2020 Election
Quote: Bozhttps://homicides.news.baltimoresun.com/recent/
Looks like it was the LEAST violent weekend of the year in Baltimore.
I wonder when Trump is going to get credit for it?
Obviously the embarrassment to Cummings and crew caused an increased police presence.
Hopefully Trump calls out more cities and saves more Black lives.
To be fair. Cummings is a Federal politician and has been since the 90s. It is his job to represent his constituents on federal issues. It is the local government's job to crack down on crime and local corruption. I am not a fan of Cummings, but, it is really not fair to attack him for local government issues. I am aware that he was a state politician in the 80s, but even on the state level that is pushing it. This is more of a local government issue (or it should be for a functioning local government).
Quote: GandlerTo be fair. Cummings is a Federal politician and has been since the 90s. It is his job to represent his constituents on federal issues. It is the local government's job to crack down on crime and local corruption. I am not a fan of Cummings, but, it is really not fair to attack him for local government issues. I am aware that he was a state politician in the 80s, but even on the state level that is pushing it. This is more of a local government issue (or it should be for a functioning local government).
The point is something changed and odds are calls were made. Whomever and however it happens shows a difference can be made and was. Probably at the expense of a lot of OT, but something changed.
Unless of course liberals want to call it coincidence.
And you won’t see this story on CNN.
Quote: GandlerTo be fair. Cummings is a Federal politician and has been since the 90s. It is his job to represent his constituents on federal issues. It is the local government's job to crack down on crime and local corruption. I am not a fan of Cummings, but, it is really not fair to attack him for local government issues. I am aware that he was a state politician in the 80s, but even on the state level that is pushing it. This is more of a local government issue (or it should be for a functioning local government).
He is supposed to represent his constituents. That was what started it all. He was more concerned with illegal aliens than his district.
Quote: BozThe point is something changed and odds are calls were made. Whomever and however it happens shows a difference can be made and was. Probably at the expense of a lot of OT, but something changed.
Unless of course liberals want to call it coincidence.
And you won’t see this story on CNN.
Probably. But, it will not be a long term solution. Baltimore needs some serous work. A few good weeks will not fix decades of crime and neglect and shambling buildings.
Quote: TomGI will do anything you tell me to do, so I'll go ahead and read the constitution. But the proposal in California says absolutely nothing about the requirements for president, so that part of the constitution doesn't apply here. It changes the requirements to be on their ballot. There is nothing in the constitution about what a state does with their ballots. There was a time when most states didn't even have a presidential ballot for their citizens, most states gave full control of their electoral votes to the electorates that were selected by their legislature. It was that representative democracy thing that the founding fathers were so fond of.
Just in case anyone is curious:
If we didn’t have the Electoral College, which we do because the #ConstitutionSucks, then everything would be popular vote based for federal elections. As such, it would be the Federal Government conducting the election, (which they should be anyway so we have standardized election security practices) so this would not be an issue because it would not be California’s ballot to dictate.
Anyway, from what I can tell, neither the Constitution, nor Federal Election laws, speak to the requirements to be on the ballot for a specific state provided, of course, the candidate meets those requirements required to be President provided for by the Constitution.
This is ALSO the reason that it’s difficult, in some states, for third-party candidates to even get on the ballot in the first place.
The long and short is:
A.) I would think this falls under the Tenth Amendment absent any Federal law to the contrary.
AND:
B.). Trump is absolutely not going to win California anyway, so who tf cares? If nothing else, it just makes the Liberals look like a bunch of whiny idiots which some of you guys should love.
What possible difference does it make Trump being on the ballot in a state he absolutely can not win?
Quote: Mission146
B.). Trump is absolutely not going to win California anyway, so who tf cares? If nothing else, it just makes the Liberals look like a bunch of whiny idiots which some of you guys should love.
What possible difference does it make Trump being on the ballot in a state he absolutely can not win?
Those of us who believe in fair elections care. Because it is an arbitrary requirement put in because of political hate by a one-party rule state. In one line you complained about how hard it is for 3rd party candidates to get on the ballot, then you say "no big deal" to a law limiting ballot access.
This is the kind of law I would expect out of Mexico, or Argentina. Not the USA.
Quote: AZDuffmanThose of us who believe in fair elections care. Because it is an arbitrary requirement put in because of political hate by a one-party rule state. In one line you complained about how hard it is for 3rd party candidates to get on the ballot, then you say "no big deal" to a law limiting ballot access.
This is the kind of law I would expect out of Mexico, or Argentina. Not the USA.
I don’t know anything about the election laws in any country except for ours, so I can’t speak to the last statement.
I believe in fair elections, which is why it should be popular vote based and third-party candidates should have reasonable access to the ballots of all states. I should think all that should be required is to have a committee in the state in question and then to conduct a national convention through which the party’s candidate is chosen; like the Democrats and Republicans get to do and (almost) automatically be on the ballot.
I agree that it is a capricious and arbitrary requirement, but it may well be their right as a state to have that requirement. It may well end up being for the SCOTUS to ultimately decide. My point is that it is hardly the first arbitrary requirement in our country’s history for ballot access. If you want to get rid of arbitrary requirements, then the answer is quite simply to enact federal laws standardizing practices (which would include ballot access) for all federal level elections. That should be the case in the first place, and if it were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Anyway, I’m not contradicting myself. Any argument that says I am is a straw man that comes by way of the fact that you didn’t quote, or possibly didn’t read, the first couple paragraphs. You’re arguing against someone who agrees with you. Lol.
I’m not arguing in principle of what California is doing, I’m opposed to what they are doing. I’m simply saying the procedures should already be in place that would make this a non-question. From a pragmatic standpoint, I’m also saying it has no effect on Trump’s ability to win California because that probability is zero regardless of what they do.
In the end, it’s just an empty and meaningless gesture because they don’t like the president.
Quote: Mission146I don’t know anything about the election laws in any country except for ours, so I can’t speak to the last statement.
Mexico is de facto one party rule. Argentina is where they put the wife of the guy unable to run on the ballot. That is the kind of thing I am talking about.
Quote:I believe in fair elections, which is why it should be popular vote based and third-party candidates should have reasonable access to the ballots of all states. I should think all that should be required is to have a committee in the state in question and then to conduct a national convention through which the party’s candidate is chosen; like the Democrats and Republicans get to do and (almost) automatically be on the ballot.
The last election shows why we need the EC. One-party states with big-city machines would have ruled the election and been able to ride roughshod over the rest of the USA. Third party is trickier. Democrat/GOP gets on the ballot because they get the votes. Be careful what you wish for. If it were easier to start a 3rd, you might well by now have seen a modern Whig party based on being enemies of Trump similar to how the old ones hated Andrew Jackson. You would have a GOP POTUS for the next 20 years. Then again, wish away!
Quote:I agree that it is a capricious and arbitrary requirement, but it may well be their right as a state to have that requirement. It may well end up being for the SCOTUS to ultimately decide. My point is that it is hardly the first arbitrary requirement in our country’s history for ballot access. If you want to get rid of arbitrary requirements, then the answer is quite simply to enact federal laws standardizing practices (which would include ballot access) for all federal level elections. That should be the case in the first place, and if it were, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
Most all requirements are about showing support in the form of needed sigs.
Quote:You’re arguing against someone who agrees with you. Lol.
Well I am killing time before a niece's b-day party. lol. Next weekend I will be busy at Mountaineer and quiet.
Quote: AZDuffmanMexico is de facto one party rule. Argentina is where they put the wife of the guy unable to run on the ballot. That is the kind of thing I am talking about.
The last election shows why we need the EC. One-party states with big-city machines would have ruled the election and been able to ride roughshod over the rest of the USA. Third party is trickier. Democrat/GOP gets on the ballot because they get the votes. Be careful what you wish for. If it were easier to start a 3rd, you might well by now have seen a modern Whig party based on being enemies of Trump similar to how the old ones hated Andrew Jackson. You would have a GOP POTUS for the next 20 years. Then again, wish away!
Most all requirements are about showing support in the form of needed sigs.
Well I am killing time before a niece's b-day party. lol. Next weekend I will be busy at Mountaineer and quiet.
I have no standing to disagree with your opinion on Mexico and Argentina and nor do I care what those countries do.
I've read enough of your posts to lend to my opinion that your opinion of the EC would not be so high in the event it were to ever work in the favor of Democrats. That's a perfectly reasonable position for you to take, of course. The number of Conservatives opposed to the EC has dropped significantly in the last twenty years, and that's hardly a surprise, because the Republicans' last win for a first-time Presidential candidate by popular vote was in 1988.
Overall, I disagree with your stance on the Electoral College on the grounds that an absence thereof would force candidates to campaign everywhere and outwardly attempt to appeal to all voters, not just those in a select few states. Furthermore, we have mediums of communication now (internet, television) that are such that extremely rural areas do not necessarily need candidates to appear in person. Your apparent assumption that there are ONLY liberal voters in big city states is erroneous, more than that, going to a popular vote would ensure that the votes of conservatives living in those cities would actually matter...which they presently do not. Arguably, the Electoral College only serves for those people to NOT be represented in Presidential elections much like liberals in deeply red states are not represented in Presidential elections.
Similarly, while I would still be opposed to an EC that switches states to proportional distribution of Electoral College votes vis-a-vis number of votes and population; it would at least be a small improvement.
As far as the case in point of who would become President (or not) in this hypothetical scenario, that's of little to no concern to me. Whoever wins the popular vote wins the popular vote. Although, I would argue that the most significant recent beneficiary of a strong third-party candidate was, in fact, a Democrat...Bill Clinton. I don't think he wins in 1992 had Ross Perot not been in the race.
The ballot access requirements are mostly reasonable, with only a few states as exceptions. There are a number of other barriers to third-party candidates, however, making it arguably easier to run as an independent rather than a specific third-party. Again, this all comes back to the de facto two-party system made necessary by the Electoral College in the first place.
https://www.rawstory.com/2019/08/watch-mcconnell-drowned-out-by-moscow-mitch-chant-during-kentucky-public-speaking-appearance/
Quote: AZDuffmanSorry, but it does de facto add a requirement for POTUS. The Constitution does not state what states may do with ballots because it was elegantly written before a time when we think every last possibility must be spelled out. It is written in "Common Law" language, meaning you look at what was written and go by intent. Intent is the requirements set, not to say these are the requirements, but you can add your own.
It is unconstitutional, pure and simple. And it is the kind of thing you get with one-party rule that CA now is.
This is a specious argument, especially from you. 10th amendment says (paraphrasing ) that those powers not explicitly reserved to the Federal are at the discretion of the states. There is no Constitutional requirement that defines who may appear on a ballot or what conditions may be placed on their presence or qualification. There is no implicit guidance, either, except that which serves your argument (this time). California and any other state can do whatever they wish in this matter, and I don't think cali is alone in doing this or something similar.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is a specious argument, especially from you. 10th amendment says (paraphrasing ) that those powers not explicitly reserved to the Federal are at the discretion of the states. There is no Constitutional requirement that defines who may appear on a ballot or what conditions may be placed on their presence or qualification. There is no implicit guidance, either, except that which serves your argument (this time). California and any other state can do whatever they wish in this matter, and I don't think cali is alone in doing this or something similar.
It also goes to show that Conservatives tend to be states' rights advocates, except for when they're not, of course.
Quote: beachbumbabsThis is a specious argument, especially from you. 10th amendment says (paraphrasing ) that those powers not explicitly reserved to the Federal are at the discretion of the states. There is no Constitutional requirement that defines who may appear on a ballot or what conditions may be placed on their presence or qualification. There is no implicit guidance, either, except that which serves your argument (this time). California and any other state can do whatever they wish in this matter, and I don't think cali is alone in doing this or something similar.
The Constitution sets requirements for who may be POTUS. Releasing tax returns is not among them. To make such a requirement is de facto adding a requirement to be POTUS so the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it. Yes, other states are trying this unconstitutional move. All should end up having the laws struck down.
Quote: AZDuffmanThe Constitution sets requirements for who may be POTUS. Releasing tax returns is not among them. To make such a requirement is de facto adding a requirement to be POTUS so the 10th Amendment has nothing to do with it. Yes, other states are trying this unconstitutional move. All should end up having the laws struck down.
States are generally permitted to have laws provided that those laws do not directly conflict with Federal laws. In some cases, these laws expand upon Federal laws and create more stringent laws or mandates.
California is not creating a requirement to become the POTUS because California does not have the jurisdictional authority to do so. What they are creating is a condition to appear on their ballot for POTUS. Again, I disagree with them doing this as it is 100% symbolic anyway and pointless. That said, it doesn't technically restrict Trump's hypothetical ability to be voted for in California as he could be written in as a candidate...which is precisely what the purpose of being able to write-in a candidate is. "I want this guy to be President, he's not on the ballot, how do I vote for him?"
With that, nothing about the California law would even prevent people from voting for Trump.
Quote: Mission146States are generally permitted to have laws provided that those laws do not directly conflict with Federal laws. In some cases, these laws expand upon Federal laws and create more stringent laws or mandates.
California is not creating a requirement to become the POTUS because California does not have the jurisdictional authority to do so. What they are creating is a condition to appear on their ballot for POTUS. Again, I disagree with them doing this as it is 100% symbolic anyway and pointless. That said, it doesn't technically restrict Trump's hypothetical ability to be voted for in California as he could be written in as a candidate...which is precisely what the purpose of being able to write-in a candidate is. "I want this guy to be President, he's not on the ballot, how do I vote for him?"
With that, nothing about the California law would even prevent people from voting for Trump.
Pretty thin defense. By denying ballot access you are de facto setting up a requirement to be POTUS. On top of that, you are generally not allowed to make a law with the intention of de facto targeting one individual or company. Do you really want to live in a country where they can do that? This is Third World stuff, appropriate for CA which becomes more and more a Third World nation in many ways each day.
Quote: AZDuffmanPretty thin defense. By denying ballot access you are de facto setting up a requirement to be POTUS. On top of that, you are generally not allowed to make a law with the intention of de facto targeting one individual or company. Do you really want to live in a country where they can do that? This is Third World stuff, appropriate for CA which becomes more and more a Third World nation in many ways each day.
Again, they have no jurisdiction to be setting up a requirement to be POTUS. In fact, winning California is not a requirement to be POTUS, and it's a good thing for you it's not, or the only person to ever be President again would be a Democrat. Being on the ballot in California is 100% immaterial to Trump's having won the Presidency or winning reelection. It couldn't be more irrelevant. Personally, I think the Republicans should be THANKING California for making this move as it galvanizes the Republican base and generally just makes Liberals look like a bunch of crybabies.
The law is not targeting one person, it's targeting anyone (present or future) who wishes to have ballot access in California. As egregious as such a law already is, I don't think they will remove it from the books when Trump is no longer a potential candidate. When a new thing not covered by law happens that a jurisdiction does not wish to have happen again, that jurisdiction creates a law covering it. I'd argue almost every law is in response to something that has happened that the makers of the law do not wish to have repeated.
I already live in a country where they can do that. Even more so at lower levels, the court system can basically do whatever the hell it wants to.
Finally, I reiterate that the California law does not even prevent people from voting for Trump, much less does it create a new requirement for the Presidency.
See how New York City did not even hesitate to change its new term limits for Michael Bloomberg.Quote: Mission146The law is not targeting one person, it's targeting anyone (present or future) who wishes to have ballot access in California. As egregious as such a law already is, I don't think they will remove it from the books when Trump is no longer a potential candidate.
Quote: Mission146Again, they have no jurisdiction to be setting up a requirement to be POTUS. In fact, winning California is not a requirement to be POTUS, and it's a good thing for you it's not, or the only person to ever be President again would be a Democrat. Being on the ballot in California is 100% immaterial to Trump's having won the Presidency or winning reelection. It couldn't be more irrelevant. Personally, I think the Republicans should be THANKING California for making this move as it galvanizes the Republican base and generally just makes Liberals look like a bunch of crybabies.
Again, you need to understand "de facto" as well as "spirit of the law." The CA law flunks both tests.
Quote:The law is not targeting one person, it's targeting anyone (present or future) who wishes to have ballot access in California. As egregious as such a law already is, I don't think they will remove it from the books when Trump is no longer a potential candidate. When a new thing not covered by law happens that a jurisdiction does not wish to have happen again, that jurisdiction creates a law covering it. I'd argue almost every law is in response to something that has happened that the makers of the law do not wish to have repeated.
Oh, please. You are more reasonable than this. You cannot possible believe this is a total direct attack on Trump.
Quote: Mission146States are generally permitted to have laws provided that those laws do not directly conflict with Federal laws. In some cases, these laws expand upon Federal laws and create more stringent laws or mandates.
California is not creating a requirement to become the POTUS because California does not have the jurisdictional authority to do so. What they are creating is a condition to appear on their ballot for POTUS. Again, I disagree with them doing this as it is 100% symbolic anyway and pointless. That said, it doesn't technically restrict Trump's hypothetical ability to be voted for in California as he could be written in as a candidate...which is precisely what the purpose of being able to write-in a candidate is. "I want this guy to be President, he's not on the ballot, how do I vote for him?"
With that, nothing about the California law would even prevent people from voting for Trump.
Arkansas used very similar reasoning when it tried to prevent anybody who had served three House or two Senate terms from appearing on the ballot in that state. The Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, declared it a de jure "requirement," which was unconstitutional.
Quote: AZDuffmanAgain, you need to understand "de facto" as well as "spirit of the law." The CA law flunks both tests.
Oh, please. You are more reasonable than this. You cannot possible believe this is a total direct attack on Trump.
I know what de facto means. It doesn’t prevent Trump from being President, de facto or otherwise.
I do believe that it’s a direct attack on Trump, but I similarly believe that the law does not say, “If Donald Trump wants to be on the ballot...” it applies to anyone who wants to be on the ballot. Many anti-monopoly laws and regulations have come into being because of one company or situation, but they’ve also applied to all future companies.
Quote: ThatDonGuyArkansas used very similar reasoning when it tried to prevent anybody who had served three House or two Senate terms from appearing on the ballot in that state. The Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, declared it a de jure "requirement," which was unconstitutional.
I’m certain that case will be cited in the event it goes that far and it certainly seems relevant. Of course, that arguably speaks to de facto term restrictions. I’m sure the defense (State of California) would argue this is different because it’s not changing the requirements to be President.
I can’t emphasize enough I’m against what they are doing, I’m just not convinced they don’t have the right to do it.
Quote: Mission146I know what de facto means. It doesn’t prevent Trump from being President, de facto or otherwise. "
Does not matter if it "prevents" it. It is a matter of constitutionality.
Quote:I do believe that it’s a direct attack on Trump, but I similarly believe that the law does not say, “If Donald Trump wants to be on the ballot...” it applies to anyone who wants to be on the ballot. Many anti-monopoly laws and regulations have come into being because of one company or situation, but they’ve also applied to all future companies.
The law does not have to directly cite Trump. It just has to be made so it targets him directly but nobody else directly. The hissy fit the Democrats are throwing about him not showing his taxes is really all the proof needed to show it was directed at him.
Quote: FleaswatterMichael Avenatti is mulling a run for president again after declaring he would not seek nomination
\
Either he's insane or is in complete
denial. None of this has gone to
court yet. Any one of these means
years in prison.
"Avenatti was arrested and charged in March in the Southern District of New York in connection to an alleged scheme against Nike. Prosecutors said he tried to extort at least $22.5 million from the sporting apparel company by claiming he would hand over evidence on improper behavior by Nike employees related to the recruitment of college basketball players in exchange for the money, but warned he would release the information to damage Nike’s reputation and value if they refused the offer.
Avenatti was indicted that same day in the Central District of California on charges of wire fraud and bank fraud. Avenatti was then charged in April for embezzling nearly $2 million from his client, NBA player Hassan Whiteside of the Miami Heat. The next day, Avenatti was charged with three dozen more financial crimes. Avenatti was separately charged in May with wire fraud and identity theft connected to allegations that he’d stolen $300,000 from the book deal of his client Stormy Daniels."
Quote: AZDuffmanDoes not matter if it "prevents" it. It is a matter of constitutionality.
The law does not have to directly cite Trump. It just has to be made so it targets him directly but nobody else directly. The hissy fit the Democrats are throwing about him not showing his taxes is really all the proof needed to show it was directed at him.
I thought each of our positions is that the law is either constitutional (me) or unconstitutional (you). I’m arguing that it’s constitutional and stating why I believe that, so you can’t argue using your conclusion as evidence of itself. That’s totally circular.
It does effect others directly. Any present or future person who wants to appear on the California ballot but does not want to release the taxes is affected. If they make a new driving law, does it only affect current drivers? No. It applies to children under the age of 16 who will become drivers, as well.
I couldn’t agree with you more that the law came into being because Trump is President and because the Democrats are throwing a hissy fit, but that in itself does not make it Unconstitutional. There are tons of stupid laws on the books.
Quote: Mission146I thought each of our positions is that the law is either constitutional (me) or unconstitutional (you). I’m arguing that it’s constitutional and stating why I believe that, so you can’t argue using your conclusion as evidence of itself. That’s totally circular.
It does effect others directly. Any present or future person who wants to appear on the California ballot but does not want to release the taxes is affected. If they make a new driving law, does it only affect current drivers? No. It applies to children under the age of 16 who will become drivers, as well.
I couldn’t agree with you more that the law came into being because Trump is President and because the Democrats are throwing a hissy fit, but that in itself does not make it Unconstitutional. There are tons of stupid laws on the books.
You are not getting the point on "affected." Lets try a different kind of example. In the 1980s there were two main cop cars, the Crown Victoria and the Dodge Diplomat. The Vic was longer and had a slightly smaller engine, 302 vs 318, or 351 vs 360. Lets say Ohio County puts out a bid for patrol cars for the mounties. Lets say they want the local Ford dealer to win the bid. So they say the car must be longer than the Diplomat but also limits engine size to between the Vic and Diplomat. (For the motorheads out there I do know about the Caprice. It was close enough in size to the Vic but no the Diplomat it does not matter.)
The Dodge dealer cannot bid! Sure, the law "affects" everyone else. But at the time nobody else had a RWD sedan of a size to use as a patrol car. Specs were set to lock one party out of the bidding and one party only.
Trump has given his reasons for not releasing, and they are very valid. Even if you want to say "but he could just release them" you have to admit the law was made to target him and him alone.
Quote: rxwineTrump's not the candidate being forced to show his taxes, he's the one who promised to. And it's a bogus excuse that he can't show them while they're being audited.
Not bogus at all. Under audit they are not finalized. Needing him to release them is bogus.
Quote: AZDuffmanNot bogus at all. Under audit they are not finalized. Needing him to release them is bogus.
You're reaching so far, you're gonna be known as the new Stretch McKensie. He probably has copies as well as originals.
Quote: AZDuffmanYou are not getting the point on "affected." Lets try a different kind of example. In the 1980s there were two main cop cars, the Crown Victoria and the Dodge Diplomat. The Vic was longer and had a slightly smaller engine, 302 vs 318, or 351 vs 360. Lets say Ohio County puts out a bid for patrol cars for the mounties. Lets say they want the local Ford dealer to win the bid. So they say the car must be longer than the Diplomat but also limits engine size to between the Vic and Diplomat. (For the motorheads out there I do know about the Caprice. It was close enough in size to the Vic but no the Diplomat it does not matter.)
The Dodge dealer cannot bid! Sure, the law "affects" everyone else. But at the time nobody else had a RWD sedan of a size to use as a patrol car. Specs were set to lock one party out of the bidding and one party only.
Trump has given his reasons for not releasing, and they are very valid. Even if you want to say "but he could just release them" you have to admit the law was made to target him and him alone.
Here’s the thing: You’re working very hard to convince me about something about which I already agree with you. Yes, it’s made to target him and him alone, but that doesn’t mean it only applies to him much less does that fact in itself make it unconstitutional.
Quote: Mission146It also goes to show that Conservatives tend to be states' rights advocates, except for when they're not, of course.
My exact point in calling it specious. An argument of convenience only.
Quote: beachbumbabsMy exact point in calling it specious. An argument of convenience only.
Sounds exactly like the “racism” argument to me. An argument of convenience only.
Is it any wonder the liberals on here represent the left to most of us?
Then again it appears he had a job, so he can relate with StevO and AMS. Hard working leftists.
Quote: BozDayton shooter supported Warren 2020.
Is it any wonder the liberals on here represent the left to most of us?
Then again it appears he had a job, so he can relate with StevO and AMS. Hard working leftists.
Are you comparing members to the Dayton shooter?
Yes, you did.
(you know the drill, just copying you from other thread)
Quote: AZDuffmanNot bogus at all. Under audit they are not finalized. Needing him to release them is bogus.
I think Trump is sandbagging it, like
Obama sandbagged the birther
thing. There's no 'there' there, so
keep it alive in the press. Let them
stew and fret and chase the non
story around, it keeps them away
from more serious issues. They
would find with the taxes what
they found with Mueller, lots of
heartbreaking disappointment.
Quote: EvenBobI think Trump is sandbagging it, like
Obama sandbagged the birther
thing. There's no 'there' there, so
keep it alive in the press. Let them
stew and fret and chase the non
story around, it keeps them away
from more serious issues. They
would find with the taxes what
they found with Mueller, lots of
heartbreaking disappointment.
You're not the first to suggest that, but in Trump's case his history makes me think there is at least some there, there.
But one thing is true, one always has to look at alternate motives. The minority in Congress (whether Democrats or Republicans) often pretends they would vote for something if they were the majority, but it's sometimes just a sham as shown when they get in the majority and then not vote for it.
Quote: rxwineAre you comparing members to the Dayton shooter?
Yes, you did.
(you know the drill, just copying you from other thread)
Yep. Close but no (Clinton in an internships pu##y) cigar.
No member here that I know of believes violence is the answer, including the most craziest leftists.
But our esteemed “gay activist “ member on here compared the POS El Paso shooter to what some of us post in the 2020 thread on here.
Nothing even close here. Sorry drill boy, Dr Wine, but good try.
Quote: BozDayton shooter supported Warren 2020.
His sister and her boyfriend were among those he shot. That would point to a motive that has nothing to do with politics.
But now you can use this to ignore the implications of El Paso and continue angrily blaming liberals for all of life’s problems. It’s what you do.
Quote: BozDayton shooter supported Warren 2020.
It has also been reported that he:
-described himself on social media as a pro-Satan “leftist”
-hated President Trump
-hated law enforcement
-shared posts about “concentration camps” at the border and wrote, “Cut the fences down. Slice ICE tires. Throw bolt cutters over the fences.”
-blamed Republicans for school shootings
No wonder none of the lefties here have talked about his motivation.
Quote: FleaswatterNo wonder none of the lefties here have talked about his motivation.
See my post directly above yours. Motivation appears to have nothing to do with politics.
I know that’ll disappoint you!
Quote: Boz
Nothing even close here. Sorry drill boy, Dr Wine, but good try.
Your opinion might be considered bias. But I will give you 2 cents for it.
Quote: rxwineYour opinion might be considered bias. But I will give you 2 cents for it.
You're going to go broke. I can't think of anyone that will compensate you for your opinions, in return. Ba-dum-tiss
Quote: ams288His sister and her boyfriend were among those he shot. That would point to a motive that has nothing to do with politics.
But now you can use this to ignore the implications of El Paso and continue angrily blaming liberals for all of life’s problems. It’s what you do.
Sister and her boyfriend probably supported Trump and didn’t agree with forgiving all college debt.
But you can use this to ignore the implications of TDS, proudly stick your husbands C#$k in your mouth and ass and blame conservatives for the freedom and success you have in your life. It’s what you do.
It sets up some fascinating possibilities. You can have Trumpster nationalists cleansing the Wal-marts while pro-gun-control leftists shoot up the streets to pressure some form of gun control legislation.
What a great country.
To say the California law is "not changing the requirements to be President" is absolutely preposterous. It is like saying no one with long blond hair can be on the ballot. Totally absurdly unconstitutional:Quote: Mission146Quote: ThatDonGuyArkansas used very similar reasoning when it tried to prevent anybody who had served three House or two Senate terms from appearing on the ballot in that state. The Supreme Court, in U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, declared it a de jure "requirement," which was unconstitutional.
I’m certain that case will be cited in the event it goes that far and it certainly seems relevant. Of course, that arguably speaks to de facto term restrictions. I’m sure the defense (State of California) would argue this is different because it’s not changing the requirements to be President.
I can’t emphasize enough I’m against what they are doing, I’m just not convinced they don’t have the right to do it.
"Bill of Attainder
Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.
The Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 provides that: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law will be passed."
"The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply - trial by legislature." U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).
"These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted. A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial. Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment." William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.
"Bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, and laws impairing the obligations of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. ... The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and less-informed part of the community." James Madison, Federalist Number 44, 1788.
Supreme Court cases construing the Bill of Attainder clause include:
Ex Parte Garland, 4 Wallace 333 (1866).
Cummings v. Missouri, 4 Wallace 277 (1866).
U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437 (1965).
Nixon v. Administrator of General Services, 433 U.S.425 (1977).
Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG, 468 U.S. 841 (1984). -- techlawjournal
Quote: BozDayton shooter supported Warren 2020.
Is it any wonder the liberals on here represent the left to most of us?
Then again it appears he had a job, so he can relate with StevO and AMS. Hard working leftists.
Dayton shooter had a kill list in High school for the guys, and a rape list for the girls. Police took him right off the school bus in front of the other kids. They sent him away for a while. Apparently the fix didn't take.
Quote: BozSister and her boyfriend probably supported Trump and didn’t agree with forgiving all college debt.
But you can use this to ignore the implications of TDS, proudly stick your husbands C#$k in your mouth and ass and blame conservatives for the freedom and success you have in your life. It’s what you do.
Stop it with the obscene imagery, Boz, for crying out loud. Warning.
Quote: BozBut you can use this to ignore the implications of TDS, proudly stick your husbands C#$k in your mouth and ass and blame conservatives for the freedom and success you have in your life. It’s what you do.
Do you think I’m married? lol
Quote: rxwineTrump's not the candidate being forced to show his taxes, he's the one who promised to. And it's a bogus excuse that he can't show them while they're being audited.
And the American people, through the electoral college, voted him into office, FULLY AWARE that he did not release his tax returns. They will have another opportunity to decide whether not seeing his tax returns is important enough a reason to decide to vote for someone else.
I think it is a great precedent that candidates do release their tax returns, but I would never force them to.
Quote: beachbumbabsStop it with the obscene imagery, Boz, for crying out loud. Warning.
Agree with Babs.
Boz, when you keep bringing sex acts that members participate in into the discussion it makes your points seem petty, and makes you look childish as well. It is one of the reasons I don't like Trump but agree with a large part of his platform.
How about this......
"You, as a gay man, now have the freedom to be 'out' without any negative repercussions.... etc...."
Quote: SanchoPanzaTo say the California law is "not changing the requirements to be President" is absolutely preposterous. It is like saying no one with long blond hair can be on the ballot. Totally absurdly unconstitutional:
It’d have saved you some work just to say, “Bill of Attainder,” rather than assume I don’t know what it is. Even if I didn’t know, I’m not so lazy that I wouldn’t Google it.
Okay, here we go:
1. The Bill of Attainder, as you correctly point out, prevents a law from singling out an individual for PUNISHMENT. Not appearing on the California Presidential ballot absent the satisfaction of a particular condition is NOT a punishment. It doesn’t deprive Trump of life, person or property.
2. It creates a new condition for appearing on the Presidential ballot; there are already conditions, in several states, for a person or party to appear on the ballot. There are conditions for other political offices, as well. To be on a state Supreme Court, for example, one must first be an attorney in most if not all states.
3. Any individual who wishes to appear on the California ballot can simply release the tax returns. I’m not going to lie, I’m actually a little surprised that being able to prove you’re good on your taxes isn’t already a requirement for elected office. Should one really be employed by the same government to whom it owes money? That said, it’s not a common requirement and it clearly targets Trump, but I think saying it punishes him is a stretch.
4. Trump can choose not to appear on the ballot.
5. California is not required to become President, so the law does not prevent Trump being re-elected.
6. Trump, as far as I can tell, could still be written in as a candidate and many certainly would. Enough so that those votes would likely have to be hand tallied by the state at a substantial time and money cost to the state. It’s a stupid thing to do.
So, I agree that it’s completely nonsensical and pointless. What I don’t agree with is the notion that it’s Unconstitutional. The Tenth Amendment and previous practices have already permitted the states to control ballot access provided such control does not violate existing federal law.
Finally, Federal law should already spell out election practices pertaining to Federal level positions, which would include the Presidency. The fact that it does not is in itself kind of dumb, in my opinion.
