Idaho requires independent presidential candidate petitions to include a vice presidential candidate as well. However, Idaho permits a stand-in for vice-president. In February, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. filed a constitutional challenge to the requirement that the petition list anyone for vice president. Team Kennedy v McGrane, 1:24cv-83.
On September 4, U.S. District Court Judge B. Lynn Winmill refused to dismiss the case. The state had argued that because it permits stand-ins for vice president, its requirement does no harm. But the judge said that Kennedy had presented evidence and reasoning that suggests the requirement does impair independent presidential candidates, and that the equal protection claim is plausible. Therefore, the case will continue. Here is the ruling keeping the case alive.
Meanwhile, Trump will finish his interrupted rally in Butler PA tomorrow and Elon Musk plans to be there.
I’ma bee thur!
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/10/justices-take-up-false-statement-dispute-and-rare-capital-case/
SCOTUS NEWS
Justices take up “false statement” dispute and rare capital case
—
15 CERT GRANTED CASES– NONE ELECTION RELATED
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/columnists/2024/09/28/harris-irs-union-endorsement-tax-increase/75415537007/
IRS GANG ENDORSES HARRIS — ZERO SURPRISE
HARRIS TAX RATE – AT LEAST 100 PCT ???
ID-
ONE MORE REASON TO ABOLISH THE BYZANTINE EC WITH ALL OF ITS MACHINATIONS
HOW MANY EC MACHINATIONS IN 2024 – 100 ??? 500 ??? 1,000 ??? MORE ???
Harris tax rate; infinity. They’ll achieve zero carbon through global thermonuclear world war.
State identification, even in Idaho, whether for the ego, id, superego, or any fraudian slip, is no reason to abolish the electoral college, unless it’s because we at long last abolish the union between uS States.
The actual record of the Electoral College is quite good. There has been only one election in which a candidate for President had a clear majority of the popular vote, but lost the electoral vote (Tilden in 1876). Tilden actually had the electoral vote as well on election night, but had electors taken away from him by selective disqualification.
Every other case in which a candidate lost the electoral vote in spite of having more popular votes was the case of a candidate with less than 50% of the popular vote. If we get rid of the Electoral College, there would have to be some sort of run-off.
But, we DON’T need to do that. In fact, it is unlikely that we will any time soon. If states had some sort of provision for run-off voting in those cases when no candidate gets a majority of the popular vote in a state, that would resolve the election much better.
It would be better to dissolve the union.
25 COMMIE MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER STATES
25 FASCIST MINORITY RULE GERRYMANDER STATES
1 DC COMMIE AREA
NONSTOP MINORITY RULE IN EC SINCE 1788 —
OLDE CONG OLIGARCHS 1788-1828
THEN RIGGED EC SINCE 1828 – WITH SOME RECENT CONG DIST GERRYMANDER AREAS – ME/NE
1/2 OR LESS VOTES X 1/2 G AREAS = 1/4 OR LESS CONTROL.
—
PR
APPV
TOTSOP
As I have pointed out in the past, secession is a cure that would be worse than the disease. Borders, borders everywhere, and no one able to control them. At ALL. On ANY level.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/03/ballot-after-voting-journey/75493920007/
BALLOTS — HOW MANY RE-CYCLED INTO JUNK MAIL / ETC OR MERELY BURNED / DUMPED IN LAND FILLS ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/4-voters-charged-intentionally-voting-171708707.html
MICH PRIMARY
ABS BALLOTS AND IN PERSON BALLOTS – 7 FELONY CHARGES
Baloney. States, counties and cities could control borders just fine, as could boroughs or townships.
Enough with the illegals, illegals voting, illegal votes and all the illegal crap. For real! Get em out!
Many residents of SECEDING states will ignore new borders with non-seceding states. It will be crazy.
LOL . It won’t be like the Mexican border. There will be real, very serious and severe, swift and certain consequences for illegal crossing. If you ain’t from my neck of the woods, you best turn around and go right on back where you came from if’n you know what’s good for you, bubba.
“It won’t be like the Mexican border”
It will be WORSE. You won’t be dealing just with foreign immigrants. You will be dealing with Americans who just want to go about their business and go from one place to another
Call it better or call it worse. It will be enFORCEd. FAFO. If you never had anyone get medieval on you, you will earn the hard away what those initials mean. You better believe those borders will get controlled HARD.
:
When you don’t use lube, sometimes it takes a while.
Porcus Agricola Tacitus on October 4, 2024 at 8:40 am said:
https://ballot-access.org/2024/09/29/september-2024-ballot-access-news-print-edition/#comment-1254025
“The libertarian transparency caucus” strikes again. Air all your party dirty laundry with endless outrage (under the guise of providing in depth coverage of all US minor parties), but brook no correction (even as to format errors or misquotes) and certainly no dissenting views, even if only occasionally dissenting.
Transparency for thee but not for me Phillies strikes again. Apparently, politbureauesque information control and memoryholing is “model true libertarian” (or is that modal?)
Porcus Agricola on October 4, 2024 at 8:00 am said:
Censorship again at Philliestan (the misnamed third party watch which is 99% plus libertarian party drama exclusively)
…
Goodness.
Did I exceed the comments permission at two? Or what other rule was it this time? Pointing out a formatting error/misquote? Please publish whatever portions may be permissible, if possible with ellipse or something to indicate that a portion was removed, as with all of my comments.
Was no part of the comment acceptable? If any part was acceptable please publish that part or parts.
“You would think someone would post about their meeting with a former President and likely Presidential nominee right after it happened. Why would someone wait 10 months?”
This is not a quote from Mr. Padgett, despite what the blockquote indicates. To answer Mr. Porter’s question, maybe because it wasn’t a done deal and premature publicity may have been seen as counterproductive to a possible deal steal being worked on?
Thank you for the link to Mr. Padgett’s substack article, which I found quite interesting. Doubtless, in a different way from the editor and other commenters here. The last paragraph of what appears as if a quote from Mr. Padgett’s article is not from it, but instead looks like Mr. Porter’s commentary. Therefore, the blockquote end tag ought to be moved back a paragraph.
The ending paragraph in bold from Mr. Porter is not supported by anything in his article. Nothing he presented suggests any agreement to disclose terms of. While it certainly does not preclude the possibility an agreement could theoretically exist, it would take far more than one acknowledged meeting months earlier, someone in President Trump’s orbit reaching out to test waters and or vice versa, and an invitation all months apart to prove some agreement with terms exists or is likely to exist. As it stands, this is a huge leap to conclusions and loaded questions.
Speaking of loaded questions, how do you go from “she paid for the trip herself” (second hand information) and a first hand reply that the party didn’t pay to asking who actually paid? Not the party could easily mean she paid herself.
As for Mr. Shanner’s email, perhaps more is being read into it than actually said or implied? Supposing Miss McArdle communicated with someone testing waters months earlier, had one meeting at Mar A Lago, and somewhere within 6 months somehow convinced the President to follow up, would that not fit what Mr. Shanner is quoted to have actually said at least as well as the conspiracy theory wherein Miss McArdle and Mr. Trump coordinated the entire time, had some agreement with terms months ahead of time, had a firm agreement in place back in November to appear in May, etc?
The former explanation might be less bombshell explosive than the latter, but it seems like it would take less conspiratorial jumping to conclusions.
Mr. Shanner did say both that Miss McArdle met with President Trump in November and that she somehow convinced him to appear by May, but where does he say that the two happened simultaneously? He may be referring to things that occurred months apart.
My impression, based solely on skimming here, is that the motion to remove Mrs. Harlos is related to such things as her suing the party or Miss McArdle (sorry, I don’t feel like checking back which one) and their spat over the fundraising agreement with Mr. Kennedy as well as the Colorado ballot, etc. I don’t see anything that supports jumping to the conclusion that it’s because she asked who paid for Miss McArdle’s trip to Florida or anything directly related to that.
I’m not a partisan of Miss McArdle’s faction, any opposing faction, or the libertarian party in general. I’m not even a “small l libertarian.” The criticism is only of sloppy logical leaps – I’m not denying there might be something there, only that the actual evidence presented falls far short of what it’s being stretched to imply and presumptively demand answers to.
Porcus Agricola on October 4, 2024 at 8:02 am said:
Absurd reference article
https://thirdpartywatch.com/2024/10/03/opinion-libertarian-party-chair-misleads-members-board-on-meeting-with-trump/
Backing up the pending comments as well – let’s see which if any actually make it,
Jake Porter:
“Why isn’t the Libertarian National Committee asking to see the terms of Angela’s agreement with Donald Trump and why hasn’t Angela disclosed it?”
Darryl Perry:
Probably because every time someone asks her a question, she fails to respond and the questioner gets attacked by other LNC members.
Porcus Agricola Tacitus
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
What’s the evidence any such deal or contract exists? I’m not allowed to give you the longer form answer poking holes in this idea, but you can find it at other similar sites if you look.
====::====::
Walter Ziobro:
Will McArdle resign if Oliver gets enough votes in the swing states to throw the election to Harris?
Kolkhoznik Porosyat:
Are you presuming those votes would all have gone to Trump if Oliver hadn’t run? I’m not sure even a plurality would have gone to Trump. With Johnson, actual exit polls showed he had only 1/10 the swing of his vote totals, given 2nd preferences of his voters as told to exit pollsters. Oliver skews further left than Johnson, so it’s likely Harris will be the second choice of more of his voters than Trump will, so if anything, Harris would have benefited had he not won the libertarian nomination or failed at Ballot access etc.
Andy:
People on the left are more likely to vote for Jill Stein than Chase Oliver.
Porcus Agricola Tacitus:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Many votes aren’t nearly so precisely ideological and it all depends on what you call left. For instance, Liz Cheney and Dick Cheney plan to vote for Kamala Harris over Donald Trump . If they had to choose between Stein and Oliver, I would guess they would more likely pick Oliver than Stein. Many people may not be able to bring themselves to vote for Harris (or Stein) but would for a libertarian, maybe; many of those would vote for Harris (others Trump, not vote, etc). Some votes are on a single issue or group identifier – female, homosexual, white/black/etc, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, and so on. Voting behavior is fairly complicated. I’ve read Richard Winger make plausible cases that Nader voters would have been more likely to vote for Bush than Gore, contrary to popular belief. Etc.
Porcus Agricola Tacitus:
Why do you think he would throw the election to Harris as opposed to Trump?
Walter Ziobro:
If Harris wins, and Oliver covers the spread, you can be sure that he will be blamed, even if those voters had no intention of voting for Trump.
Porcus Agricola Tacitus:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Wouldn’t the same hold true if Trump wins and Oliver covers? And either way, would that be new or unexpected? Good or bad? Regardless of who wins, if you cover the spread, you are likely to get a lot of grief from one direction and little corresponding relief from the other.
From the same TP(w) article..
99 PCT ROADS CLOSED AT BORDERS – LIE DETECTORS ON ALL ROADS – BLOOD OATH TESTS ???
DO YOU IMMEDIATELY OBEY ALL COMMANDS/ORDERS OF TYRANT X IN REGIME Q ???
FAIL TEST AND BE INSTANTLY KILLED ???
LEGAL STOPS AND SEARCHS AT ALL TIMES AND PLACES ???
MINE FIELDS ON ALL BORDERS ???
What would the US look like if Thomas W Jones had total control?
Black hole
The worst tyrants are those from far who rule magnitudes of people who are insignificant, invisible, interchangeable nothings to them, too small, numerous, and distant to matter. They can be monarchs, oligarchs, democratic demagogues, military commanders, ayatollahs, juntists, technocratic bureaucrats, aristocrats, or they may as well be bots.
Cwcville, but worse.
What would China look like if some 90 year old Chinaman who died from covaids and syphillitic dementia in Wuhan during the scamdemic had total control right now? I mean he’s still a long rotten corpse or scattered ashes but he’s in total control.
Q-
IN ALL GOVTS —
VOTERS – BE USA CITIZENS, 18 PLUS YEARS OLD, REGISTERED BY 28 DAYS BEFORE E DAYS
ONE ELECTION DAY
NOMINATIONS ONLY VIA EQUAL NOM PETS / FILING FEES
PR – ALL LEGIS BODIES = REAL INDIRECT MAJORITY RULE = REAL DEMOCRACY IN LAW MAKING
NONPARTISAN EXECS/JUDICS VIA APPV
TOTAL SOP
Homie, we got outta Haiti, we ain’t going to porto riko no more then we hoin back two port o prints, mercy bookoo. Everybody equal nom pets. Dogs, cats, geese, ducks, say lavee breaux. Your total sop, how you say breaux, be for les folles, for da birds niggy, ovua.
Apparently Thomas W Jones would make Retardese the official language.
Machine Language