Stace Nelson only one to come to podium to talk about Stace Nelson

After no one would stand to give a nomination speech or seconding speech, a sweaty Stace Nelson got up to talk about his favorite topic, himself, and his “judo-Christian” beliefs.

21 Replies to “Stace Nelson only one to come to podium to talk about Stace Nelson”

  1. Anonymous

    So much for Stace having such broad support in the Republican Party. I’m not seeing it. He’s just the loudest vile bully and nothing more. It’s sad

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      And apparently he and others have been recruiting those that would side with them to become delegates. If they hadn’t I would guess his percent would have been under 10.

      Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Judo-Christian black belt: You’re really great about talking about Christianity, but ironically giving actual Christians a terrible name.

    Reply
  3. enquirer

    ah, judo-christianity. i wish i still had my don imus little-david karate kit. it was based on scripture, AND based on surprise.

    Reply
  4. Anonymous

    Stace is on meds for delusions of grandeur. He actually thought he could win. Stace was counting on the Jackley supporters who were upset that Noem won. Typical Stace, feeding off of discontent. He doesn’t realize that the SDGOP will unite and elect Noem.

    Reply
  5. Pondering

    Anyone who has to identify themselves as “Republican” and “Conservative” and “Christian” so often, likely is none of those things.

    Reply
  6. Jeff

    Was Stacey’s acceptance of this nomination a violation of SD State law? How could he legally run for District 19 State Senate and also accept the nomination for LT. Governor? Perhaps he had withdrawn from the State Senate race before accepting the nomination at today’s SD Republican convention? Who will tell us if it was an illegal acceptance?

    Reply
    1. William Beal

      It’s my understanding that although the Secretary of State’s Office has offered its opinion on how it interprets SDCL 12-6-3 ( Candidacy for two offices at one election prohibited), it’s yet to be interpreted in Court. Obviously, the other candidates faced with a decision, complied with the SoS recommendation.

      I’m not a lawyer, so I’m not sure exactly who has standing (resident in the district / SDGOP, etc) to contest Sen. Nelson’s candidacy for re-election, but will be surprised if it’s not challenged by his Democratic opponent after it’s too late to replace him on the ballot, if no one else brings a challenge before then.

      Reply
      1. Anon

        Larson v. Krebs
        Annotate this Case
        Justia Opinion Summary
        Prior to the 2016 general election, Theresa Maule Rossow filed a nominating petition to seek election as state’s attorney in Brule County and then Lyman County. Dedrich Koch filed a separate nominating petition seeking election as state’s attorney in Jerauld County and then Buffalo County. Competitors in the four counties brought separate lawsuits seeking to prevent Maule Rossow and Koch from running for state’s attorney in more than one county at a time. The circuit court in the Lyman and Buffalo Counties suits ruled that the candidates’ second filings were invalid for violating S.D. Codified Laws 12-6-3’s prohibition against dual candidacies. The Supreme Court consolidated Maule Rossow’s and Koch’s appeals and affirmed, holding (1) although the issue is now moot, the case falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine; and (2) section 12-6-3 prohibited Maule Rossow from seeking election as Lyman County state’s attorney and Koch from seeking election as Buffalo County state’s attorney.

        Reply
  7. Anne Beal

    If I understood him correctly he accused the 2018 platform committee of attempting to REMOVE “Judeo-Christian values”

    The 2016 platform preamble states that “We believe the strength of our nation lies with the individual and each person’s dignity, liberty, and integrity.”

    The 2018 platform preamble says “we believe the strength of our nation derives from an adherence to Judeo-Christian values.”
    I don’t know where he got the idea we tried to take it out.

    We did take out the old 5.15 plank about how we’re opposed to the use of taxpayer dollars to finance political campaigns. We had to do that after the Passage of IM22 when we found out that a whole lot of Republicans actually do want to spend taxpayer dollars to fund political campaigns. Who knew?

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    What an idiot. Why do we elect people who aren’t grounded in reality? Learn who you’re voting for. Rhoden serves because his community asked him to. Stace runs so he can fuel his own ego. That much has been made obvious.

    Reply
  9. Pingback: So what happened? The road to the AG Nomination. – South Dakota War College

    1. Jeff

      Let’s see how Stacey planned around SDCL Statute 12-6-3. Might have been a bigger blunder than he intended.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.