Wake up America! They aren't playing politics..

Okay, I was reading a topic here regarding Illinois working to remove Trump from their presidential ballot. The general consensus was that federal laws supersede state laws. While that's true, nullifications and the supremacy clauses come into play.

While federal law supersedes state law:
Congress is responsible in enforcing federal mandates or insuring a federal law is followed.

Okay..how confident are you that the opposition Democrats in the House and the RINOs in the Senate would force Illinois to abide by federal law?



Democrats already openly support illegal Immigration in hopes of changing voting districts. They don't care about the burden put on the taxpayer or the irreparable damage being done to our nation.

They weaponized our intelligence agencies and then used them to spy on, lie about, and slander in an attempt to remove a duly elected President. When that failed, they decided that the constitution doesn't matter and started advocating the removal of the electoral college and lowering the voting age to 16. Any means necessary!

They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary. They want to remove your 2nd amendment right claiming its to save children while simultaneously drafting some of the sickest abortion legislation imaginable. Democrats not only support Anti-American, brother-marrying, anti-Semitic muslims..they treat them like celebrities of the party. Why the hell not? Since 9/11 to her was just a day that "that some people did something."

In short, don't just assume Congress will do what's right. These state laws to keep Trump off the ballot shouldn't be laughed off as they would in the past. These aren't the Democrats of the past and will stop at nothing to seize power. These radical socialists have already proven their lack of loyalty to America, its people, or the constitution they swore to uphold. Wake up America!

a reply to: Anathros

While federal law supersedes state law: Congress is responsible in enforcing federal mandates or insuring a federal law is followed. Okay..how confident are you that the opposition Democrats in the House and the RINOs in the Senate would force Illinois to abide by federal law?

It's not up to the congress or the senate in this situation. It's a Constitutional issue and the Supreme Court will strike it down.

The individuals involved have already stated as much. It's political posturing nothing more.

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Anathros

While federal law supersedes state law: Congress is responsible in enforcing federal mandates or insuring a federal law is followed. Okay..how confident are you that the opposition Democrats in the House and the RINOs in the Senate would force Illinois to abide by federal law?

It's not up to the congress or the senate in this situation. It's a Constitutional issue and the Supreme Court will strike it down.

The individuals involved have already stated as much. It's political posturing nothing more.

While what you said is true, there still needs to be vigilance. The difference between a SCOTUS with a majority of Constitutionalists, as opposed to activists was the difference between electing president Trump, or Hillary, and that was much to close for comfort IMO.

a reply to: Anathros

And now we are starting to see the true purpose of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a psy op and a very clever one at that. All of these red herrings throughout the truther movement were put in place to disrupt Western countries. It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about safety for American citizens.

It was about creating an environment of xenophobia to make people pick a side.

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Anathros

And now we are starting to see the true purpose of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a psy op and a very clever one at that. All of these red herrings throughout the truther movement were put in place to disrupt Western countries. It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about safety for American citizens.

It was about creating an environment of xenophobia to make people pick a side.

I picked a side years ago when I was sworn in by a USCG Commander. I will obey the orders of the Commander and Chef to support and defend the Constitution. If President Trump said,”take em out”. It would be my pleasure to obey.

originally posted by: Nickn3

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: Anathros

And now we are starting to see the true purpose of the 9/11 attacks.

It was a psy op and a very clever one at that. All of these red herrings throughout the truther movement were put in place to disrupt Western countries. It wasn't about oil, it wasn't about safety for American citizens.

It was about creating an environment of xenophobia to make people pick a side.

I picked a side years ago when I was sworn in by a USCG Commander. I will obey the orders of the Commander and Chef to support and defend the Constitution. If President Trump said,”take em out”. It would be my pleasure to obey.

And your service and bravery is valued.

I just remember all the lies that put good people like you in danger for the sake of a twisted agenda.

I'm quietly confident that Trump won't put young Americans in the same position that you were in.

a reply to: Anathros

Very well said,a star and flag was not enough for this.
Here you go and thank-you for having the nerve to
post what others may be afraid to do.

originally posted by: Anathros
They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.

These state laws to keep Trump off the ballot shouldn't be laughed

That will be messed up if anyone in congress allows that.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Ahhh,that is one part that didn't quite sink into my head this
morning.But we shouldn't assume all police officers are out to
kill people of color*.


* is this the politically correct term to use? One last thing...
is this part the only one you had issues with,if not,please
inform us of the rest.
A Colombo moment here...Just one more thing,what do you
consider real news?

a reply to: Nickn3

"Take out" who? Hope you don't mean unarmed congressmen/women.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

originally posted by: Anathros
They promote violence and dissent by portraying police and law enforcement personnel as racists out to kill young black men, despite all evidence to the contrary.

Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

There are huge racial disparities in how US police use force

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.

Vox as a credible source.....lmao.

While the article compares police shootings on the basis of population size, it ignores a comparison to actual crimes commited by blacks. It is therefore bias in its conclusions.

The fact is, blacks commit more crimes, relative to their population percentage, which, coincides pretty closely with the descepency the link you provided asserts.

Are there reasons blacks commit more crime, per capita, than other minorities? Possibly, but that is a different discussion.

What you see as racial bias, I see as a natural outcome of reality.

There is more black on black violence in Chicago, or Baltimore, by far, than there are cases of police on black incidents, and that doesn't even address the fact that many police shootings are by black officers, which makes the non racially motivated, by definition.

Actually, Illinois is not the only state, several more have, and the reason is quite simple:

The main reason he is not going to be on the ballot in those states, and far more, is that he has not released his taxes, and refuses to do such. There is no law that states he can not due to an audit. In fact according to the IRS and all lawyers in the matter, it is the opposite, he can. Since Nixon, it has been the policy of all political candidates running for president that they release x amount of years of taxes, showing the entire document and then most people look, the experts weigh in and then it all goes to the people to decide.

So is it unconstitutional to demand that all play by the same rules?

a reply to: blueman12

They probably have body guards that are armed to the teeth.

a reply to: sdcigarpig

is it unconstitutional to demand that all play by the same rules?

It isn't a rule or a law.

It could be rather easily argued that the legislative branch demanding his tax returns for political purposes is quite unconstitutional, however.

originally posted by: dfnj2015

Contrary to your right wing delusions and your constant diet of fake news the facts simply do not support your favorite opinions:

Just because you think your opinion is fact does not make it so.

With the size of America across 50 states there are great places to live and some really bad places to live. I think we can all agree with that. The places that really suck is created by the society for that area and when the society is generally dysfunctional the local police/Government tends to mirror them. So in other words if the society sucks in an area so will the cops and elected officials. Many of these place are densely populated with minorities, and a part of that is poverty, but there is also culture involved. If you are living in a culture that sees crime, drugs, gang violence etc as a norm then you also have cops that would be willing to shoot first then ask questions. Your facts formulate an opinion too, it seems that opinion is Blacks are killed more because the color of their skin and not because of the local society they created and live in.

a reply to: Lumenari

Funny you should mention that, but the head of some committees, such as the Ways and Means committee, have the legal right, as set in law, to ask for and see any tax record of anyone at any time. All that is required is a written request and the head of the IRS much provide such, failure would result in the immediate removal from office and 5 years in prison.

Now here is a quaint tradition: Since Richard Nixon, every single person who has run for the office of president has been willingly provided their taxes for the review of the public. This is cause Nixon did indeed cheated on his taxes, and paid the penalty. And it is not against the law for the taxes to be released even if the person is under audit.

And as a matter of Law, every year a person is a sitting president they are automatically audited. So there are 2 laws that are on the record, one being about the Chairman of either Comittee in congress being given any and all records asked for, and the Audit. And the Tradition of releasing the Taxes for the public to see.

I’m starting to see some of these bigger issues too. I think that all these wars and such were also about global power, resources, etc. I protested them consistently. But like the Syrian war, I didn’t see the other potential strategy such as causing mass regional disruption and migration.
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

a reply to: dfnj2015

Calls out "diet of fake news".

Posts fake news.

originally posted by: sdcigarpig
a reply to: Lumenari

Funny you should mention that, but the head of some committees, such as the Ways and Means committee, have the legal right, as set in law, to ask for and see any tax record of anyone at any time. All that is required is a written request and the head of the IRS much provide such, failure would result in the immediate removal from office and 5 years in prison.

Now here is a quaint tradition: Since Richard Nixon, every single person who has run for the office of president has been willingly provided their taxes for the review of the public. This is cause Nixon did indeed cheated on his taxes, and paid the penalty. And it is not against the law for the taxes to be released even if the person is under audit.

And as a matter of Law, every year a person is a sitting president they are automatically audited. So there are 2 laws that are on the record, one being about the Chairman of either Comittee in congress being given any and all records asked for, and the Audit. And the Tradition of releasing the Taxes for the public to see.

What you stated is not exactly legal fact. There are differing legal opinions on the issue. It will most likely be decided by the SCOTUS, if the issue is pursued.

Aside from that, even if he gives them to congress, they are still subject to privacy laws, and if members of those committees "leak" that information, they would be subject to prosecution.

I maintain that if he were doing anything drastically illegal, the IRS would have corrected the situation.

Having said that, the only reason the dems want them released is to show he paid less than his percieved fair share. If that is your big complaint, then lobby to change taxation laws, instead of blaming someone for taking advantage of the existinh ones.

NOBODY, knowingly. pays more than required.