Tyranny in WA State

[Guest]

The legislature in Olympia has passed a bill which would keep Trump off the 2020 presidential election ballot unless he publishes his income tax returns for the past five years. It has yet to be signed into law by the governor.

No candidate is required to disclose five years of federal income tax returns - it is a tradition; there is no law stating that it must be done. Trump was a private citizen before Jan 2017 and is under no obligation to provide such information. No candidate should be. Trump wouldn't win Washington State in a presidential election anyway, but it's a big "f*** you" to anyone in the state who doesn't groupthink the way the legislature does.

Washington State is setting a very undemocratic (and I think unconstitutional) precedent because they (the Washington State legislature) are acting by fiat to influence voting just because there's a candidate they don't like who is a member of a political party they don't like. Therefore, no one in the state will be allowed to vote for (or against) him. This is a diktat from apparatchiki if I ever saw one. I think what bothers me most is that today it's tax returns. Maybe someone cannot be on the ballot unless they're a member of the right political party or intersectional grievance group. "It’s like Russia in Washington State. It decides the election before people can even vote. It’s a party line initiative and it is totalitarianism."

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/434412-washington-senate-passes-bill-that-would-keep-trump-off-2020-ballot

Edited March 21, 2019 by Guest
addendum

[kallend 1,623]

If he has nothing to hide, why is he hiding it?

[BillyVance 34]

Being that Trump didn't win Washington in 2016, I doubt he would win it in 2020 even without this garbage being enacted. The entire left coast is overwhelmingly liberal. It's just one state. Big fucking whoop. Still, I expect a legal fight that could go all the way to the SCOTUS, who just recently, sided with Trump against sanctuary cities and states. I think we all know how that's gonna go. Trump's gonna win again.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, BillyVance said:

Being that Trump didn't win Washington in 2016, I doubt he would win it in 2020 even without this garbage being enacted. The entire left coast is overwhelmingly liberal. It's just one state. Big fucking whoop. Still, I expect a legal fight that could go all the way to the SCOTUS, who just recently, sided with Trump against sanctuary cities and states. I think we all know how that's gonna go. Trump's gonna win again.

"The entire left coast is overwhelmingly liberal"--

No, WA (and the other West Coast states) is like the US in a microcosm. In Eastern WA, across the mountains from the "Cascade Curtain", folks are largely middle of the road. But just as on the macro scale, a small number of heavily populated areas want to diktat to the rest how they will be allowed to think. You can see from the county map below that the farther East in the state that you go, the redder it gets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_Washington_(state)

I'd like to see an award of the Electoral College votes based upon the percentage, rather than winner-take-all. That would have given H 5 EC vote's to T's 3. But that will never happen because the Blue states are conspiring to subvert the Electoral College anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

Edited March 21, 2019 by Guest

[normiss 622]

I'm not sure what it actually is, but a 'diktat' sounds quite painful to me.

[ryoder 1,384]

18 minutes ago, markharju said:

I'd like to see an award of the Electoral College votes based upon the percentage, rather than winner-take-all. That would have given H 5 EC vote's to T's 3. But that will never happen...

Oh?

https://www.270towin.com/content/split-electoral-votes-maine-and-nebraska/

 

[jakee 1,254]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

I'd like to see an award of the Electoral College votes based upon the percentage, rather than winner-take-all. That would have given H 5 EC vote's to T's 3. But that will never happen because the Blue states are conspiring to subvert the Electoral College anyway.

Nonsense. Splitting of electoral votes is much closer to what Liberals want.

 

Look at any of the EC threads on here for the past few years and it is overwhelmingly your Red colleagues who are desperately clinging to winner takes all.

[lummy 4]

2 hours ago, markharju said:

 

I'd like to see an award of the Electoral College votes based upon the percentage, rather than winner-take-all. That would have given H 5 EC vote's to T's 3. But that will never happen because the Blue states are conspiring to subvert the Electoral College anyway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

I read an article recently that stated Hillary would have won if every state  doled out EC votes based on percentage

[billvon 2,396]

39 minutes ago, jakee said:

Nonsense. Splitting of electoral votes is much closer to what Liberals want.

 

Look at any of the EC threads on here for the past few years and it is overwhelmingly your Red colleagues who are desperately clinging to winner takes all.

Well, without the electoral college and very careful gerrymandering, most GOPers would be out of office.  So of course they're against such changes.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

11 hours ago, markharju said:

I think what bothers me most is that today it's tax returns. Maybe someone cannot be on the ballot unless they're a member of the right political party or intersectional grievance group.

You mean like they have to be of a certain age and have to be born in the US?

[gowlerk 1,911]

12 hours ago, markharju said:

No candidate is required to disclose five years of federal income tax returns - it is a tradition; there is no law stating that it must be done.

And that is how it should be. I agree with you 100% on this. Tax returns are private. Running for office should not require anyone, even Trump to give up their rights. There is in theory a political cost in refusing to make returns public. It should be up to any candidate to decide whether or not to pay that price.

[TriGirl 268]

12 hours ago, markharju said:

The legislature in Olympia has passed a bill which would keep Trump off the 2020 presidential election ballot unless he publishes his income tax returns for the past five years. It has yet to be signed into law by the governor.

No candidate is required to disclose five years of federal income tax returns - it is a tradition; there is no law stating that it must be done.

True (no law stating it), but Washington has passed its own bill, which may become law.

 

12 hours ago, markharju said:

Trump was a private citizen before Jan 2017 and is under no obligation to provide such information. No candidate should be.

This type of bill is proposed because of Trump.  He can't be pulled from office because any future release of those earlier tax returns will show he lied about his business acumen or net worth.  But in the spirit of "it is a tradition," anyone else who took that office agreed to the unwritten rules of behavior and decorum (as well as certain disclosures).  Trump says he doesn't have to do a lot of things because it isn't against the law.  Washington is simply fixing what now has been identified as a loophole.

[TriGirl 268]

3 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

And that is how it should be. I agree with you 100% on this. Tax returns are private. Running for office should not require anyone, even Trump to give up their rights. There is in theory a political cost in refusing to make returns public. It should be up to any candidate to decide whether or not to pay that price.

Simply having never been indicted for fraud or money laundering is not proof of financial integrity.  The voting public has been taken in by "trust me."  In the past this was enough (as enough accusers to the contrary would have been believed).  In this era, it seems Washington has decided they need more.  Like a security background investigation with a polygraph.

Edited March 21, 2019 by TriGirl
adding context

[gowlerk 1,911]

2 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

Simply having never been indicted for fraud or money laundering is not proof of financial integrity.

Where in the constitution is it required that a President have proof of financial integrity? The people knew who Trump is and was. The nation chose him anyway. None of the stuff that has come out so far has revealed anything people did not have good reason to know about him. What you saw is what you got. America made a sickening choice, but no one forced them. Russia did not cast any votes. America elected Trump. In 2020 you get another chance. Use it wisely.

[jakee 1,254]

12 hours ago, markharju said:

No candidate is required to disclose five years of federal income tax returns - it is a tradition; there is no law stating that it must be done.

And if the legislation is signed then there will be a law. Thats how lawmaking works. If it was only possible to write laws that were already laws then there would be no laws.

Quote

Washington State is setting a very undemocratic (and I think unconstitutional) precedent because they (the Washington State legislature) are acting by fiat to influence voting just because there's a candidate they don't like who is a member of a political party they don't like. Therefore, no one in the state will be allowed to vote for (or against) him.

They would be allowed to vote for anyone who fulfilled the requirements to get on the ballot. You're assuming that Trump would be unwilling to fulfil those requirements and that a candidate of a different party would, but that's all it is, an assumption.

 

Quote

Maybe someone cannot be on the ballot unless they're a member of the right political party or intersectional grievance group.

That's completely different and unconnected. The WA legislation doesn't require a candidate to have paid a certain amount of tax, or indeed any tax at all. It wouldn't disqualify the candidate if the returns showed they had committed serious tax fraud. It demands nothing of their behaviour, only their transparency.

 

Quote

"It’s like Russia in Washington State. It decides the election before people can even vote. It’s a party line initiative and it is totalitarianism."

People drop out of elections all the time because someone discovers something in their past that is deemed politically unnacceptable. That decides an election before anyone can even vote.

 

Note; I'm not saying it's a good idea, only that the reasons for your outrage are bogus.

[TriGirl 268]

28 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Where in the constitution is it required that a President have proof of financial integrity? The people knew who Trump is and was. The nation chose him anyway.

It wasn't that they knew who he was, it was that they didn't understand how bad it really was.

Again, it is a tradition that the presidential candidate would work toward the nation's interest and well-being. Sure, people make big claims on the campaign trail that bear no fruit once in office, but a complete fraud, totally and completely lying about a myriad of things is so unreasonably outside the norm that I think most people who voted for him simply brushed off the counter arguments and fact checkers as detractors.  "Because, really, how likely is it that someone so wholly unqualified would have the support of XX or YY?  And XX and YY know more about this than I do, an average citizen with no experience in government or big business?"

I agree, too many things went wrong to lead to this outcome.  But the human error part of it could have been somewhat negated by actually seeing his financial statements, or if we had some additional requirement or experience for qualifying to apply for the job besides being a natural-born citizen over the age of 35. Washington has an idea and is giving it a go.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

So how is this "Tyranny"? It's an elected legislature enacting a new law, following proper procedures.

Somewhat different from a 'certain person' declaring a "State of Emergency" to get what he wants after the legislature decided not to pass it.

THAT is one person, ignoring protocol & procedures, doing what HE wants, regardless of what the people or the legislature wants. 

That would be "Tyranny".

[gowlerk 1,911]

3 minutes ago, TriGirl said:

It wasn't that they knew who he was, it was that they didn't understand how bad it really was.

Maybe in some cases. But my belief is that most of the people who voted for him willfully chose to ignore his very obvious flaws. 

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Wonder if mark was as outraged about what happened in Wisconsin, where lameduck Republicans passed legislation to seriously hamper and reduce the ability of the incoming Democratic governor.

 

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

15 hours ago, gowlerk said:

Maybe in some cases. But my belief is that most of the people who voted for him willfully chose to ignore his very obvious flaws. 

Very true. 

But many (most?) of them refuse to admit those flaws. You know, the "It's all a Witch Hunt" or "There was NO Collusion" crowd.

They want to pretend that he was a 'successful businessman', despite being unable to run a casino without declaring bankruptcy 3 times. 

Having him disclose his tax returns, like every other candidate since Nixon, would at least offer some proof of his lies. 
Not that it would sway most people, but it would take some of the force out of their arguments.
Seeing his lies about his finances written out in his own words (well, filled out on a form) and above his signature would be something hard to pretend isn't real.

 

Quote

Wonder if mark was as outraged about what happened in Wisconsin, where lameduck Republicans passed legislation to seriously hamper and reduce the ability of the incoming Democratic governor.

And the AG. 
Funny how they said that this was essential. And that it 'returned power that rightfully belonged to the legislature'. 

Equally funny that they waited until the end of the R governor's term to do this.
If it was that important, why didn't they do it earlier?

[kallend 1,623]

19 hours ago, gowlerk said:

And that is how it should be. I agree with you 100% on this. Tax returns are private. Running for office should not require anyone, even Trump to give up their rights. There is in theory a political cost in refusing to make returns public. It should be up to any candidate to decide whether or not to pay that price.

Only one office in the entire nation is protected from prosecution according to the DoJ.  For that reason, candidates for the presidency SHOULD be required to be 100% transparent BEFORE the election, BEFORE they have control.

[DJL 232]

28 minutes ago, kallend said:

Only one office in the entire nation is protected from prosecution according to the DoJ.  For that reason, candidates for the presidency SHOULD be required to be 100% transparent BEFORE the election, BEFORE they have control.

Then that needs to be set on the federal level.  Do you really want each state picking their raison du jour for not allowing someone on the ballot?

Edit: Let's say, for example that in the effort of transparency that Mississippi decides they don't like a female candidate so they require that full medical records be disclosed because they think candidate XX had an abortion 20 years ago and it can play to their advantage.

Edited March 22, 2019 by DJL

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

2 hours ago, DJL said:

Then that needs to be set on the federal level.  Do you really want each state picking their raison du jour for not allowing someone on the ballot?

Edit: Let's say, for example that in the effort of transparency that Mississippi decides they don't like a female candidate so they require that full medical records be disclosed because they think candidate XX had an abortion 20 years ago and it can play to their advantage.

Maybe. 

I don't know if various state's legislatures are foolish enough to not realize how badly this could backfire. 

 

I think that anything beyond financial (tax) records would be a pretty hard sell. 

Elected officials are already required to make financial disclosure statements. They're pretty vague, but they are required.
Also, every presidential candidate since Nixon has release their tax returns. It wasn't a law, but I don't see how making it one is that big of a step. 

 

Medical records are different. 

[DJL 232]

 

On 3/22/2019 at 3:06 PM, wolfriverjoe said:

Maybe. 

I don't know if various state's legislatures are foolish enough to not realize how badly this could backfire. 

I think that anything beyond financial (tax) records would be a pretty hard sell. 

Elected officials are already required to make financial disclosure statements. They're pretty vague, but they are required.
Also, every presidential candidate since Nixon has release their tax returns. It wasn't a law, but I don't see how making it one is that big of a step. 

Medical records are different. 

Aside from my worst case example I'm sure we understand that it's a bad idea for states to pull qualifiers out of a hat for federal elections.

Edited March 25, 2019 by DJL

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

I agree that it's a bad idea for states to pull silly ideas for requirements to run for public office. 

I don't think this is one. 
I like the idea of requiring anyone who wants the 'highest office in the nation' to release more detail than the vague 'financial disclosure' that is currently used.
Trump was the first in 40 years to fail to do so. He promised to (lied), make fake excuses (lied), all that to not show how much he's lied about his financial situation.
I know lies are a politician's stock in trade, but he has gone well 'above and beyond' with his garbage.