California strong arm

[Twilight Hue]

Where did you get the idea that the State would not recognize a write-in vote?

Just imagine for a second if the roles were reversed here.

The Socialist left will be screaming up a storm about it.

You're not fooling anyone by trivializing it either like its not anything special.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You wouldn't live in an advanced civilized country if they restricted your right to vote though. So that's a catch 22 hehe.

It's like voting for Kimmy over there in North Korea. The Only Name on the ballot. But it was a fair election.....yeaaa.

 

[fantome profane]

Just imagine for a second if the roles were reversed here.

The Socialist left will be screaming up a storm about it.

You're not fooling anyone by trivializing it either like its not anything special.

Or maybe they would just release their tax returns.

Remember this is something every single Presidental candidate has done since Nixon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's an interesting problem...
Could each state enact laws which exclude candidates they dislike,
relegating them to write-in status? I'll bet that many liberals love the
idea that Donald wouldn't be on the ballot. But they should consider
that red states might adopt the same tactic to exclude Democrats.

 

[fantome profane]

It's an interesting problem...
Could each state enact laws which exclude candidates they dislike,
relegating them to write-in status? I'll bet that many liberals love the
idea that Donald wouldn't be on the ballot. But they should consider
that red states might adopt the same tactic to exclude Democrats.

Why do we assume Donald wouldn’t be on the ballot? All he would have to do is release his tax returns just like every other candidate. I know he is reluctant to do this, but maybe it it made a difference between being on the ballot or not he might reconsider.

 

[Revoltingest]

Why do we assume Donald wouldn’t be on the ballot? All he would have to do is release his tax returns just like every other candidate. I know he is reluctant to do this, but maybe it it made a difference between being on the ballot or not he might reconsider.

It's a larger issue than what you pose.
I'm addressing the possibilities, ie, his refusal to comply.
Could Californiastan then deny him a place on the ballot?

 

[fantome profane]

It's a larger issue than what you pose.
I'm addressing the possibilities, ie, his refusal to comply.
Could Californiastan then deny him a place on the ballot?

They could deny a place to anyone who will not release their tax returns. Republican or Democrat, or even Libertarian.

But the point of this as I understand it is not to deny a candidate from being on the ballot, the point is to get them to release their tax returns.

 

[Revoltingest]

They could deny a place to anyone who will not release their tax returns. Republican or Democrat, or even Libertarian.

But the point of this as I understand it is not to deny a candidate from being on the ballot, the point is to get them to release their tax returns.

A threat has no value unless they can exercise it.
So forcing tax return release is but one scenario.
The other is denial of ballot access.
And if disclosing tax returns is one criterion, others
can be created, giving the states great power over
candidates by threatening their ballot access.
States already play this game on a smaller scale.
There's potential for greater evil, which could force
the fed to weigh in.

 

[Left Coast]

PSA: there are already requirements on a state-by-state basis as to how a presidential candidate gets his/her name on a ballot:

Ballot access for presidential candidates - Ballotpedia

PSA #2: A sitting US Senator, Lisa Murkowski, won as a write-in candidate in 2010.

 

[Enoch07]

Or maybe they would just release their tax returns.

Remember this is something every single Presidental candidate has done since Nixon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

They have his tax info. They go look at it in the Mueller report at the DoJ. No Democrats have gone to look at its but 2 Republicans have. Their request is unreasonable.

 

[Enoch07]

PSA: there are already requirements on a state-by-state basis as to how a presidential candidate gets his/her name on a ballot:

Ballot access for presidential candidates - Ballotpedia

PSA #2: A sitting US Senator, Lisa Murkowski, won as a write-in candidate in 2010.

Yes basic stuff like you need to be citizen and nominated by a party. Not relevant in the context of a state using it as an excuse to not list some on a ballot for not releasing tax returns.

 

[columbus]

I'm not sure that states are Constitutionally required to even hold elections for POTUS.
As we all know, the public doesn't vote, only the Electoral College. State legislatures can do pretty much anything in appointing EC delegates. Perhaps a constitutional scholar will correct me, but I see nothing preventing the California legislature from requiring their delegates to vote only for a candidate that has released their tax returns.

This still looks like dumb grandstanding to me. The likelihood of Trump getting any EC support from California is already pretty tiny.
Tom

 

[fantome profane]

They have his tax info. They go look at it in the Mueller report at the DoJ. No Democrats have gone to look at its but 2 Republicans have. Their request is unreasonable.

You have said that before, but you are not correct.

The Mueller Report that is at the Doj is just like the Mueller you have read, only with slightly fewer redactions. Honestly I have no idea if it has slightly fewer redactions or a lot fewer redactions. But either way it is just the 440 page report. It does not include all of the underlying documents. All of the underlying document would likely take up several large boxes. And again I don’t know how many boxes, but you remember I told you about the two large vans than were needed for all of the documents in the Ken Starr probe. You said that would be overkill, remember. That is not what is being offered at the Doj.

You need to clearly understand the difference between the report which is 440 pages, and the underlying documents which will fill many boxes.

If Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns they would be in those boxes, not in the 440 page report.

And we do not know if Mueller did subpoena them. Amy Klobuchar asked Barr that very question in the hearing (which you watched) and Barr said he didn’t know and she should ask Mueller. She did.
Amy Klobuchar Letter to Robert Mueller

 

[Enoch07]

You have said that before, but you are not correct.

The Mueller Report that is at the Doj is just like the Mueller you have read, only with slightly fewer redactions. Honestly I have no idea if it has slightly fewer redactions or a lot fewer redactions. But either way it is just the 440 page report. It does not include all of the underlying documents. All of the underlying document would likely take up several large boxes. And again I don’t know how many boxes, but you remember I told you about the two large vans than were needed for all of the documents in the Ken Starr probe. You said that would be overkill, remember. That is not what is being offered at the Doj.

You need to clearly understand the difference between the report which is 440 pages, and the underlying documents which will fill many boxes.

If Mueller subpoenaed Trump’s tax returns they would be in those boxes, not in the 440 page report.

And we do not know if Mueller did subpoena then. Amy Klobuchar asked Barr that very question in the hearing (which you watched) and Barr said he didn’t know and she should ask Mueller. She did.
Amy Klobuchar Letter to Robert Mueller

Yes, but it's in there already. Even Presidents and other politicians who release their tax info are allowed to redact certain info, this is normal.

 

[fantome profane]

Yes, but it's in there already. Even Presidents and other politicians who release their tax info are allowed to redact certain info, this is normal.

You clearly did not understand my last post.

 

[Enoch07]

You clearly did not understand my last post.

Yes I did. What you don't understand is it is completely illegal for Congress or anyone but the IRS to view your tax information with no restrictions/redactions.

Your advanced civilized country sounds like a p00p hole if you think that these tactics fall under civilty.

 

[columbus]

When I read the title of the thread, my first thought was...good heavens. THAT is the epitome of an oxymoron. "California strong arm?"

That's sorta like saying "steel noodles.'

On the other hand, in this case the inability of California to HAVE a 'strong arm' can only be called a good thing. My state (and I've lived in California for over half a century now) has long been known for its, uhmn....

never mind.

You might want to take a look at this.

National Popular Vote

The way things are now, you being a California conservative are quite disenfranchised when it comes to the presidential election. That's because of the winner take all element of the state races for US president. As long as the Democrats can reliably get 50.01% of the vote, you may as well not bother. Same with the other conservative voters in your state, and there are many millions.

Like Californian conservatives, Texans more liberal than the majority have the problem of being disenfranchised by the current rigged system. The result of all this voter disenfranchisement is the sort of voter apathy you described in another thread. If you can't vote for president, why take time out of your busy schedule on voting day?

I believe that a huge element of the infamous US voter apathy, and resulting corruption in government, is a because of this nonsense. And the crap is an historical holdover from a country that didn't expect the POTUS to be involved in the USA domestic affairs. Now we do, so I think it's time "We the People" started electing the president.

If so, your vote would actually matter, when now it doesn't.
Tom

 

[Left Coast]

Yes basic stuff like you need to be citizen and nominated by a party. Not relevant in the context of a state using it as an excuse to not list some on a ballot for not releasing tax returns.

What constitutes "basic stuff" is entirely the point of the thread, as far as I can tell. Therefore pointing out that states already place limitations and requirements as to who gets their name on the ballot seems completely relevant. The fact that you don't like this particular proposed requirement is actually irrelevant to the point that setting some kind of limits on whose names appear on a ballot is already the status quo and doesn't violate people's right to vote in any meaningful sense.

Part of the logic behind presidential candidates releasing their tax info, as far as I know, is a safeguard to ensure their finances would not violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution if they became President. This is why every major party presidential candidate has done so for decades, with the exception of Trump.

Why do you think Trump hasn't released his tax returns?

 

[Shiranui117]

Or maybe they would just release their tax returns.

Remember this is something every single Presidental candidate has done since Nixon. It is not an unreasonable thing to ask.

It's also not a requirement for office. If he chooses not to release his tax returns, it's honestly not that big of a deal. He's not breaking any laws, he's just breaking with a tradition that's younger than my mother.

 

[Enoch07]

The fact that you don't like this particular proposed requirement is actually irrelevant to the point that setting some kind of limits on whose names appear on a ballot is already the status quo and doesn't violate people's right to vote in any meaningful sense.

Incorrect, you can argue it all day but it hasn't passed yet because they know its unconstitutional, and they are just bluffing.