-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
LA Times: Trump must disclose his tax returns to get on the California ballot
- Thread starter BAD
- Start date
Exactly, if anything it would be a one off thing and it would most definitely hurt anyone across party lines.
If we are unsealing Dem records, we will have to do the same for Republicans.
It might impact Congress races in CA as it could lead to lower turnout.
I can't imagine he won't order Barr to "look into it". Rest assured we'll be footing the bill for his legal challenge.
How in hell is it petty to require what was once a pretty low bar of transparency for a presidential candidate?
I said you are using cynicism to make shallow arguments against the policy. You can support the policy. It doesn't change the fact that you came in this thread and pulled out weak arguments (begging the question of what if) for why people should be concerned because you are cynical.
I didn't make any arguments against the policy. I asked a question about how Republicans might respond.
I think cynicism regarding Republican campaign tactics is completely justified and I'm a bit surprised that you aren't concerned about them.
Because it's being done now because of partisan nonsense politics and not for the better for future elections.
Also, I should add, that democracy counts on small barriers for citizens to represent the country. Not sure why not having a low bar is good in your eyes. People who abuse the system don't reveal it in their income tax records anyway.
No I'm not concerned about a policy that asks for candidates to reveal government documents. And you begging the question of what if X, when you have failed to provided a comparable request is you making a faulty argument.
And once again to help you, argument =\= opposition. Argument = reasons of persuasion
This wouldn't affect the election, but it would affect the popular vote in such as hilarious way. Despite the beatdown he got in California, he got almost 4.5 million votes there. If you took those away, his popular vote margin would be much, much worse. Then again, I'm not sure how many would show up to vote if there was only one real candidate on the ballot.
I didn't ask you if you were concerned about the California policy. I asked you if you were concerned about the actions of Republicans.
You keep bringing up opposition, once again - I have not stated any opposition to the California policy. Your repeated attempts to imply I did are getting disingenuous at this point.
Personally, I think full financial disclosure should be a requirement when running for office, but it should be handled on the federal level, not on a state by state basis
One corrupt dickwad breaks decades of precedent because there isn't a law on the books and putting a law on the books is then partisan?
You may need to read all of these posts once again. I said arguing or an argument does not equal opposition. It equals reasons for persuasion. You are having a hard time following this conversation, and I posted this because you have stated multiple times that I think you are against the policy. I suggest you take a moment and read all of the responses to your posts. Hopefully you will gain some clarity.
And it's kind of cute that a poster who started this thread with a question of concern regarding Republicans replicating a policy is saying that my posts are disingenuous. Do yourself a favor and read through things.
There are like 20+ states seeking to pass similar bills. NJ was one of them. I think it passed both chambers in NJ and then was vetoed? Not sure.
IIRC still needs to be passed by state assembly and signed into law by Gov. This will get challenged regardless.
Like I said, it's petty because of the timing. Now, you (taxpayers) will pay for Trump's legal challenges to this, where Trump will probably win eventually.
If this was for the better of the country it'd have either been done a long time ago, or when a democrat is the president.
I have done as you requested, but see no but real misconceptions on my part.
However.
It seems unlikely that we have any substantial differences of opinion on the California law, so doubt that much more constructive can be gained from any disagreement with you.
If do not agree, and wish for any further clarification, I will be happy to respond.
But a long time ago people were just doing this. We're now realizing that precedent is a bad way to do things, so of course now is when it happens.
Thanks, I knew I had heard something along these lines before.
The problem with that is that someone cannot "unseal" their own court records like they can release their own tax returns. Court records can be sealed to protect all parties, so it would be tremendously unfair to other affected. It might also be a loophole, if you're trying to get something you've been subject to a gag order, just run as an independent and it gets unleashed.
Also, I don't understand how it can be a "one off" law. So they pass the law for 2020, then repeal it for 2024, and bring it back in 2028 and just decide to implement it or strike it down based on who's running?
I'm not sure you can compell a person to give a yes or no answer when they can yes, "yes, but..." or say, "my intention is to have a ballot initiative on the issue, I believe America is a democracy and the people need the final say, my opponent thinks he's a king when he says "yes" on issue x."
One thing I can think of is a law that says all candidates need to share texts and emails from their campaign, and then Republican candidates just bury all their communications and scream "fake news," and then attack Democrats saying "where are your deleted emails!?"
Ultimately doesn't matter, since he never had a chance to win California in the first place and didn't need to win it to win the Presidency.
But it does set a precedent for future carpet-bagging candidates.
But it does set a precedent for future carpet-bagging candidates.
Well, it would matter if the national popular vote pact goes through for 2020.
People realize this is for the primary correct
If he faces one challenger they could automatically get all of California's delegates
If he faces one challenger they could automatically get all of California's delegates
I'm not sure why this wouldn't stand up in court? It doesn't seem like an unreasonable request at all especially for a primary, which is not a guarantee of office whatsoever.
I'm all for more transparency from people running for office in general though. We should know where our politicians are getting their money from so we can keep them honest.
I'm all for more transparency from people running for office in general though. We should know where our politicians are getting their money from so we can keep them honest.
Not pointless at all as it would be catastrophic to down-ballot Republicans.
Yeah, we are way past the point of just taking people at their word or assuming they will follow long established norms.
To those saying this is illegal, why? There are already requirements as to how one can get onto a ballot and I don't believe those rules are established in the constitution. So what's wrong with this one?
That's ignoring the fact the constitution doesn't even mention political parties at all. The whole primary process has literally nothing to do with the constitution. But maybe it breaks some California laws.
Tax Returns should be a minimum for Presidential candidates.
Let alone for a man with dozens of potential conflicts of interest.
The popular legal theory is that Powell v. McCormick and U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton make it clear that neither Congress nor the states can add to qualifications for members of Congress. The argument is that the same rationale would apply to POTUS.
Who the heck knows how SCOTUS would rule?
It wouldn't if it was for the general
However this is for the primary. And as we've all seen both parties are private entities that make shit up and change the rules on who they nominate and how in super random ways every cycle. This would be California just adding qualifiers on how nomination processes work which might be more doable *id guess*
For a general election it would likely not fly as it would be too arbitrary to keep an opponent off the ballot which this isn't necessarily doing