Hillary Clinton Donor Liz May’s “Conservative Principles PAC” posting long list of candidates she’s supporting financially with ads on facebook

59 thoughts on “Hillary Clinton Donor Liz May’s “Conservative Principles PAC” posting long list of candidates she’s supporting financially with ads on facebook”

1. Tin foil hats for all.

2. Scott Odenbach who hasn’t passed a bill in four years. He’s probably one of the most disliked legislators in Pierre. He attacks leadership and blames everyone but himself for his failure as a legislator.

   1. *except the fact that he has passed bills and he is well liked.

      You are fake, as your pseudonym suggests.

      1. No. He is not well liked.

         1. 0 for 5 in 2024.

   2. Obviously you only read the headline. Since I read the story, based on what she said, I would have shot the dog too.

   3. noem’s party give quiet credence to the worst lies promulgated in the name of republican politics by fox news and others.
      her decision to have full transparency for this facet of her life is just odd and off putting.

3. Liberty Tree? Any connection to the bad credit financing? I used to hear their commercials on the radio years ago.

4. Glad to see none of the candidates i plan to vote for are on the list.

5. Yes, the list is not a cast of South Dakota’s “Best and Brightest.”

6. Looks like a great list with outstanding candidates.

   1. 🤣🤣

   2. For a 🤡 show.

7. The magat groups trying to act like they are taking over successfully is funny to watch. Even if they get elected, they will just monae it.

   1. Sadly conservatives need to move past Jon Hansen.

      1. Mr taliban himself. I don’t want any sort of religious based government. Keep that to yourself.

8. True Patriots running behind the America First banner are running to become elected to slow down the growth of government, block all progressive legislation, and to slow down the passing of legislation.

   1. To slow down the growth of government by running its offices as terribly as possible and hurting people? You got who you wanted for SoS and look at what a trainwreck she’s been.

   2. Tom Pischke is on there because he doesn’t think fathers should support their children, he thinks the taxpayers should.
      Please explain THAT!

   3. Of course the village idiot thinks that the best way to fix something is to break it further.

9. The readers should not reject all of the candidates that Liz May endorsed merely because she endorsed them. There are some good people and legislators on the list, and there are some highly suspect people on the list.

   1. Endorsing Aylward, Pischke, and Mowry puts the whole list in question.

      1. Jeff Struwe is on there too, a person who has endeared himself to the members of the Brookings School Board, County Commissioners, City Council, and to everybody who drives down 22nd avenue on Thursday afternoons.

10. I hope they spend lots of money on the loser candidates

11. Reder?

12. Who in their right mind would ever want to run for office?

    The juice is not worth the squeeze.

13. Which candidate is willing to kill a dog with a shotgun? That’s the killer, I mean CANDIDATE, for me.

14. When we see Drew Dennert commenting and supporting these candidates that is an automatic hard no for us!

15. I know Matt Wagner district 8 house candidate. He is a solid conservative and owns a small business in the Volga area. He is well liked by everyone I have talked to. He will be an excellent replacement to fill opening left by termed out John Mills.

    1. Not going to happen. It will be Tim squared for reps and Crabtree for senate. Guaranteed.

       1. Both Riesch and Crabtree are CO2 pipeline advocates and voted as such. There are a lot of people upset about that. But I agree your picks have the money and the establishments backing. That is a good reason to vote them out!

          1. There are far more in favor of their support of landowner rights. Just because a few want to impose more zoning regulations and love big government doesn’t mean they will get their way. Crabtree is going to save our ag economy and it’s as simple as that. You are a bunch of clowns who don’t understand anything past your small checkbook.

          2. if you actually bother to read the SDGOP platform, you will see that it is strongly in favor of agriculture, energy production, & business. That’s corn, ethanol and infrastructure.
             At the same time, you can see thst it is deliberately weak on private property rights, supporting them only as far as guaranteed by the fifth amendment to the US Constitution. It is deliberate because there have always been conflicts between eminent domain and private property rights. The conflicts are inevitable, and the platform was written so that the party would not get caught in the crossfire.

             Republicans who voted for SB 201 are in alignment with the SDGOP platform. All the opponents are RINOs who have never bothered to read it.

             1. It appears to me to be the opposite the SD GOP establishment (rhinos) are the pro CO2 pipeline group. SB 201 took property rights to the control of the state government. And Public Utilities Commissioners will tell you at meetings they can not talk about it and they have the last say. Not transparent government. .

                1. The PUC can’t change local, county, ordinances. It will be up to the private businesses to sue the counties over the various roadblocks they have enacted. In some counties, like Lake, for example, the county commissioners know better than to step in that pile of manure.
                   SB 201 was designed as a compromise.

                   1. Exactly. Localities that impose stricter setbacks will be found in violation and open them up to further lawsuits. Local laws can’t supersede state or federal and that is what these nuts are trying to do. They are trying to impose unjust requirements. Interstate pipelines should not have to look at each county to determine how to operate. They should be able to look to the state for guidelines and proceed. Making every county or even city allowed to establish their rules would mean we will never have an interstate project again. No pipelines for anything. And what happened to the pro-pipeline people when it was oil or gas? To me, this sounds like they are just angry because it is carbon and related to climate change mitigation efforts. These people are comparable to hearing 99 our of 100 dentists say to brush your teeth and they are latching onto the 1 dentist who says don’t.

                      1. “we will never have an interstate project again.” without SB201?
                         All the projects you refer to were created under the old rules and regulations. The big difference here is the CO2 pipeline project is for the profit of private CO2 mediation company not for the good of the SD people.

                         1. The pipeline is favored by the farm bureau, the corn growers, and the ethanol producers. If they cannot compete globally, there won’t be anybody in the state who won’t be adversely affected. The opponents seem to be just too dumb to grasp this.

                   2. SB201 made local county ordinances null and void. PUC will make the rules for the pipelines.

                      1. As they should.

                         1. Behind closed doors. This is a breach of freedom and property rights.

                            1. You know the PUC has open testimony and publishes their minutes right? What’s it like feeling everything is a conspiracy?

                            2. How is it not a breach of my freedom when you impose setbacks that effect my property? Zoning is big govt crap and that’s what the anti pipeline people are pushing. Interstate projects should be handled at the state level. Intrastate projects at the county. Get it?

          3. Y’all are weird… If they called this “Keystone 3.0” – you would be all for it… PUMP DAT OIL! But nooooo… Change it up to CO2, and it’s all bad… I don’t get it…

    2. Wow. That’s not what I hear from that guy’s customers. Dont think Wagner would be described as the prize of American free enterprise.
       Anyway, three solid picks that support ethanol. They should win easily

       1. Lee, thanks for chiming in. That confirms my thoughts of Crabtree and Reisch catering to the CO2 hoax under the pretense of property rights. Why does the establishment want to give powers to out of state commercial concerns over local governments.. CO2 Pipeline does not benefit the common good of SD but to those making money off the governmental CO2/climate hoax..As far as “far more in favor of” SB201/centralized government bill, that is not my experience as I talk to people. By the way just how much more is California willing to pay for a gallon of ethanol from an ethanol plant with CO2 capture? Can not see ethanol market collapsing due to lack of CO2 capture. Opposition to CO2 pipeline does not mean that person opposes ethanol.

          1. Climate hoax, eh? Massive scientific consensus being torn asunder by the power of soccer moms and facebook groups.

             1. Because one sides opinion is the only one broadcasted and that opinion is repeated over and over at higher decibels does not make it the consensus. The counter argument is impressive and solid.

                1. No, it isn’t. I’ve seen the nonsense cherry picked data that falls to the same confirmation bias that impacts other conspiracy theories.

                   1. Have you heard of the hocyk stick graph that is the shame that started the whole up roar.?

                      1. Sorry typo. Hockey stick

          2. You are missing the real problem. California isn’t just going to pay more for our ethanol if we change our footprint. They aren’t going to buy it altogether and so is Canada. The market is demanding the change and digging in our heals only means we are going to lose and go broke. If your customers demand something and you don’t listen, you don’t have customers. Opposition to the CO2 pipeline means you are taking away a majority of the buyers which means you are opposed to ethanol.

             1. The taking of rights of SD citizens and property owners and exposing citizens to hazardous pipeline for private profits is wrong. Canada and California say a lot of things but that does not make it so.

16. Very sad outlook.

    1. yes it is sad. but if she had surrendered the dog to a shelter they would have killed it for her. what difference would it have made to the dog?

17. I appreciate these sponsored Facebook endorsements. It shows me who NOT to vote for.

18. This article makes it sound like all these candidates are getting funding from Liz May and asked for Liz Mays endorsement! I do not think this is the case. So who is getting what and who asked for what??

19. All of these folks running on 201 taking away property rights are either sheep or liars. They need to think for themselves, read the bill, and recognize it protects landowners and property rights. The lies gotta end and someone has to start calling BS in the press.

    I heard that farmers union (except for Sombke) has acknowledged it’s good for landowners and they shouldn’t fight it. How is that guy still president of that organization?

    1. The lobbyist behind SB201 use some property rights as a diversion to slip in to the bill the power of state/PUC to say where a pipeline will go. Its is politics 101.

Comments are closed.