California- trying to manipulate elections, again.....

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by spiritgide, May 13, 2019.

  1. spiritgide

    spiritgide Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2016
    Messages:
    17,222
    Likes Received:
    13,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "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."

    I wonder if they have considered that IF they exclude a presidential candidate or any candidate for federal office from the California ballot, the probable result would be that the federal government would declare results from California to be unconstitutional, null and void- and not counted at all. They passes such a bill some years back, but Gov. Brown vetoed it. The current Gov is likely to sign it this time.....

    Go for it, California!

    The link to the full story is https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/peg...p-trump-off-the-ballot-should-worry-all-of-us
     
  2. PatriotNews

    PatriotNews Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    27,757
    Likes Received:
    3,715
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That will ensure a win for Republicans if the California electors are disqualified.
     
  3. 61falcon

    61falcon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    21,436
    Likes Received:
    12,221
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Where as GOP North Carolina is far less subtle they just go right out and pay an operative to steal and alter absentee and mail in ballots to get their candidates elected.
     
  4. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,823
    Likes Received:
    9,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The California legislature tried passing this law before, but Governor Gerry Brown vetoed it, wisely knowing it would probably hurt Democrats in the state more than Trump or Republicans.

    As for Constitutionality, a state can set whatever laws for electing the president it wants.
    Originally electors for the President were decided directly by the state legislature. The U.S. Constitution still would permit this, it just so happens all the states have happened to pass laws to democratize the process.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    ButterBalls likes this.
  5. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Is there somewhere in the constitution that says the three requirements are the only ones allowed?
    I cannot find it.

    I also thought that the states were the ones that ran their elections and that they were the ones that voted for president. If republicans can disenfranchise voters, close polling places, purge voting rolls, and gerrymander their districts so that democrats have no chance of winning I see no reason California cannot throw in their own requirements.

    Or did you think the left was just going to ignore this and keep playing by the rules while the right voids every custom, norm and principle of integrity, did you?
     
  6. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,823
    Likes Received:
    9,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The U.S. Constitution sets no requirement for direct election of the President by the people in each state.

    The only reason states are not permitted to disenfranchise voters is the 14th Amendment (which wouldn't apply to what California is trying to do here).

    Something for the Left to consider, if hypothetically the U.S. did ever alter the Constitution to make the election of the President by popular vote, then a state like California would not be able to require a Presidential candidate to release his tax returns.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    rcfoolinca288 and MrTLegal like this.
  7. MrTLegal

    MrTLegal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2017
    Messages:
    41,095
    Likes Received:
    26,660
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Setting aside the multiple rule violations for this thread (opinion piece and titles do not match, if you are wondering), the question of whether States can impose a more rigorous limitation upon who gets written onto the State ballots is an interesting one. The US Constitution only sets the requirements for who can BE the President, not who the States must display on their ballots. You get into all sorts of federalism and freedom of speech questions when you try to claim that the federal government can dictate who must show up on the ballot.

    Individuals in California would still be free to vote for individuals who do not meet this requirement via a write-in ballot, but I see no reason why California or any of the ~12 other States currently considering such legislation would be prevented from stopping Trump from showing up on the ballot via this new requirement.

    An important point to note is that the ~12 States who have decided to look into this additional requirement (because Trump has broken his own promise to release his tax returns) are all States that Trump lost in 2016 and stands approximately 0.0001% chance of winning in 2020. So the net effect would probably just be an even more massive popular vote defeat for Trump in 2020.
     
    rcfoolinca288 and Bondo like this.
  8. kazenatsu

    kazenatsu Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2017
    Messages:
    29,823
    Likes Received:
    9,415
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There's no question they can. The only requirement is "equal protection of the law" due to the 14th Amendment (i.e. they couldn't require the candidate to be a certain race or gender, possibly age too, but that's a trickier one).

    Anyway, it wouldn't actually make an effective difference under the current system. The U.S. has a winner take all system by each state. Thus if states try to suppress the votes for a minority candidate, it's a moot point.
    And is precisely one of the reasons the U.S. should keep the current system it has.

    Trump isn't getting any seats on the electoral college from California anyway.
    The law is mostly symbolic, it would just take Trump's name off the ballot in the state so people would feel like they couldn't vote for him.

    It would however very much be likely to harm Democrat politicians.
    Exactly the reason the governor vetoed this law before.
    anything the Left might think could tarnish a Republican candidate will most certainly destroy a Democrat one...


    Old thread about the time the state tried to pass this law before:
    California effort to expose Trump's tax return vetoed by governor
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  9. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You didn't just go all Joy Behar on us and claim Trump won the election through gerrymandering now did you? :eek:
     
    ButterBalls and US Conservative like this.
  10. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would think that NOT allowing a candidates name on a ballot would be voter oppression.

    If judges are forcing ballots in Florida to be in Spanish because it disenfranchises Spanish speakers, there's no way in hell a judge would allow a state to withhold a candidate's name. If that we're the case, every Republican governor could simply remove all Democrats from ballots but say "well, you can write someone in if you want".

    That wouldnt be legal, or right.

    That sounds very North Korea-esque.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  11. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never mentioned frump or the 2016 elections. Try again
     
  12. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Except it would apply to all candidates equally and is a standard form. Not something that would target a specific party — the only group this will harm is people trying to hide things from their constituents.
     
  13. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The thread is about PRESIDENTIAL elections. Please keep up. This is all about Trump, and no one else. Otherwise CA would be doing nothing. (not that it matters in that lunatic state)
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    US Conservative and ButterBalls like this.
  14. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is “all about trump” because he was a liar on the campaign trail and broke presidential norms. I never said gerrymandering had anything to do with the presidential election, only that republicans exploit it as one of the few ways they can “win”. I would ask you to have some basic reading comprehension but I try not to ask the impossible.

    It should apply to anyone running for office.
     
  15. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But it isn't. So shove that in your pipe and smoke it. . The fact remains, CA wouldn't be doing this if not for TDS. Even moonbat Jerry Brown vetoed it before. :roflol:
     
    Bondo, EMTdaniel86 and ButterBalls like this.
  16. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,350
    Likes Received:
    35,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    States are not allowed to add requirements to run for federal offices, unconstitutional.
     
  17. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    142,350
    Likes Received:
    35,078
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They can't do it now.
     
  18. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    “So shove it”, such an eloquent and thought provoking retort.

    And trumpets wonder why the rest of the country look at them as childish trolls.
     
  19. navigator2

    navigator2 Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2016
    Messages:
    13,960
    Likes Received:
    9,411
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The fact remains, NOT A REQUIREMENT. And TDS sufferers wonder why we laugh so hard at them.

    gf gif.gif
     
    Bondo, ButterBalls and HB Surfer like this.
  20. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,722
    Likes Received:
    21,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    ROFL! Yes... the same practice that was legal in California and happened throughout Orange County last election, exclusively by.... THE DEMOCRATS.

    It's called "vote harvesting" and the Democrats got all the seats with these post election night surges from the "harvested votes".

    Why is is allowed in California Congressional races, but not North Carolina? They are all sitting in the same House of Representatives.
     
    Bondo and ButterBalls like this.
  21. HB Surfer

    HB Surfer Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2009
    Messages:
    34,722
    Likes Received:
    21,918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Democrats want to whine and cry about "disenfranchisement of voters", when they are the biggest offenders with their vote harvesting, and now disregarding the Republican Candidate altogether, thus taking away the reason may Republicans would have had to showing up at the polls for all the state and local races and measures.
     
    Bondo and ButterBalls like this.
  22. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I never said it was a requirement.
    I said it should be.
     
  23. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    22,786
    Likes Received:
    15,757
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You make fun of "shove it" while calling people trumpets=) hehe C'mon man??
     
    Well Bonded and ButterBalls like this.
  24. cd8ed

    cd8ed Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    Messages:
    33,556
    Likes Received:
    23,590
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because one was simply picking up the ballots (you can argue chain of custody was broken but there has been no evidence of foul play), the other was editing, destroying, or not returning ballots that didn’t select the candidate they were working for.

    I’m not surprised you cannot see the difference.
     
    The Mello Guy likes this.
  25. HTownMarine

    HTownMarine Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2013
    Messages:
    8,348
    Likes Received:
    4,154
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Political parties arent a protected class, so who cares?

    If were making up our own rules, let's make them up.

    Whichever political party is in charge of whatever state can make up whatever rules they want, apparently, so who is going to stop them?
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
    ButterBalls likes this.

Share This Page