Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Star Member Eliot Rosewater (18,692 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/100211440063Before I forget, no candidate with a D can run without releasing 8 years tax returns.Anywhere in the country, anyone who wants to run in OUR party, must comply. That is my new rule.
Fri Nov 16, 2018, 04:59 PMStar Member Tavarious Jackson (1,547 posts) 6. We're not republicans.We're better than them and we need to show that. I want at least 8 years
Small-Axe (188 posts) 19. I'm down with your rule.I'd add a second. No one runs for president as a D without 5 years of continuous party membership.
Gothmog (60,653 posts) 48. I fear that Putin will try to help sanders again so as to help trumpRemember that Putin did his best to help sanders last time Russia was helping sanders for a reason https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/02/17/indictment-russians-also-tried-help-bernie-sanders-jill-stein-presidential-campaigns/348051002/ WASHINGTON – It turns out Donald Trump wasn’t the only candidate the Russians allegedly tried to help during the 2016 presidential campaign. A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton. The Russians “engaged in operations primarily intended to communicate derogatory information about Hillary Clinton, to denigrate other candidates such as Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, and to support Bernie Sanders and then-candidate Donald Trump,” according to the indictment, which was issued Friday.sanders success to some degree was due to Russia sanders will not be the nominee of the party in 2020. There are a large number of democrats who have long memories and will not forgive or forget the role that sanders and russia played in election trump
realmirage (1,931 posts) 73. Polls showed him trouncing Trump in the general. And the rules for superdelegates were changed for a reason. But you already know that don’t you?
Response to Eliot Rosewater (Reply #30)Fri Nov 16, 2018, 06:19 PMStar Member former9thward (20,417 posts) 31. Well then Jerry Brown is not your friend.And he is a liberal. And he does far more than anyone on internet discussion boards. He opposes such a rule and vetoed a bill mandated the rule in CA.
Response to former9thward (Reply #31)Fri Nov 16, 2018, 06:25 PMStar Member Eliot Rosewater (18,692 posts) 32. DONT tell me who my friends are, do NOT. You have no CLUE who I am and who my friends are.
Fri Nov 16, 2018, 06:41 PMStar Member former9thward (20,417 posts) 39. Since you are playing word gamesDo you support Jerry Brown's position? Yes or no?
Gothmog (60,653 posts) 52. Candidates who won't disclose taxes shouldn't be on the ballotProf. Tribe disagrees with your analysis https://www.cnn.com/2017/04/14/opinions/state-laws-requiring-tax-return-disclosure-legal-tribe-painter-eisen/index.html Our federal Constitution allows states to create ballot access requirements that ensure that the ballots for every office, including the office of presidential elector, are comprehensible and informative. A line must of course be drawn between permissible ballot access laws and impermissible attempts to add qualifications to those specified in the federal Constitution. But our research and analysis lead us to conclude that tax return disclosure laws such as the one proposed in California resemble ballot access laws in structure, impact, and purpose much more closely than they resemble laws imposing additional qualifications for presidential office. As a result, we believe these laws comport fully with the U.S. Constitution. Unlike prohibited qualifications, these laws do not impose substantive requirements on candidates beyond those imposed by the Constitution itself; that is, these laws do not limit which candidates may run for office based on any particular information in their tax return. Thus, they do not create an insurmountable barrier in advance to any set of individuals otherwise qualified under Article II of our Constitution. Instead, these laws require federally qualified candidates to comply with a relatively minor process of tax disclosure. That is something competing candidates can and should readily do in order to allow voters to make more informed judgments about those contenders' characters or backgrounds.Maryland has such a ballot access law in place now. New Jersey and Mass are soon to follow. California will probably adopt such a law after Brown is no longer in office. I trust Prof. Tribe on this. As a practical matter, trump may not be challenging these laws because if the Democrats retake the House, they will be getting his ta returns as one of the first items of business. House Democrats have done three or four votes to put GOP members on record as not wanting to get trump's tax returns and this may still be an issue in the midterms. This could mean that sanders would be the only candidate suing to invalidate these laws. That will not be a great position to take with Democratic voters
Gothmog (60,653 posts) 64. I trust Tribe hereAre you a member of the bar? Again, I trust Tribe far more on these types of issues. I have read some other legal analysis of these laws and I think that these laws are constitutional I suspect that California will be adopting a new ballot access law once Brown is out of office. New Jersey and Mass will also be adopting such laws. It is difficult seeing any Democrat winning the nomination without running in these states It may well be that trump will not challenge these laws since his tax returns will have been disclosed by the House long before the filing deadlines. That means that sanders may be the only candidate challenging that law which would not help sanders with many real Democrats.
ri Nov 16, 2018, 07:16 PMStar Member former9thward (20,417 posts) 66. Yes I am a member of the bar and do criminal defense.That fact means nothing however since I am an anonymous internet poster like everyone here. Even if I was not anonymous it would just be the views of one person. We will see soon enough what the court's say.
Fri Nov 16, 2018, 07:51 PMStar Member MrsCoffee (1,928 posts) 80. Wow this thread was enlightening.I've been wondering how far some folks would go to support their candidate. Guess I'll have to keep wondering, because apparently they have no problem giving up transparency.
Small-Axe (188 posts) Fri Nov 16, 2018, 05:23 PM19. I'm down with your rule.I'd add a second. No one runs for president as a D without 5 years of continuous party membership.
Please, 99% of DUmmies can't comprehend a tax return. Especially from a wealthy person, with all the various elements. They would seize on gross income and perhaps the sources of income if even disclosed.
