More states need to do this

Jul 2008
18,252
12,011
Virginia Beach, VA
#11
Removing the sitting POTUS from the ballots for whatever reason the state finds acceptable, sure sounds great. Go for it.

That will never backfire.

I fully support the decline into clownworld.


Keep it up guys.
Once again you attempt to derail the conversation by bringing in unrelated topics. This topic is SPECIFICALLY about a state requiring candidates to provide tax returns to get on the ballot. We can debate all sorts of other scenarios somewhere else but for THIS thread it is about a requirement to provide tax returns.
I know it doesn’t matter to you since you’ve already staked out your position of “I don’t care” if a President engages in illegal and/or unethical behavior.
 
Dec 2013
32,825
19,101
Beware of watermelons
#12
Once again you attempt to derail the conversation by bringing in unrelated topics. This topic is SPECIFICALLY about a state requiring candidates to provide tax returns to get on the ballot. We can debate all sorts of other scenarios somewhere else but for THIS thread it is about a requirement to provide tax returns.
I know it doesn’t matter to you since you’ve already staked out your position of “I don’t care” if a President engages in illegal and/or unethical behavior.

Nope. This is about the state threatening the sitting POTUS w/ removing their name from the ballot unless they meet their demands.

This is awesome.


Keep it up.
 
Jul 2008
18,252
12,011
Virginia Beach, VA
#13
Nope. This is about the state threatening the sitting POTUS w/ removing their name from the ballot unless they meet their demands.

This is awesome.


Keep it up.
Since I made the thread I think I should be final arbiter of what it is about.
Don’t like it? TS
 
Dec 2013
32,825
19,101
Beware of watermelons
#14
Since I made the thread I think I should be final arbiter of what it is about.
Don’t like it? TS

How progressive of you. I don't like thats what words mean. When i use them they mean this!!!!


This is very simple. Illinois says do this or we will do this. This is a threat by very definition.

Spin it any way you like it does not change the facts of the matter.


Incase you are confused


threat
noun
\ ˈthret \
Definition of threat
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2: one that threatens
3: an indication of something impending


But go ahead. I fully support this.

It is sooooo awesome.
 
Mar 2013
9,384
10,085
Middle Tennessee
#15
Nope. This is about the state threatening the sitting POTUS w/ removing their name from the ballot unless they meet their demands.

This is awesome.


Keep it up.

Wait wait wait wait just waitadamnholdit !!! Aren't YOU one of those BIG STATE'S RIGHTS proponents ?? Always railing against the "ebil feds" and their over reach ?? But now that a state wants to control it's own ballot you want to complain ??
 
Dec 2013
32,825
19,101
Beware of watermelons
#16
Wait wait wait wait just waitadamnholdit !!! Aren't YOU one of those BIG STATE'S RIGHTS proponents ?? Always railing against the "ebil feds" and their over reach ?? But now that a state wants to control it's own ballot you want to complain ??

Where did i complain?

In fact i literally said i supported it



How progressive of you. I don't like thats what words mean. When i use them they mean this!!!!


This is very simple. Illinois says do this or we will do this. This is a threat by very definition.

Spin it any way you like it does not change the facts of the matter.


Incase you are confused


threat
noun
\ ˈthret \
Definition of threat
(Entry 1 of 2)
1: an expression of intention to inflict evil, injury, or damage
2: one that threatens
3: an indication of something impending


But go ahead. I fully support this.

It is sooooo awesome.


I am simply saying it will backfire