Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted July 31, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 31, 2019 2 hours ago, DriftBusta said: It would be funny if it wasnt so pathetic. How about you take a shot at answering big mouth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 3 minutes ago, Jimmy Snacks said: How about you take a shot at answering big mouth. How about you choke on that little fleshy appendage between your legs?. You answer why it isnt first, Professor Pantload. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Jimmy Snacks Posted July 31, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted July 31, 2019 (edited) 1 minute ago, DriftBusta said: How about you choke on that little fleshy appendage between your legs?. You answer why it isnt first, Professor Pantload. Hey 3x I’m not the one that fucking said it.....your new ass lamprey did. Edited July 31, 2019 by Jimmy Snacks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted July 31, 2019 Share Posted July 31, 2019 6 hours ago, Kivalo said: How does this usurp democracy? I would say by requiring more than the Constitutional requires can keep an otherwise eligible candidate from being on the ticket, as in the other 49 states and territories. By doing that you are disenfranchising anyone in the state from being able to have him on the ticket. Every year Cali could whip up a new requirement, essentially killing any republican votes in perpetuity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carlos Danger Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 9 minutes ago, Snake said: I would say by requiring more than the Constitutional requires can keep an otherwise eligible candidate from being on the ticket, as in the other 49 states and territories. By doing that you are disenfranchising anyone in the state from being able to have him on the ticket. Every year Cali could whip up a new requirement, essentially killing any republican votes in perpetuity. Now let's be fair.... Democrats invented Jim Crow laws so they have some experience with this type of legislation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
small-bore Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, washedupmxer said: Taxes Russia Racism And...... back to taxes You forgot the broad they drag out from under a rock after 30 years to scream rape. And back to taxes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 5 hours ago, Highmark said: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States. ARTICLE II, SECTION 1, CLAUSE 5 The Constitution imposes three eligibility requirements on the Presidency—based on the officeholder's age, residency, and citizenship—that must be satisfied at the time of taking office. By virtue of the Twelfth Amendment, the qualifications for Vice President are the same. The Framers established these qualifications in order to increase the chances of electing a person of patriotism, judgment, and civic virtue. First, Presidents must be thirty-five years of age or older. In contrast, Senators must be at least thirty years old, and Representatives no less than twenty-five years old. As Justice Joseph Story has noted, the "character and talent" of a man in the middle age of life is "fully developed," and he has had the opportunity "for public service and for experience in the public councils." Second, the President must have been a "Resident" of the United States for fourteen years. By contrast, to be a Member of Congress, one must be an "Inhabitant" of the State one is representing. During the Constitutional Convention, James Madison contended that "both [terms] were vague, but the latter [‘Inhabitant'] least so in common acceptation, and would not exclude persons absent occasionally for a considerable time on public or private business." Then as now, inhabitant meant being a legal domiciliary, but resident could mean either a domiciliary or a physical presence. Perhaps the Framers desired a person as President who had actually been present in the United States for the required period and had developed an attachment to and understanding of the country, rather than one who was legally an inhabitant, but who may have lived abroad for most of his life. On the other hand, the distinction may have been one of style rather than substance. As Justice Story later noted, "by ‘residence,' in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States." https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility States cannot impose laws that are outside the boundaries of the constitution. In other words states cannot have different requirements. This should get shot down at the first legal test. Nice try California. Think about this, could a state say they cannot be on the ballot unless they once resided in their own state? Nope. What's even more hilarious is people who think there is some smoking gun in his returns. Sorry folks it would have been leaked. Can a state force a candidate to submit to a drug test? While it would seem like a valid request no different than tax returns its not a requirement plain and simple. I think it's very possible that his tax returns have some damaging info (tho not illegal) otherwise he would have released them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 6 minutes ago, Anler said: I think it's very possible that his tax returns have some damaging info (tho not illegal) otherwise he would have released them. “Damaging but not illegal”. The Dems should just make it all up without them. What do they need them for anyway? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Highmark Posted August 1, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted August 1, 2019 I think it would be funny as shit if there is nothing bad in them at all and he released them the day after he wins the next election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 59 minutes ago, Anler said: I think it's very possible that his tax returns have some damaging info (tho not illegal) otherwise he would have released them. Is he still under the audit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anler Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 Just now, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot said: Is he still under the audit? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DriftBusta Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 1 hour ago, Zambroski said: “Damaging but not illegal”. The Dems should just make it all up without them. What do they need them for anyway? Not like it ever stopped them before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, Zambroski said: “Damaging but not illegal”. The Dems should just make it all up without them. What do they need them for anyway? They really just make shit up as they go anyway. And some people actually believe it. As Pelosi said: "It's called a wrap-up smear" Edited August 1, 2019 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member steve from amherst Posted August 1, 2019 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted August 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot said: Is he still under the audit? Seriously, do you thjnk anyone is under audit for 2-1/2 yrs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 14 minutes ago, steve from amherst said: Seriously, do you thjnk anyone is under audit for 2-1/2 yrs? I don't know. Is he? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snake Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 9 hours ago, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot said: Is he still under the audit? As my wife is a Revenue Officer, I can tell you yes, 2.5 years is hardly a long time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 12 minutes ago, Snake said: As my wife is a Revenue Officer, I can tell you yes, 2.5 years is hardly a long time. I wasn't trying to be a wise ass. I did a quick Google search and all I came across is multiple audits going far back. So didn't know if he was still under this particular one. Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edmo Posted August 1, 2019 Share Posted August 1, 2019 10 minutes ago, Whiskey Tango Foxtrot said: I wasn't trying to be a wise ass. I did a quick Google search and all I came across is multiple audits going far back. So didn't know if he was still under this particular one. Thanks! He claims he’s been continuously under audit for years. My guess is he’s pushing the limits on every single line of that document. He’s said that he has a room full of little Jewish guys trying to wring our every penny and they’re the best. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.