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.

 

Will Gavin Newsom try to kick Trump off the California ballot?

page: 2
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

It's Unconstitutional no matter who it applies to.


The Democratic National Committee and Republican National Comittee, while political are not government agencies and are not bound by the Constitution to select their candidates. The parties can and do demand things from candidates that the government doesn't, can't. The new California statute puts the burden on the political parties, not the candidates.

This is the argument. I suspect it will be decided in court.

At any rate, there's no way that the law was enacted to stop Trump in 2020, because it doesn't apply to him.



edit on 15-7-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: highvein



William Weld. He is the only one as of May 17, 2019.




www.marieclaire.com...





edit on 15-7-2019 by highvein because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

What Unconstitutional requirements do they currently have?

Now, even if a political party wants it, that is not the same as the State of California demanding it.

For the record I am not against disclosure. I am against however the weaponizing of it. It will require an amendment though, because above all I am for following the Constitution.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TonyS

U.s. government...also known as us taxpayers..should stop sending money to California. Let them exist on their own.


Just need to point out that it is California that sends more tax money out of state than the other way around. Your argument would work fine for the state of Alabama or Mississipi.

As far as what California is trying to do it may not apply to Trump because he is the incumbent. The devil will be in the details.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: highvein

Anti-Constitutional so it won’t go anywhere but typical of anti Americans who try to destroy the country.
You know, your right and not only that, think how much money has been spent wastefully just on obstruction by the democrats. And the reduction in the quality of life for Americans.
edit on 15-7-2019 by Plotus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: OccamsRazor04




Now, even if a political party wants it, that is not the same as the State of California demanding it.


I agree. That's why I say it will probably be settled in court.



What Unconstitutional requirements do they currently have?


All kinds. A signature quota. A fundraising/donor quota. They have to poll at a certain rate in order to get on the debate stage. They have to score high during the debates to continue to the next debate....etc.


edit on 15-7-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
It would be great for Trump if he is kept of the bottle in CA; he will ignore the state ether way; but if he's not on the ballot for partisan reasons (such as this one) than it completely blows the whole nonsence popular vote argument out of the water.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: TonyS

U.s. government...also known as us taxpayers..should stop sending money to California. Let them exist on their own.


Just need to point out that it is California that sends more tax money out of state than the other way around. Your argument would work fine for the state of Alabama or Mississipi.

As far as what California is trying to do it may not apply to Trump because he is the incumbent. The devil will be in the details.


You might want to double check that. In 2017, California residents paid in $435.6 Billion dollars in federal taxes, but ended up getting back $436.1 Billion in federal funding.

www.usatoday.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

I bet that total would change drastically if they didn't add in defense contractors.

In fact, this is the first time I have seen where defense contractors were considered payouts to the state.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 10:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi

California also exceeds all other states in welfare spending too in the amount of $103 Billion.


No other state comes close to California in terms of total welfare spending


www.marketwatch.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 10:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Deetermined

Now that I have known for a long time.

What I was saying is that DOD spending really shouldn't be counted towards going to a state. Especially when much of that will never be filtered back into the economy. When the army goes out for live fire exercises the cost is in the millions or the airforce is running qualifications at 19K a flight hour that is all just federal spending tax dollars with no benefit to the state itself. In 2017 50 billion was spent on DOD in the state of California not on the state of California.



posted on Jul, 15 2019 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: highvein




William Weld. He is the only one as of May 17, 2019.


William Weld will not be allowed by the RNC to primary President Trump. See how that (unconstitutionality) works?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 04:48 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He can't create his own party or join a different party to run?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 05:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

And if I don't meet quotas and I run as an Independent my name won't be on the ballot because D or R won't let me?



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 06:35 AM
link   
a reply to: Grimpachi


What I was saying is that DOD spending really shouldn't be counted towards going to a state. Especially when much of that will never be filtered back into the economy.


I don't know why you would think that considering that the highest paid federal subcontractor in the country is Lockheed Martin. How many employees do you think they have that are spending money in California helping to boost their economy?

Maybe you need to read that paragraph again...


Money from the federal government is redistributed back to states in the form of grants, aid programs for the needy and payments to major government contracting firms such as defense companies.



edit on 16-7-2019 by Deetermined because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Sookiechacha

He can't create his own party or join a different party to run?


Of course. But he won't be on the Republican ticket, and won't be "primarying" President Trump.



And if I don't meet quotas and I run as an Independent my name won't be on the ballot because D or R won't let me?


You won't be on the ballot on a D or R ticket.

This new statuette puts the burden on the RNC and the DNC, or any party committee having a "primary", to vet their candidate by requiring them to disclose their tax returns.

I don't know if that's a legal thing for a state to impose on a political committee, so I'm thinking this statute will eventually be challenged in court. But, at any rate, it wasn't designed to stop Donald Trump, because he isn't in a primary race.




edit on 16-7-2019 by Sookiechacha because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 16 2019 @ 09:33 AM
link   
a reply to: highvein

It's voter suppression and also unconstitutional. However, with that said the states that try to keep Trump off doesn't really matter because they are blue states. Only purple and red states matter for Trumps Victory.




top topics



 
7
<< 1   >>

log in

join