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

Oh believe me, the Democrats have just as much to worry about from this as the Republicans do, if not more so.

 

If they fit the descriptor... oh well.

I have respectful conversation until the other poster breaks decorum. Then I call it like it is.

 

It's amazing, suddenly the left cares so much about States rights. Lol

 

As long as it brings about more knowledge, transparency without partisan disenfranchisement motives and improves the process I am all for any item either party can think of. Why are you against it?

 

How so?
If it hurts them more then republicans will benefit, why are you against it then?

 

Are you in favor of requiring candidates search histories as well?

You are for transparency, after all.

May as well request their bank account info, their address, their socials (to run background checks), and their television viewing habits. Also, I'd like to see their phone records, all their text messages, and all emails sent and received for the past decade.

In the name of transparency.

Any candidate who doesnt provide those things is not allowed on the ballot.

 

Now that was funny, the only Americans not amused with the leftist is THE leftist! The rest of the country thinks they're hilarious at this point

 

And what would decorum be, like disagree and or made to look silly?

 

I'm not for or against it.

I was just pointing out it is technically Constitutional if they want to do it, but it will be amusing to watch it backfire on them.

 

Strawmen, insults, lies.

 

Moderates think both sides have lost it.
I am inclined to agree with them.

 

This is why the courts, IMO, will throw these state shams out as unconstitutional. It's de facto down ballot disenfranchisement.

 

Ahh ran out of nonsense did you

 

Just the states they live in. As we've seen, not so much in other states they don't.

 

As long as it applies equally sure. It is strange however that you would like to see all of this information but a simple tax return that is fairly non-invasive and extremely common is too much to ask.

 

What have I posted that is nonsense?

 

Um lets start with this, only because it might still be fresh in your head, well I'm hoping anyway

 

You asked “And what would decorum be, like disagree and or made to look silly?” I was responding to what would cause a breach in decorum.

What is nonsense about that?

 

I have no problem with States making laws that apply to their own State elections (i.e. Federal Congress elections, State Congress elections, Local political elections, etc.). However, I feel this is nothing more than a State trying to change the rules in order to hamper the election when applied to the Presidential elections. I feel that States do not have the right to place requirements on candidates in a Federal Presidential election. The primary election is really nothing more than the RNC and the DNC deciding who will represent their party (and quite frankly, I feel it should be a party held election and not a Government held election). The Presidential election is then the choices of candidates for those 2 parties. Laws like this are nothing more than the State saying to the parties: "We do not accept your chosen candidate".

 

I was just asking a question and my personal thoughts were "Disagree and Silly", you didn't offer ANY examples so it was left up to my imagination ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯

 

I think it will be a moot point by election time next year as Trump’s tax returns will probably be released long before that. If it wasn’t for Trump’s fans I don’t think any state would object to rules like the one California is proposing. 99% of candidates from both parties have released their tax records for over 40 years now. The only reason GOP fans are acting like this is a big breach of privacy is because they are now supporting this sleazy liar.

 

You are confusing elections with ballots. No one is talking about preventing anyone from voting for Trump. Conservatives will just have to write his name on the ballot.

 

I offered three examples of what I believe stops rational and constructive discourse.

If you are looking for a specific instance in this thread, “So shove that in your pipe and smoke it”

 

I don’t believe states asking future candidates to include documentation that has been provided for the last 50 years as being unreasonable. But that is just my opinion. I have a feeling that if this was in regards to Obama the narrative on the right would be substantially different.

Furthermore, the electors of the states can choose the candidate they wish as per our constitution.
It is irrelevant who the people choose under our current system.

 

I beg to differ,

I have been to the pet store and heard a Parrot blurt out random words like "Cracker, Welcome, HI" but without no other context but those three random words I as with your post simply imagine what the silly bird is trying to say ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯