It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California sends bill requiring presidential candidates' tax returns to governor's desk

page: 6
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Krakatoa

Is this really usurping the constitution though? Even if this passes its not like people won't be able to vote for Trump. You can write in whoever you want.

I'm going to err on the side of more transparency.


Sure and how about states on the other side disallow any Presidential Candidate not declaring membership, support or donations from/to that may be connected to any kind of "ism" in the past or present - after all it just educating the voter right?

See there may be no end to the permutations if precedent is allowed to stand as it result in chaos.

Its dumb concept and bankrupt idea.




posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Edumakated



A candidate like Trump has far to more lose by showing his tax returns than the broke Democrat candidates currently running.


Do you know that for a fact or is that just an assumption? Listening to Republicans you'd think the Democrats would be more dirty and have more stuff to hide than Trump.


The more money you make, the more complicated your tax returns. It becomes very easy for a biased media to spin a legitimate tax filing as some how the candidate is not "paying their fair share".


I seriously doubt any of our politicians are paying their "fair share". Regardless of what side of the isle they sit on. Who knows? This may come back to bite Democrats. And if it does, it should.


Trump has absolutely nothing to gain by releasing his tax returns only to have them spun negatively to an ignorant public that thinks getting a tax refund is a good thing.


I agree. But that doesn't mean his taxes shouldn't be public knowledge because it will negatively effect him. If you put party loyalty above country than yeah, I can see why you'd not want his tax returns to be public knowledge.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Krakatoa

Is this really usurping the constitution though? Even if this passes its not like people won't be able to vote for Trump. You can write in whoever you want.

I'm going to err on the side of more transparency.


Sure and how about states on the other side disallow any Presidential Candidate not declaring membership, support or donations from/to that may be connected to any kind of "ism" in the past or present - after all it just educating the voter right?

See there may be no end to the permutations if precedent is allowed to stand as it result in chaos.

Its dumb concept and bankrupt idea.


I'm just talking about more information about the candidates who are supposed to lead the country. What you're describing goes way beyond that.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Hope they try and go to court and lose. Like a hundred million in legal fees...



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated



If you put party loyalty above country


Then you'll be all in on a State Legislatures making targeted election law in Presidential elections setting precedent if successful, making future national elections chaotic and useless beside disenfranchising candidates and ultimately voters choice.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Not really.

How many candidates tell us they are for or against this or that but them suddenly change their spots once in office? Seeing a history of their involvement with such things would let us know for sure where they put their money, not just where their mouth has been. Talk is cheap and all that, yes?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Krakatoa

Is this really usurping the constitution though? Even if this passes its not like people won't be able to vote for Trump. You can write in whoever you want.

I'm going to err on the side of more transparency.


Yes, it is....how difficult is that to understand ? You are an intelligent person, yet, you don't see that on your own ? Ask yourself, honestly, why is that, huh ?



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated



If you put party loyalty above country


Then you'll be all in on a State Legislatures making targeted election law in Presidential elections setting precedent if successful, making future national elections chaotic and useless beside disenfranchising candidates and ultimately voters choice.


If candidates are disenfranchised by having to be transparent about their financials they shouldn't be running for office in the first place.

It seems you're arguing in favor of keeping things the way they are. I think the way things are is crap. And I wouldn't feel the least bit bad if the majority of politicians and candidates were ran out of D.C. tarred and feathered and dropped off in the woods somewhere in Virginia.

We need different people, and a different standard for the leaders who are in theory supposed to be working for us.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:33 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

That information would happen to be very pertinent to myself and many other voters - whats the problem you say more info good but then turn around and insinuate its bad?

Make up your mind! oh I get it its purely partisan after all.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: underwerks

That information would happen to be very pertinent to myself and many other voters - whats the problem you say more info good but then turn around and insinuate its bad?

Make up your mind! oh I get it its purely partisan after all.


Where did I say more info was bad? I'm arguing for more info about every candidate.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

Sure easy enough to write in someone like Trump, but wait until we have a candidate with a Polish origin surname and people have to write that thing in. Then we'll have the recounts because the spelling has to be correct and there will be ballot fights over what the writer intended because no one will be able to accurately tell what some people intended in their hand-written ballot effort, etc.

Lovely time for one and all.

Not to mention ... how do you write in a candidate on an electronic ballot?
edit on 4-5-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated



If you put party loyalty above country


Then you'll be all in on a State Legislatures making targeted election law in Presidential elections setting precedent if successful, making future national elections chaotic and useless beside disenfranchising candidates and ultimately voters choice.


If candidates are disenfranchised by having to be transparent about their financials they shouldn't be running for office in the first place.

It seems you're arguing in favor of keeping things the way they are. I think the way things are is crap. And I wouldn't feel the least bit bad if the majority of politicians and candidates were ran out of D.C. tarred and feathered and dropped off in the woods somewhere in Virginia.

We need different people, and a different standard for the leaders who are in theory supposed to be working for us.


If you think that the current process sucks so badly, then please, begin a movement to amend the United States Constitution regarding the federal presidential election rules. Otherwise, you are just whining and moaning looking to force your will upon others from the comfort of your own safe space.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: underwerks
a reply to: Edumakated



If you put party loyalty above country


Then you'll be all in on a State Legislatures making targeted election law in Presidential elections setting precedent if successful, making future national elections chaotic and useless beside disenfranchising candidates and ultimately voters choice.


If candidates are disenfranchised by having to be transparent about their financials they shouldn't be running for office in the first place.

It seems you're arguing in favor of keeping things the way they are. I think the way things are is crap. And I wouldn't feel the least bit bad if the majority of politicians and candidates were ran out of D.C. tarred and feathered and dropped off in the woods somewhere in Virginia.

We need different people, and a different standard for the leaders who are in theory supposed to be working for us.



If its different people then you're going about it all wrong. Term limits is solution so that we no longer have a "professional class" of politician ripe for corruption.

Is Trump a "professional politician" or would most of the opposition fit that definition, you should ask yourself. Who's really the weasel here?

Playing wack a mole on the orange man is not going to solve anything you mentioned in this post.

You can play semantic games and play pretend all day but a very large majority posting here see partisan motives not altruistic as you claim.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix


Is Trump a "professional politician" or would most of the opposition fit that definition, you should ask yourself. Who's really the weasel here?


The President of the United States is by definition a professional politician. What else would you call it?


You can play semantic games and play pretend all day but a very large majority posting here see partisan motives not altruistic as you claim.


I'm sure they do. People have been conditioned to see things through whatever political lens makes them feel comfortable. That has nothing to do with me. That's their problem.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: underwerks

That information would happen to be very pertinent to myself and many other voters - whats the problem you say more info good but then turn around and insinuate its bad?

Make up your mind! oh I get it its purely partisan after all.


Where did I say more info was bad? I'm arguing for more info about every candidate.


Remember posting just above,


I'm just talking about more information about the candidates who are supposed to lead the country. What you're describing goes way beyond that.


The bolded part of you words is saying I've asked for to much information by wanting to know if my candidate supports or is supported by any "ism"

Hence you cant make up your mind unless of course its "only" information that underwerks approves of.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:55 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

That's load of crap, is best description as the man has held one elected office for less than one term and hardly meets any definition of professional politician such as a Shumer or Pelosi that qualify for that term along with many other entrenched in Washington.

Get real



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 09:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: underwerks

That information would happen to be very pertinent to myself and many other voters - whats the problem you say more info good but then turn around and insinuate its bad?

Make up your mind! oh I get it its purely partisan after all.


Where did I say more info was bad? I'm arguing for more info about every candidate.


Remember posting just above,


I'm just talking about more information about the candidates who are supposed to lead the country. What you're describing goes way beyond that.


The bolded part of you words is saying I've asked for to much information by wanting to know if my candidate supports or is supported by any "ism"

Hence you cant make up your mind unless of course its "only" information that underwerks approves of.


You didn't quote my post in your reply so I had no idea which one you're responding to. I take it you're talking about racism etc, or whatever other isms Republicans have been accused of.

I'm talking about financial records, legal proceedings, that kind of thing. Things that can be proved. Not subjective things like whether a candidate is racist or not. Things there are records of.

If that's not what you meant by "ism" then enlighten me on what you meant.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 10:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: underwerks

That's load of crap, is best description as the man has held one elected office for less than one term and hardly meets any definition of professional politician such as a Shumer or Pelosi that qualify for that term along with many other entrenched in Washington.

Get real


There is no time limit that decides when a politician is a politician. You're a politician when you're an elected official. Especially when you occupy the office of President.

Your type of thinking is the same that leads people to believe that a political party that controls the majority of government somehow isn't the establishment.



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 10:36 PM
link   
a reply to: LDragonFire

This country is too far to the right to ever allow states to have so much power.


edit on 4-5-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 4 2019 @ 10:42 PM
link   
I'd support a bill that says all people running for Congress or the Presidency must show their tax returns to be on the ballot.




top topics



 
11
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join