Trump may not be on the primary ballot in California now..

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by samcraig, Jul 30, 2019.

  1. samcraig macrumors P6

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #1
    Unless he releases his taxes.

    Wonder what his tweet ranting about this will be[​IMG]
     
  2. H2SO4 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #2
    He’ll get himself on it using executive privilege.
     
  3. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    How?
     
  4. H2SO4 macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2008
    #4
    I have little idea how US politics works but I’m sure he’ll find a way to get round it.
     
  5. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #5
    Since it's a federal election, wouldn't it be unconstitutional as the constitution lists the requirements for running? Perhaps an amendment would be needed?
     
  6. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    Doesn’t the state of California print it’s own ballots? Then I think they have the Trump card :).
    --- Post Merged, Jul 30, 2019 ---
    Only the 14th amendment stopped poll taxes. Plenty of states block felons from voting etc.
     
  7. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #7
    Seems to me that California is trying to add more qualifications to run for President. Currently, the Constitution has only 2 requirements, not sure it is legal to add more.
     
  8. RichardMZhlubb Contributor

    RichardMZhlubb

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2010
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #8
    He'll still fight it because, if he's not on the ballot, it would be a disaster for every other Republican candidate in the state. But, if he loses, as long as it's only California, this actually works to his personal advantage. It lets him play the victim and it doesn't cost him a single electoral vote (his chances of winning California are essentially zero whether he's on the ballot or not). And if he wins the electoral college again while losing the popular vote, it gives him an excuse for why the popular vote totals should be ignored.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 30, 2019 ---
    The Constitution doesn't say anything about a candidate having to submit tens of thousands of signatures to get on the ballot either and that's legal. States are not required to put every human who asks and is Constitutionally eligible on the ballot.
     
  9. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #9
    It would still imply the requirement for running would be tax returns which are not listed in the requirements in the Constitution. Felons voting rights are lost privileges for the felon, not the Presidential candidate.
     
  10. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
  11. linuxcooldude macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2010
    #11
    Only if its for Democratic candidates.
     
  12. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #12
    Well, arguably, Article One outlines how states run elections, even in federal elections.

    "The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators."

    But, what we'll see is the Trump administration working to hide the president's* tax returns through yet another lawsuit, indicating that it's not because of a supposed audit, but rather that he's trying to hide these nominal documents from public view.

    Likely because they show he's cash poor, over-leveraged, and has borrowed millions in shady-ass dealings that definitely conflict with the Emoluments Clause, and highlight that he's in deep with foreign entities.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 30, 2019 ---
    That's not voter suppression, but thanks for making another Pineapples are Apples argument.
     
  13. Vanilla Ice, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019

    Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #13
    "Voter suppression, instead, attempts to reduce the number of voters who might vote against a candidate or proposition."

    I think it's a perfect example of voter suppression.
     
  14. MacDaddyPanda macrumors regular

    MacDaddyPanda

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    Location:
    USA, CA
    #14
    For Republicans does it really matter? They lose CA every time anyway.
     
  15. Vanilla Ice macrumors 6502

    Vanilla Ice

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #15
    True however, that’s not the point.
     
  16. hulugu, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #16
    Interesting that you skipped the first two sentences from the Wikipedia article you quoted:

    From the Wikipedia article:

    "Voter suppression is a strategy used to influence the outcome of an election by discouraging or preventing specific groups of people from voting."

    The tactics of voter suppression range from minor changes to make voting less convenient, to physically intimidating and even physically attacking prospective voters, which is illegal. Voter suppression can be effective if a significant number of voters are intimidated or disenfranchised."

    Again, the conservative response is to see pineapples and argue they are exactly like apples.

    This argument presupposes all the current ballot access requirements for politicians in any state, which includes candidate intention statements, declarations, residency, and signature requirements. Which is ridiculous.

    Of course, states can put some requirements on candidates, and doing so isn't voter suppression. Trump is free to meet these requirements under state law, or forego California's Electoral College votes.
     
  17. LordVic macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2011
    #17
    On the surface my gut reaction was the same that this could be construed as voter suprssion, but on deeper thought, It really isn't

    this doesn't affect voters ability to vote. this is just a candidate requirement to be considered valid for being on the ballot.

    that means everyone who is capable of voting has not had that changed. they are still free to vote for a republican candidate that passes the states requirements to be eligable as a candidate. Not what voter supression typically is reffered to.

    there could be other arguments against such a move, but typically, limiting candidates due to requirements isn't in the voter supression bubble.
     
  18. pivo6 macrumors 68000

    pivo6

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2002
    Location:
    Minnesota
    #18

    Actually it's a poor example of voter suppression.



    "Voter suppression in the United States concerns allegations about various efforts, legal and illegal, used to prevent eligible voters from exercising their right to vote."

    Source
     
  19. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #19
    Right. The balance of the effort is on the candidate, not the voter. And, we see that all states have candidacy restrictions and rules, along with rules guiding propositions. Someone could make the argument that these restrictions are a problem, but the Trump defenders have not cared about voters until this bill. Which is telling.
     
  20. MacDaddyPanda macrumors regular

    MacDaddyPanda

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    Location:
    USA, CA
    #20
    You can still Write in the candidate you want Right? So those that wanted to vote for that person whomever it is could still just write it in?
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #21
    That's a really good question. I'm not sure how California's write-in candidacy works with this new law, but my suspicion is that to be counted as a write-in candidate, one still has to file nomination forms, and to be accepted on the ballot for president, one has to submit tax documents.

    But, that's a question worth investigating under the new law.
     
  22. JayMysterio, Jul 30, 2019
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2019

    JayMysterio macrumors 6502a

    JayMysterio

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    Location:
    Rock Ridge, California
    #22
    Yes.

    Which I should warn anyone that has been previously easily offended by jokes & comments questioning the intelligence of MAGA supporters. May want to avoid liberal or MSM sites covering this topic, as many of the commentators ( corrected to be commenters ) find the concept of MAGA supporters having to write hilarious.
     
  23. MacDaddyPanda macrumors regular

    MacDaddyPanda

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2018
    Location:
    USA, CA
    #23
    Fair warning. I personally don't feel the need to jump on the TDS Bandwagon. He says things that are atrocious and false. But the same time he supports things that the country should be embracing more of. He just does a seriously horrible job of conveying to both sides. 2020 I've left it open to whom I will vote for POTUS.
     
  24. Altis macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2013
    #24
    Dismissing anyone supporting Trump as illiterate is a sure-fire way to decrease his support, and won't come off the least bit elitist. ;)

    Although it's interesting you recognize "MSM" as being opposed to Trump and anyone who would dare vote for him by making baseless jokes about their literacy.
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    quae tangit perit Trump
    #25
    I think you mean commenters, or people who write comments, not commentators or people who are paid to speak their opinions. Many MSM sites have readers or viewers joking about Trump voters, but the commentators have not made this joke, I believe.
    --- Post Merged, Jul 30, 2019 ---
    One of the remarkable things about Trump is how he cannot sell an idea to people beyond his supporters and increasingly has an anti-Midas effect by weighing in, pushing people toward either extreme and making it exceedingly difficult to find some agreement.

    I've disliked him forever—and I'm still astounded that such an obvious hairball became president—but I don't think it's TDS to argue that he's a terrible leader. He can't even take responsibility for his own campaign event, and seems to think he helped at Ground Zero, so why should anyone with a centrist stance take this man seriously, much less someone on the proverbial left.
     

Share This Page

77 July 30, 2019