Washington state to keep Annoying Orange off 2020 ballot if tax reports are not released

Author Topic: Washington state to keep Annoying Orange off 2020 ballot if tax reports are not released  (Read 2323 times)

this is a good thing. why would you want people performing illegal activities to be potential candidates? are you a russian spy, darth?
No but I’m also not an idiot seeing as how this is just another part of the witch-hunt. If this is true why are they only targeting Annoying Orange instead of having a fair democratic vote which means NOT MAKING IT ONE SIDED

No but I’m also not an idiot seeing as how this is just another part of the witch-hunt. If this is true why are they only targeting Annoying Orange instead of having a fair democratic vote which means NOT MAKING IT ONE SIDED
they are targeting Annoying Orange by trying to pass a law with a fair democratic vote. its up to the people in washington to determine "is this being unfair long term or not". i dont see how this kind of law would fly anyhow - it seems like a law that would get stuck in the appeal courts and eventually make its way up to the supreme court, and thus not be enforced (until a final verdict is reached and appeals fail) even if it is passed

this law would be less stupid under scrutiny if it applied to ANYONE who holds political office instead of just the president. but i can understand the sentiment.

they are targeting Annoying Orange by trying to pass a law with a fair democratic vote. its up to the people in washington to determine "is this being unfair long term or not". i dont see how this kind of law would fly anyhow - it seems like a law that would get stuck in the appeal courts and eventually make its way up to the supreme court, and thus not be enforced (until a final verdict is reached and appeals fail) even if it is passed
IMHO the law would lose in fed court and appeal before it even made it to the US SOC. It's that brazenly bipartisan bad. If it's in the 9th circuit(a complete farce of a district and I don't know if washington is included) then it might might make it, but that'd be the only outside chance and that's even very unlikely 

No but I’m also not an idiot seeing as how this is just another part of the witch-hunt. If this is true why are they only targeting Annoying Orange instead of having a fair democratic vote which means NOT MAKING IT ONE SIDED
they're targeting Annoying Oranges because he has been involved in some of the largest tax evasion schemes among all elected presidents lmao.

lmao like he would win washington state anyway. Their vote isn't relevant.

they're targeting Annoying Oranges because he has been involved in some of the largest tax evasion schemes among all elected presidents lmao.
This is complete hearsay until he is charged found guilty in a court of law dumbass

This is complete hearsay until he is charged found guilty in a court of law dumbass
if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron

if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron
If you don't admit guilt then yes, that is kind of how our legal system works we kind of have an amendment about it

if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron
It’s called “innocent until proven guilty”. Are you actually autistic because this is a mathew esque position to take

if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron
well yes. if the evidence is obvious enough the court case wouldnt last more than the initial hearing. but this hearing is never skipped, and thus you are innocent until proven guilty.

I don’t care where you are on the political spectrum but this is forgeted. If he has to do it, everyone else should have to. This is just one step in probably many to ensure the US becomes more socialist and less democratic by the progressive left, thoughts?
how does this make the us less democratic and more socialist

what

socialism doesnt imply a tryranny and this doesn't impede on the right for people to vote lol. I can see how it's less "democratic" by not letting tax evaders run but thats a stupid point lol

this is just a stuffty partisan bill thats just to get retweets and will be shot down/never pass lol. its like when republicans pass bills to put doctors in jail when they do abortions, the bills get immediately shut down and the reps call the dems babykillers and then no one cares afterwards


if i kill 3 people am i innocent until the court says im guilty. forget off moron
god damnit, I leave for five months and the moment I decide to check out what’s going on here, we’re back to this line of thinking.

why do we have the presumption of innocence as a fundamental part of our justice system? Because it’s ridiculous to assume that the accused should have to prove their innocence. Putting the burden of proof on the prosecution ensures that, on the whole, people won’t waste their own time or the court’s time on allegations which are fundamentally unverifiable.

Does this always work? Of course not, and nothing is perfect. An example of this is that it’s extremely difficult to convict an identical twin on the basis of DNA evidence. Unless you can prove which of the pair left DNA evidence at the crime scene, they must be presumed innocent. The justice system cannot bypass this presumption of innocence until proof that the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt is brought forward.

The alternative presumption of guilt until proven innocent is asinine and the only people that would unironically approve of such a ridiculous concept  are wannabe fascists, handicapped tankies, or any otherwise overreaching authoritarian nutjob wanting to set up kangaroo courts to use against their opposition.




socialism doesnt imply a tryranny and this doesn't impede on the right for people to vote
Cutting out the conjecture and replying to the only assertion made. Socialism in and of itself doesn’t imply tyranny in the traditional sense of an absolute dictatorship, but it does imply a large and authoritarian government which must use coercive force to seize factors of production and collectivize them.

While socialism in and of itself won’t necessarily lead to tyranny by the literal definition of “socialism” and “tyranny,” historically socialist regimes and revolutions have been precursors to tyranny due to either a power vacuum created which a dictator has filled (Castro in Cuba, Stalin following the death of Lenin in the USSR) or by causing a reactionary movement from diametrically opposed extremists which leads to, you guessed it, a dictator (Franco in Spain, Pinochet in Chile)
« Last Edit: March 19, 2019, 11:24:51 PM by Cappytaino »

should’ve stayed gone cappy