ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 5th May 2019, 11:36 PM   #1
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,251
California bans Donald Trump

Quote:
A new proposed state bill could change who would appear on the presidential primary ballot if those candidates don’t release five years' worth of income tax returns come 2020.

in a 27 to 10 vote The California State Senate approved Senate Bill 27.

This means that if President Donald Trump doesn’t release his tax returns this bill would then remove him off the presidential primary ballot in California .
Link article

Quote:
We reached out to the Kern County Republican Party who were not available for an interview. However, GOP Commentator Cathy Abernathy shared the following statement:

Quote:
Candidates by law file financial disclosure forms showing what they own and invest in. The IRS, not the Voter, has the responsibility of ensuring proper taxes are paid. No one, candidate or dog catcher, should be required to release their tax returns.

SB-27

From the second link in bill analysis:

Quote:
The primary constitutional question raised by SB 27 is whether it is compatible with, or
in violation of, the Presidential Qualifications Clause. In addition, however, the bill also
implicates the Presidential Election Clause, the constitutional right to privacy, the
Supremacy Clause, and voters’ First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free
expression and free association.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th May 2019, 11:58 PM   #2
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,890
I like the trolling aspect of it but worry about the precedent it sets. I could see other states setting up even weirder arbitrary reasons to remove candidates from ballots.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:02 AM   #3
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,950
I've come full circle on this, and think it's okay. It's not like any state in play for Trump would pass such a law.
And people can always write-in. Trump isn't hard to spell.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:26 AM   #4
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
 
thaiboxerken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 29,971
I think it's okay. They aren't banning Trump at all, they are simply adding a qualifier. All Trump has to do to be on the ballot is release his tax returns, like all of the other candidates.
__________________
All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power & profit - Thomas Paine
thaiboxerken is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:45 AM   #5
Venom
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: United States
Posts: 2,251
The bill analysis cites this two-year old AP article.

Quote:
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that states and the federal government cannot add to the qualifications of senators and congressional representatives outlined in the Constitution. Some legal experts said that guidance likely would extend to the office of the president.

“I think a requirement of revealing one’s tax returns would be regarded as an additional qualification,” said Michael McConnell, a professor at Stanford Law School. “And then there’s the tax law problem, because federal law guarantees the confidentiality of tax returns. And I think that law would pre-empt any state law requiring someone to divulge their returns.”

But Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said the Constitution has conflicting provisions.

“The question is whether a law that would deprive a presidential candidate of ballot access on the basis of a failure to provide a tax return would be creating an unconstitutional additional qualification, or whether it would be permissible within the state’s power to set the rules for presidential elections,” Hasen said. “Nobody’s tried it before.”
Quote:
“I suspect that these bills will be very similar to the birth certificate legislation introduced after President Obama’s election — political statement bills that likely aren’t constitutionally sound or likely to be signed into law,” said Daniel Diorio, senior policy specialist at the National Conference of State Legislatures. “If one were to become law, I’m sure it would be challenged immediately.”

Last edited by Venom; 6th May 2019 at 12:48 AM.
Venom is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 01:16 AM   #6
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,950
I see the argument not involving the Constitution at all: California doesn't ban Trump from standing for election, it just bans him from appearing on the Ballot, something that is entirely under the control of the State. He can still get elected via write-ins.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 01:34 AM   #7
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 7,186
I don't see this going anywhere. As much as I'd like to see it, I don't think it would get past the courts.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:09 AM   #8
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,436
Originally Posted by Venom View Post
The bill analysis cites this two-year old AP article.
I think there's a point to be made here. States are already known to have requirements for making the ballot, such as filing deadlines and fees and signature requirements, that do not appear in the constitution; and yet these aren't seen by the courts as the states "adding qualifications" for holding those offices.

Still, I have the same ethical problem with this law that Travis expresses. This law may be carefully worded to sound nonspecific but as a practical matter of fact it targets a specific person and everyone knows it, and it doesn't involve some emergent public safety threat or anything that would justify targeted legislation like that.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002

Last edited by Checkmite; 6th May 2019 at 02:14 AM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:10 AM   #9
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 81,459
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I like the trolling aspect of it but worry about the precedent it sets. I could see other states setting up even weirder arbitrary reasons to remove candidates from ballots.
Yeah. They should at least exclude incumbents.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:12 AM   #10
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,565
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I like the trolling aspect of it but worry about the precedent it sets. I could see other states setting up even weirder arbitrary reasons to remove candidates from ballots.
Precedents? Yeah been a few set over the last couple of years.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:34 AM   #11
jeremyp
Muse
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Posts: 633
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
I like the trolling aspect of it but worry about the precedent it sets. I could see other states setting up even weirder arbitrary reasons to remove candidates from ballots.
Like “presidential candidates must release their long form birth certificates”?

What would doing this achieve, apart from satisfying the voyeuristic impulses of people wanting to embarrass one candidate or another?

There’s a saying in my country “hard cases make bad law”. Would this law be proposed if it were not for the specific example of Donald Trump? Probably not.

I think it is a terrible idea that presidential candidates even release their tax returns voluntarily. It sets an expectation that you have to violate your own privacy to avoid any suspicion of wrong doing.
jeremyp is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 02:46 AM   #12
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,565
Originally Posted by jeremyp View Post
Like “presidential candidates must release their long form birth certificates”?

What would doing this achieve, apart from satisfying the voyeuristic impulses of people wanting to embarrass one candidate or another?

There’s a saying in my country “hard cases make bad law”. Would this law be proposed if it were not for the specific example of Donald Trump? Probably not.

I think it is a terrible idea that presidential candidates even release their tax returns voluntarily. It sets an expectation that you have to violate your own privacy to avoid any suspicion of wrong doing.
Bloody handy not having to show them if you have a bit of wrong doing or potential or real conflicts of interest.

I happen to think open and transparent governance is critical for a functional democracy. More of it would throw a spanner or two in the works of the current kleptocracy.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 03:26 AM   #13
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,293
Another high speed fail in CA.
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 03:36 AM   #14
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,659
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
I've come full circle on this, and think it's okay. It's not like any state in play for Trump would pass such a law.
And people can always write-in. Trump isn't hard to spell.
Well, except maybe for the guy who has to write it all the time. See "stollen Kentuky" for examples.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:22 AM   #15
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,899
There is absolutely zero chance that this bill, if passed, would survive a court challenge.

The only question is exactly what reasoning will be used to throw it out.

Any legislator who votes for this bill should be embarrassed.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 04:49 AM   #16
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,457
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
There is absolutely zero chance that this bill, if passed, would survive a court challenge.

The only question is exactly what reasoning will be used to throw it out.

Any legislator who votes for this bill should be embarrassed.
2nded.

I don't know if CA is already one of the states that has stepped away from the "winner takes all EC Electors". If it isn't, the law would ironically create a burden for the Democratic candidate only, since CA isn't going to elect an R presidential candidate either way.

The proposed law alienates more voters from the D party.

An all around lose-lose situation for Democrats inside and outside CA. Such stupidity.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 05:54 AM   #17
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,950
If this gets smacked-down, at least it creates the precedent;
in an inverse situation, I'm not sure this Supreme Court would undo a restriction that favored Republicans.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:12 AM   #18
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,565
Maybe put Federal elections in the hands of a Federal body for consistent transparency and sort out a whole lot of dodgy stuff that goes on.
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Sideroxylon; 6th May 2019 at 06:13 AM.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:31 AM   #19
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
There is absolutely zero chance that this bill, if passed, would survive a court challenge.

The only question is exactly what reasoning will be used to throw it out.

Any legislator who votes for this bill should be embarrassed.
This.

It would be a terrible precedent even if it doesn't matter if you strip republicans from the ballot in CA.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Maybe put Federal elections in the hands of a Federal body for consistent transparency and sort out a whole lot of dodgy stuff that goes on.
That would almost certainly require and amendment.

Last edited by ahhell; 6th May 2019 at 06:32 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 06:46 AM   #20
SuburbanTurkey
Graduate Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 1,533
I'm no legal expert by any means, but I am assuming there is lots of case law around states interfering with federal elections as a result of the long history of chicanery in the South. I think the ship of "states managing their own elections as they see fit" has long sailed after many decades of abuses by the segregated South.

I am assuming this law is going to get gavel slapped hard by a judge pretty quickly.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 07:10 AM   #21
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 20,565
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
That would almost certainly require and amendment.
Too-hard basket then?
__________________
'The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.' - Richard Feynman
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 07:52 AM   #22
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Bloody handy not having to show them if you have a bit of wrong doing or potential or real conflicts of interest.

I happen to think open and transparent governance is critical for a functional democracy. More of it would throw a spanner or two in the works of the current kleptocracy.
The thing is, they are really unlikely to show anything illegal. Something embarrasing sure. Trump doesn't have as much money as he says for instance or he's got a good account that knows tax law well enough that Trump doesn't pay much in the way of taxes. They almost certainly wouldn't reveal any law breaking.

Originally Posted by Sideroxylon View Post
Too-hard basket then?
Probably.

I agree with JeremyP, the whole releasing the tax thing isn't a good idea and only serves for political points.

Also, "hardcases make bad law" is a phrase in the US too.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:06 AM   #23
Ranb
Philosopher
 
Ranb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: WA USA
Posts: 9,640
Obama gave the birthers enough rope to hang themselves after he eventually released copies of his Certification of Live Birth then later a copy of his original Birth Certificate. Trump could do the same to those who expected him to stand by his claim that he would released his tax returns, or not.
Ranb is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:07 AM   #24
lomiller
Philosopher
 
lomiller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 9,692
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
If this gets smacked-down, at least it creates the precedent;
in an inverse situation, I'm not sure this Supreme Court would undo a restriction that favored Republicans.
Does the Supreme Court have a say in how States run their Primaries? If so wouldn't this open up other challenges?
__________________
"Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen"
lomiller is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:11 AM   #25
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
 
Ladewig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 26,381
It may not be all that relevant.
President Trump believes there should be no Republican primary.
And given that the Republican National Committee and Trump’s re-election committee have been somewhat combined, he may get his way.
__________________
I lost an avatar bet to Doghouse Reilly.

Last edited by Ladewig; 6th May 2019 at 08:18 AM. Reason: To correct an error on my part.
Ladewig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 08:13 AM   #26
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,623
Each voter got a choice in how much they wanted to factor tax returns into their vote. Why should that be taken away from them?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:40 AM   #27
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,486
If nothing else, California is showing why we still need the electoral college.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 09:58 AM   #28
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
If nothing else, California is showing why we still need the electoral college.
Er, no.

The small states could do the same thing California is proposing and the result would have a larger effect (in terms of populations involved).

This has very little to do with the electoral college, except for the fact that California is a very populous state and you don't like their proposal.
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:19 AM   #29
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,486
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
Er, no.

The small states could do the same thing California is proposing and the result would have a larger effect (in terms of populations involved).

This has very little to do with the electoral college, except for the fact that California is a very populous state and you don't like their proposal.
Let's assume for now that California succeeds in banning Trump from the ballot. Would you agree that this makes it much more unlikely that Trump could win the popular vote? And if the popular vote were what determines the winner, which is what the opponents of the Electoral College want, that this would make it very unlikely that Trump could win?

Now you may feel that this is such a desirable outcome that it's worth any cost. But how long do you think it would take for other states to come up with similar mechanisms to bar Democrats from the ballot?

This is just another advantage of the EC; that schemes like this are ineffectual.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:26 AM   #30
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,438
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Let's assume for now that California succeeds in banning Trump from the ballot. Would you agree that this makes it much more unlikely that Trump could win the popular vote? And if the popular vote were what determines the winner, which is what the opponents of the Electoral College want, that this would make it very unlikely that Trump could win?

Now you may feel that this is such a desirable outcome that it's worth any cost. But how long do you think it would take for other states to come up with similar mechanisms to bar Democrats from the ballot?

This is just another advantage of the EC; that schemes like this are ineffectual.
I'm not in favor of California's proposal, but with the electoral college, a smaller population in a group of states could jointly create similar restrictions on the ballot and produce a more significant outcome. The EC doesn't prevent this maneuver. It makes it easier to do it with state governments representing a smaller population than California's (though it would require more states, but there are enough deep red states to make this reasonably plausible).
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:28 AM   #31
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,952
I will reserve my discussion about the legal issues for below, but I will just say, if this were to pass, and then get overruled by the courts, what implications could that have for other restrictions applied by the states? For example, what about deadlines for submitting their candidacy?

As for whether states are allowed to put limits beyond what's in the constitution, doesn't that constitution actually imply that it's allowed? For example, if the states can't put restrictions on who can run, why does the constitution explicitly prohibit religious tests? Because if no other restrictions were allowed, they wouldn't need to highlight a religious test.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 10:35 AM   #32
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,623
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Let's assume for now that California succeeds in banning Trump from the ballot. Would you agree that this makes it much more unlikely that Trump could win the popular vote? And if the popular vote were what determines the winner, which is what the opponents of the Electoral College want, that this would make it very unlikely that Trump could win?

Now you may feel that this is such a desirable outcome that it's worth any cost. But how long do you think it would take for other states to come up with similar mechanisms to bar Democrats from the ballot?

This is just another advantage of the EC; that schemes like this are ineffectual.
I think your post uses a false premise. From the people I have encountered who care about tax returns, many think having them shown is an important tool in vetting a candidate. In that case, your post is an argument about why they should implement a good policy when others could implement a bad policy.
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:01 AM   #33
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,486
Originally Posted by phiwum View Post
I'm not in favor of California's proposal, but with the electoral college, a smaller population in a group of states could jointly create similar restrictions on the ballot and produce a more significant outcome. The EC doesn't prevent this maneuver. It makes it easier to do it with state governments representing a smaller population than California's (though it would require more states, but there are enough deep red states to make this reasonably plausible).
But such efforts are pointless precisely because of the EC. If California bans Trump from the ballot, it doesn't change his odds of winning the presidency one whit, because he is never going to win California unless it's a landslide for the GOP. Similarly, if Alabama and Mississippi ban the Democratic nominee from the ballot, it's not an obstacle to the Democrat winning. Under a popular vote system, such efforts could have a very significant impact on the outcome.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.

Last edited by Brainster; 6th May 2019 at 11:02 AM.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:01 AM   #34
sir drinks-a-lot
Illuminator
 
sir drinks-a-lot's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Cole Valley, CA
Posts: 3,673
Another waste of time by #theresistance
__________________
I drink to the general joy o' th' whole table. --William Shakespeare
sir drinks-a-lot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:17 AM   #35
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 73,393
False narrative being repeated in the right-wing echo chamber and spilling over into other sources: California is trying to keep Trump off the ballot.

True narrative not being repeated enough: California wants to make Trump release his tax returns. The voters have a right to know the relevant things about POTUS candidates.

Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
__________________
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:22 AM   #36
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,287
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
False narrative being repeated in the right-wing echo chamber and spilling over into other sources: California is trying to keep Trump off the ballot.

True narrative not being repeated enough: California wants to make Trump release his tax returns. The voters have a right to know the relevant things about POTUS candidates.

Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
Because we all realize what CA legislators are trying to do, and we think its a bad idea. Regardless of how you frame it.

Voters do not have a right to know the candidates Tax records, its highly debatable as to whether they are actually relevant. Many candidates have decided to release for marketing purposes.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:33 AM   #37
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
 
Upchurch's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 31,321
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
This is just another advantage of the EC; that schemes like this are ineffectual.
Whereas schemes like the one Russia pulled 2016 are effectual, as Trump did not need to the popular vote and, indeed, did not. That is just another disadvantage of the Electoral College.
__________________
"There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact." -- Sherlock Holmes.
"It’s easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled." -- Mark Twain, maybe.
Upchurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:38 AM   #38
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 16,623
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
False narrative being repeated in the right-wing echo chamber and spilling over into other sources: California is trying to keep Trump off the ballot.

True narrative not being repeated enough: California wants to make Trump release his tax returns. The voters have a right to know the relevant things about POTUS candidates.

Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
How did voters acquire this right?
BobTheCoward is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 11:58 AM   #39
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,950
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
How did voters acquire this right?
how did voters acquire the right to have the name of their favorite candidate pre-printed on the ballot, instead of having to write it in themselves?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th May 2019, 12:01 PM   #40
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 23,436
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
False narrative being repeated in the right-wing echo chamber and spilling over into other sources: California is trying to keep Trump off the ballot.

True narrative not being repeated enough: California wants to make Trump release his tax returns. The voters have a right to know the relevant things about POTUS candidates.

Why are you all repeating the false narrative here?
California wants to make Trump release his tax returns by threatening to keep him off the ballot.

Congress is in a far better position to compel Trump to release his tax returns. They have subpoena power.
__________________
"¿WHAT KIND OF BIRD?
¿A PARANORMAL BIRD?"
--- Carlos S., 2002
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:35 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.