supermike80
Footballguy
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-tax-returns-gavin-newsom-bill-sign-174746222.html
Here come those tax returns!
Here come those tax returns!
Oh that’s why trump won’t show them . The constitution. I see.I guess any state can make up any reason they wish to require new things from Presidential candidates. I wasn't aware states had the power to change the constitution like that. Who knew?
Yup. The General is polling higher than him there.Trump shouldn’t even bother putting himself on the California ballot.
You seem to be missing what's important in all this. That the Treasury Department is defying the court order to turn them over.I guess any state can make up any reason they wish to require new things from Presidential candidates. I wasn't aware states had the power to change the constitution like that. Who knew?
Nothing to do with that and you know it.Oh that’s why trump won’t show them . The constitution. I see.
No I'm really not. Different thread. The treasury department is a federal agency. My post, if you read it, is about California law.You seem to be missing what's important in all this. That the Treasury Department is defying the court order to turn them over.
Yes. Trump not showing his taxes (even though he said he of course would) has nothing to do with the constitution.Nothing to do with that and you know it.
Yeah, I did kinda veer off.No I'm really not. Different thread. The treasury department is a federal agency. My post, if you read it, is about California law.
So I'm not missing the point at all. Are you Ok with states deciding what a President must comply with in order to be on the ballot?
California elected a Republican governor in 2003. If some of the prognosticators are correct, that California really is the face of the nation 15 years in advance, then things are looking grim nationally for the GOP in a very short while.Trump shouldn’t even bother putting himself on the California ballot.
It is a state imposing requirements on a Presidential candidate beyond what the Constitution requires. I don't think it is a given one way or the other. Rich Hasen had an article on the topic a couple of years ago.A $5 million filing fee would be wrong to impose. Requiring all candidates to be able to ride unicycles in order to appear on the ballot would be wrong. Requiring a tax return might be wrong if the candidate was below the income filing line. But worded so that any legally filed tax returns be made public imposes no hardship nor imposes any unfair advantage on candidates for public office.
I'm sure the gang in the lawyer thread, among others, could rip this distinctly non-expert, opinion to shred in no time. Have at it.
Things are looking grim for the Nation if true, that California really is the face of the nation 15 years in advance, then things are looking grim nationally for the GOP in a very short while.
https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-out-of-bay-area-california-where-to-go-cost-13614119.phpCalifornia elected a Republican governor in 2003. If some of the prognosticators are correct, that California really is the face of the nation 15 years in advance, then things are looking grim nationally for the GOP in a very short while.
Constitution is for #######.You seem to be missing what's important in all this. That the Treasury Department is defying the court order to turn them over.
Can you cite the section of the constitution, dealing with presidential primary elections, that you feel is being changed?I guess any state can make up any reason they wish to require new things from Presidential candidates. I wasn't aware states had the power to change the constitution like that. Who knew?
To be fair Trump told his voters he would do this. But that damn audit.Honestly there should be no law requiring tax returns for candidates. Candidates should provide them. If one refuses, and you're dumb enough to vote for that person, caveat emptor.
And you do realize the only reason California is doing this is because of the defiance of the Treasury. Had they been turned over as they should have been the State wouldn’t have gotten involved.No I'm really not. Different thread. The treasury department is a federal agency. My post, if you read it, is about California law.
So I'm not missing the point at all. Are you Ok with states deciding what a President must comply with in order to be on the ballot?
And I hope they do. Practically the only negative aspect of this paradise is the traffic. Go, my friends!https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-out-of-bay-area-california-where-to-go-cost-13614119.php
53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey
That headline is a bit misleading IMO. The article states that residents are considering leaving due to the high cost of living. Not that they actually WANT to leave.https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-out-of-bay-area-california-where-to-go-cost-13614119.php
53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey
It's very difficult to bash California. This is a near perfect place to live.That headline is a bit misleading IMO. The article states that residents are considering leaving due to the high cost of living. Not that they actually WANT to leave.
Why do some areas cost so much to live in? Cuz so many people find it a desirable place to live.
Also, not sure what this has to do with the OP, obviously you're just trying to do some CA bashing.
Let the colonization of red states begin.https://www.sfgate.com/expensive-san-francisco/article/move-out-of-bay-area-california-where-to-go-cost-13614119.php
53 percent of Californians want to leave the state, according to new survey
The capital of Idaho will have to be renamed: "New Bakersfield".Let the colonization of red states begin.
Did I write anything that gave my opinion that bashed California?That headline is a bit misleading IMO. The article states that residents are considering leaving due to the high cost of living. Not that they actually WANT to leave.
Why do some areas cost so much to live in? Cuz so many people find it a desirable place to live.
Also, not sure what this has to do with the OP, obviously you're just trying to do some CA bashing.
Isn't McConnell's reason for blocking election security bills because it interferes with a process that should be left up to the States?No I'm really not. Different thread. The treasury department is a federal agency. My post, if you read it, is about California law.
So I'm not missing the point at all. Are you Ok with states deciding what a President must comply with in order to be on the ballot?
You know who else slicks their hair back? Rats!I didn't vote for Newsom. I don't like him. He always reminded me of Steve Lavin (former UCLA basketball coach.) I don't trust guys who slick their hair back.
Nope. If that wasn't your intention then my apologies. But that makes your post seem even less relevant.Did I write anything that gave my opinion that bashed California?
Sure. You were just providing information. Info that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread topic other then the name California. But sure. .Did I write anything that gave my opinion that bashed California?
It was a post in response to a post about California. HTHSure. You were just providing information. Info that had absolutely nothing at all to do with the thread topic other then the name California. But sure. .
I look forward to all your other stat posts links in all the other threads any time any other state is named. I’m gonna learn a lot about the states!
I love calif. Love it.It's very difficult to bash California. This is a near perfect place to live.
Dang it. You're right. I kinda liked outta tho. But phonetically it reads as out ta@supermike80 Can you change the title to “oughta”?
That’s what I want to knowCan you cite the section of the constitution, dealing with presidential primary elections, that you feel is being changed?
Oregon and Arizona are cool though?Just build the wall along the Nevada CA border and lets move on.
Don’t worry California will pay for it.Just build the wall along the Nevada CA border and lets move on.
Show me the Constitutional provision they're changing. Besides, Moscow Mitch says the reason he opposed the bill to stop Russian interference was because election rules are to be set by the states and the federal government shouldn't get involved.I guess any state can make up any reason they wish to require new things from Presidential candidates. I wasn't aware states had the power to change the constitution like that. Who knew?
I don't think you're going to get an answer on this one.Can you cite the section of the constitution, dealing with presidential primary elections, that you feel is being changed?