE do I see any REQUIREMENT to provide any tax related information.

If you don't like the Constitution, there is a means and method by which you can amend it.  Avail yourself of that and when the Amendment passes Congress, you can roam the country hoping to get a sufficient number of states to concur and get the amendment ratified.

See how easy that was?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.1.9  JohnRussell  replied to  XDm9mm @4.1.8    2 months ago

Is there something in the Constitution about collecting petition signatures as a requirement to be on the ballot because I am pretty sure that just about every state has those requirements. 

You are quoting what the constitution says about who can hold the office. It doesnt say anything about elections. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
4.1.10  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  epistte @4.1.1    2 months ago
I like the California tax idea, but it should be nationwide and apply to all national candidates.

What a shock/Sar

 
 
 
bugsy
4.2  bugsy  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago

If the incumbent President is not allowed on the ballot, the popular vote should be void in that state, just as much as the EC votes.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago
What does he have to hide that is so important that he won't release 5 years worth of taxes? If he isn't doing anything wrong then he has no reason to hide. he should have thought of this issue before he declared himself a candidate in June of 2015. The GOP would have had kittens if Hillary had no released her taxes in 2016, so why are you willing to Trump to slide on this issue?

Once again, Trump is under no obligation to satisfy your idle curiosity.

If Obama had "nothing to hide", why didn't he release his college records?

Sounds stupid NOW, doesn't it?

 
 
 
epistte
4.3.1  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3    2 months ago
Once again, Trump is under no obligation to satisfy your idle curiosity.

As the voters, we need to see who he is financially beholden to.  Why should he be an exception when others are able to release their tax returns? 

If Obama had "nothing to hide", why didn't he release his college records? Sounds stupid NOW, doesn't it?

Did Donald Trump release his college transcripts? 

 
 
 
bugsy
4.3.2  bugsy  replied to  epistte @4.3.1    2 months ago
Did Donald Trump release his college transcripts? 

No, because like his tax records, he doesn't have to.

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.3  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @4.3.1    2 months ago
As the voters, we need to see who he is financially beholden to. Why should he be an exception when others are able to release their tax returns?

Once again (sigh), it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

You have a choice of who to vote for--period.

BTW, do your personal tax returns detail who you owe money to?

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.3.4  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4.3.1    2 months ago
Why should he be an exception when others are able to release their tax returns? 

He's not an exception.  Others VOLUNTEERED to release their tax returns.  

If others volunteer to shoot themselves in the head, will you follow?  It's a rhetorical question as I know, well hope anyway, that you would not.  And why would you not?  Because it's not a requirement for you to do so.

 
 
 
epistte
4.3.5  epistte  replied to  Texan1211 @4.3.3    2 months ago
BTW, do your personal tax returns detail who you owe money to?

They do when you claim interest. They also detail all sources of income and losses declared. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.3.6  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @4.3.5    2 months ago

Really? I claim interest from my bank account. I don't tell the IRS what I have on the bank or what I owe them for a car loan. I damn sure don't recall on my tax return where it asks me to list my debts or what I owe on my mortgage. I am just SURE you supply all of that on your returns, right????

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.3.7  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4.3.5    2 months ago
They do when you claim interest. They also detail all sources of income and losses declared. 

And that information is between YOU and the IRS.   No one else.  Unless of course YOU want to scan in your tax returns and post them here for all to see and comment on.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.4  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago
What does he have to hide that is so important that he won't release 5 years worth of taxes?

Nothing to hide, it's simply none of your business.  Period, end of story.

 
 
 
epistte
4.4.1  epistte  replied to  XDm9mm @4.4    2 months ago
Nothing to hide, it's simply none of your business.  Period, end of story.

It is when he is POTUS. That is why we have the emoluments clause of the 25th. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
4.4.2  Texan1211  replied to  epistte @4.4.1    2 months ago

Well, then, just name the US Code that says a President or a Presidential candidate must release their taxes.

 
 
 
XDm9mm
4.4.3  XDm9mm  replied to  epistte @4.4.1    2 months ago
It is when he is POTUS.

It's irrelevant who it is, it's still none of your business.

PERIOD, end of story.

 
 
 
MUVA
4.4.4  MUVA  replied to  XDm9mm @4.4.3    2 months ago

No it's Trump all norms are suspended like starting a investigation because your party lost a election.  

 
 
 
MUVA
4.5  MUVA  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago

A civil libertarian you are not , it's like prove you are innocent.  

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.6  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago
What does he have to hide that is so important that he won't release 5 years worth of taxes?

What does Obama have to hide since he hides his college transcripts? Could it be that he fraudulently applied to college and financed it illegally? 

 
 
 
lib50
4.6.1  lib50  replied to  arkpdx @4.6    2 months ago

After we see Trump's tax returns, we can go backward to Obama's transcripts.  You already got his birth certificate and that didn't shut anybody up.  But its important to Americans that we see candidates tax returns.  Give the people what they want.  Now we all know how important it is when you get a liar who tries to stop all bad information about himself from coming out.  The numbers don't get better for him with time, either.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/04/trump-tax-returns-voters-polls-show-americans-want-them.html

Candidates for president should release their taxes regardless of public opinion, because every voter has the right to know whether the country’s most powerful officeholder has financial conflicts of interest. Trump’s vast holdings and his shady business history make that concern all the more apt. But for now, let’s stick to a simpler question: Is it true that voters gave Trump a mandate to hide his tax returns? No, it’s false. Every poll shows that Americans think he should release his returns—and that if he doesn’t, Congress should pry the returns from him.

https://www.people-press.org/2019/01/18/1-views-of-trump-2/pi_2019-01-18_trump-economy_1-04/

https://insider.foxnews.com/2016/09/07/fox-news-poll-60-believe-trump-hiding-something-tax-returns

taxreturns.jpg?itok=9uo18ErP
 
 
 
arkpdx
4.6.2  arkpdx  replied to  lib50 @4.6.1    2 months ago
But its important to Americans that we see candidates tax returns

Why? 

I don't particularly care to see them. I what will you want next? His driving record? 

 
 
 
lib50
4.6.3  lib50  replied to  arkpdx @4.6.2    2 months ago

We can stick with his tax returns.  Why such a problem doing what ever other candidate does?  What is he hiding? (Well, now we are starting to find out).    Remember those old birther days?  That was bullshit, but you got the proof anyway. Is there a reason you don't expect the same from both sides?  If Hillary had not released her returns, would you have defended her?  Don't bother answering.  The gop has lost every value they've ever claimed to hold.

 
 
 
arkpdx
4.6.4  arkpdx  replied to  lib50 @4.6.3    2 months ago
If Hillary had not released her returns, would you have defended her? 

Absolutely! I don't care about their taxes or how much money they made or anything else that they may tell me. That is the IRS's job not yours or mine. I would you be so insistent for Hillary returns? 

 
 
 
Greg Jones
4.7  Greg Jones  replied to  epistte @4    2 months ago

If the IRS, Obama's IRS in fact, had no problem with Trump's taxes, why should anyone else?

I think Trump will release his tax returns once he is reelected.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.7.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Greg Jones @4.7    2 months ago
If the IRS, Obama's IRS in fact, had no problem with Trump's taxes, why should anyone else? I think Trump will release his tax returns once he is reelected.

This "argument" is swiss cheese. 

 
 
 
lib50
4.7.2  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @4.7    2 months ago
I think Trump will release his tax returns once he is reelected.

Lol, now THAT is hilarious.  Why would you believe a pathological liar who previously promised to release his returns and reneged?   This is why conservatives have a big problem.    Going with the liar is not the best plan if one wants to be taken seriously on anything. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.7.3  Tessylo  replied to  Greg Jones @4.7    2 months ago
'I think Trump will release his tax returns once he is reelected.'

Just like his fantastic health care plan?

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
5  seeder  Vic Eldred    2 months ago

Back in a few

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
6  Sean Treacy    2 months ago

good example of why we need the electoral collage. 

California is taking it's lead from its democratic forebearers in the Pre Civil war south who kept Lincoln off the ballot.  Keeping candidates off state ballots makes the national popular vote total even more meaningless than it already is.

 
 
 
evilgenius
6.1  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 months ago

Stop it! I hate it when I agree with you.

 
 
 
Cerenkov
6.2  Cerenkov  replied to  Sean Treacy @6    2 months ago

Voter suppression courtesy of the Democrats. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
7  JohnRussell    2 months ago

Let's state the obvious. Trump is a crook. If he wasn't a crook we would have all seen his damn tax returns by now. 

The New York Times has already proven he is a tax fraud.  Many of his "fans" don't care, so they deny it. 

This business about keeping him off the ballot if he doesnt show the tax returns is basically much ado about nothing.  The states that could pass this through their state legislatures and have the governor sign it are blue states Trump was never going to win anyway, like California, Illinois and New York. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
7.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @7    2 months ago
Let's state the obvious. Trump is a crook. If he wasn't a crook we would have all seen his damn tax returns by now. 

That's an interesting concept of justice

The New York Times has already proven he is a tax fraud.  Many of his "fans" don't care, so they deny it. 

They have? How so?   BTW it was old news. Trump told us about that episode of his life decades ago.

This business about keeping him off the ballot if he doesnt show the tax returns is basically much ado about nothing.  The states that could pass this through their state legislatures and have the governor sign it are blue states Trump was never going to win anyway, like California, Illinois and New York. 

That's not really the principle involved in such a law

 
 
 
bbl-1
8  bbl-1    2 months ago

Or this.  Show your damn taxes and financials, Trump.  Everyone else does.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  bbl-1 @8    2 months ago
Show your damn taxes and financials, Trump.

Sorry, "to the victors belong the spoils", not the losers!

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.1  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    2 months ago

Open abuse of power does not make it acceptable or legal. IMPEACH HIM!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @8.1.1    2 months ago

Let's not bring Obama into this

 
 
 
JBB
8.1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.2    2 months ago

How about you quit being [deleted?] Go ahead, flaunt Trump's crimes...

Out in the open abuse of power will only hasten his impeachment anyway.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.4  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @8.1.3    2 months ago
How about you quit being impertinent?

[[Meta]]

[deleted]

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1    2 months ago

Trump is a tax cheat. A lot of people think he just bends the rules but the NYT investigation showed that he and his mother and father broke them. And yes, they proved it. If you want you can read the whole article from last fall (it will take you about a half an hour. That's how exhaustive this investigation was). 

That is why he doesnt want his tax returns seen. "to the victors belong the spoils", not the losers!  Are you fucking kidding? 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.6  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.5    2 months ago
Trump is a tax cheat.

You keep saying that, John. That dosen't make it so. There is no such evidence of that.

And yes, they proved it. If you want you can read the whole article from last fall (it will take you about a half an hour. That's how exhaustive this investigation was). 

But John, you still haven't provided a link. What article?

That is why he doesnt want his tax returns seen.

That is your opinion John. You aren't known for giving the President the benefit of the doubt on anything, so I take your concerns with that in mind.

Let's consider the possibilities:

It wouldn't be because of liberals who will try to pick his returns apart looking for any little abnormality? Remember when they said Romney was hiding something in his taxes?
How did that turn out?   And remember the haters didn't hate Romney half as much as they hate Trump!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1.7  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.6    2 months ago
But John, you still haven't provided a link. What article?

You know what, I have posted a link to the article numerous times. I'm not going to keep doing it just to amuse people who will hide their head in the sand anyway. 

The statute of limitations has run out on these tax cheat crimes by the Trumps that are detailed in the newspaper article. You can be sure that Trump wants his tax returns kept secret out of fear that a new set of investigators will find something in them that hasn't run out yet. And that they will show proof that he is not as rich as he claims to be. 

The SIMPLE fact is that if there were nothing damaging in the tax returns he would have released them long ago, not gone to court to stop it. 

It is amazing what you are ready to believe on behalf of Trump. Next you'll be trying to tell us he never went bankrupt and never got tens of millions of dollars from his father. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.8  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @8.1.7    2 months ago
You know what, I have posted a link to the article numerous times. I'm not going to keep doing it just to amuse people who will hide their head in the sand anyway. 

You are so forthcoming!  Kind of like when Adam Schiff said "I have evidence"

The statute of limitations has run out on these tax cheat crimes by the Trumps that are detailed in the newspaper article.

Well, then Trump can Join Hillary Clinton. Evidence of her "Whitewater" involvement turned up after the statue of limitations ran out. I guess their fates have always been linked!

You can be sure that Trump wants his tax returns kept secret out of fear that a new set of investigators will find something in them that hasn't run out yet.

Funny,you keep repeating that, but refuse to post your link

It is amazing what you are ready to believe on behalf of Trump.

YUP!

Next you'll be trying to tell us he never went bankrupt and never got tens of millions of dollars from his father. 

On the contrary, Donald Trump told us about that episode in his life many decades ago:

"The New York Times led readers to believe it had blown the lid off of President Trump’s massive business failures with its very long report Tuesday night, detailing his $1.17 billion loss between 1985 and 1994.

But the story has been told before, by Trump himself, on NBC’s “The Apprentice.”

On Jan. 8, 2004, at the top of the show’s very first episode, Trump laid out a summarized version of the same story about himself that the Times so proudly ran Tuesday.

Here’s a side by side of what Trump said in the monologue in 2004 with what the Times report said 15 years later.

Trump, 2004: “It wasn’t always so easy. About 13 years ago, I was seriously in trouble. I was billions of dollars in debt.” Times, 2019: “The numbers show that in 1985, Mr. Trump reported losses of $46.1 million from his core businesses — largely casinos, hotels and retail space in apartment buildings. They continued to lose money every year, totaling $1.17 billion in losses for the decade.”

Trump, 2004: “But I fought back and I won big league. I used my brain. I used my negotiating skills. And I worked it all out.” Times, 2019: “Mr. Trump’s 2005 returns … showed that by then he had significant sources of income and was paying taxes.”

Trump, 2004: “Now my company’s bigger than it ever was, stronger than it ever was and I’m having more fun than I ever had. I’ve mastered the art of the deal and I’ve turned the name Trump into the highest quality brand.” Times, 2019: “Mr. Trump built a business licensing his name, became a television celebrity and ran for the White House by branding himself a self-made billionaire.

Anyone interested in the specifics of how Trump blew through hundreds of millions of dollars in cash and credit loans, or how he sunk bad dollar after bad dollar in failing projects can learn a lot from Trump’s 35-year-old tax information, though history suggests there’s little appetite for it.

The Times certainly had a big Trump story on Tuesday. It’s just that Trump had already told it 15 years ago."

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/new-york-times-story-on-trumps-billion-dollar-tax-write-off-was-told-by-trump-15-years-ago-on-the-apprentice



 
 
 
Vic Eldred
8.1.9  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Vic Eldred @8.1.4    2 months ago

How can a word get deleted in one post, yet gets left up in another?   Go figure?

 
 
 
Greg Jones
8.2  Greg Jones  replied to  bbl-1 @8    2 months ago

He did show his financials when he declared as a candidate.

Go look it up.

 
 
 
bbl-1
8.2.1  bbl-1  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    2 months ago

Where?  When?

 
 
 
lib50
8.2.2  lib50  replied to  Greg Jones @8.2    2 months ago

He needs to show his returns.  The country deserves to know the truth about his shady dealings.  His 'financials' are so full of lies his accountants put disclaimers on them.  Why are you so content with him hiding his returns?

https://www.factcheck.org/2016/05/trumps-tax-returns/

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/03/trump-financial-statements-full-of-lies

In a sign of just how ridiculous these statements were, the accountants who prepared the documents literally put a disclaimer on them, effectively stating that Trump was full of shit:
When compiling these statements of financial condition, those accountants have said they did not verify or audit the figures in the statements. Instead, when Trump provided them data, they wrote it down without checking to see whether it was accurate . . . The documents begin with two-page disclaimers, warning of various ways in which the statements don’t follow normal accounting rules. The accountants note that Trump is the source of many buildings’ valuations—and that, contrary to normal accounting rules, he had inflated them by counting future income that wasn’t guaranteed.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9  The Magic Eight Ball    2 months ago
The California state Senate approved a bill earlier this month to require candidates appearing on the 2020 presidential primary ballot — including President Trump — to release five years' worth of income tax returns.

states cannot change the constitutional requirements to be president just by passing a law.

if signed into law and enforced this will be fast tracked thru the courts and it will be crushed.

setting that precedent will not be a bad thing either and it would be fun to watch :)

 
 
 
Cerenkov
9.1  Cerenkov  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9    2 months ago

Yep. It will be a failed attempt at voter suppression by the Dems.

 
 
 
lib50
10  lib50    2 months ago

States can set their own rules for candidates.  States rights and all that, thought republicans were for that?   Is this a flip flop? 

 
 
 
Cerenkov
10.1  Cerenkov  replied to  lib50 @10    2 months ago

Weak weak argument. Conservatives support state rights that don't interfere with the limited Federal authority enshrined in the Constitution. Electing the POTUS is clearly Federal and states can't make up new rules, no matter how much Dem politicians want to suppress the vote.. 

 
 
 
lib50
10.1.1  lib50  replied to  Cerenkov @10.1    2 months ago

I guess we will find out.  SCOTUS just overturned precedent on a case yesterday having to do with states rights that would suggest the opposite will happen and states can do what they want.

No votes get suppressed, what are you talking about?  Voter suppression is when you try to stop certain voters from voting.  And the gop has quite the history of trying to do just that.  Crocodile tears?   Stop hiding tax returns and problems vanish.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
10.1.2  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  lib50 @10.1.1    2 months ago
Voter suppression is when you try to stop certain voters from voting.

For instance?

 
 
 
arkpdx
10.2  arkpdx  replied to  lib50 @10    2 months ago
States rights

Why is it that when the blue is states come p with some idiot law, the lefties are all for states rights and but when the red states enact a law they don't like, they scream that states right are invalid?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Sean Treacy
pat wilson
loki12
igknorantzrulz
Karri


45 visitors