Anyone want to sound off about the debate last night? I’m almost afraid to ask.
I found myself noping out of it part way through, and turning the channel. It didn’t instill a lot of hope for the future if this is the best we have to offer. It was just a lot of ..noise. It was about eating pets and deflecting or just outright ignoring many of the questions that were actually asked.
I don’t trust Kamala when it comes to her campaign promises. And I gave up trying to get a coherent point from Trump. Instead of the drubbing he gave Biden in the last one, he seemed all over the place.
From the Dakota Scout, Minnehaha County Commissioner Joe Kippley took County Auditor Leah Anderson to the woodshed for sowing distrust in her own elections. And making claims of CIA interference didn’t help her case any:
Kippley, who has been a frequent critic of Anderson and her distrust of the accuracy of electronic vote tabulators, asked her if she had regrets for sowing distrust about the 2020 election results.
“I feel completely vindicated calling that half-baked,” he said.
Headline from goofy internet show Auditor was interviewing with
After issuing the June press release, Anderson went on to do online interviews with people who then said that she couldn’t rule out CIA interference in Minnehaha County’s 2020 election results, Kippley said. He called the people spreading those theories “useful idiots,” a term Soviet-era communists used for people who unknowingly spread Marxist propaganda.
“You have no credibility, and I, as one commissioner, ask you to resign,” he said.
and..
At the end of the meeting, Kippley took another shot at Anderson, saying she had burned her credibility and predicting she would generate lawsuits against the county. He called on the commission to create a contingency fund to defend potential litigation.
“Basically, this auditor is a walking lawsuit,” he said.
It’s this kind of thing which makes me believe our democracy is in for a bumpy ride over the next few years, as we try to navigate ourselves past the paranoia and conspiracies.
While the No on H campaign is sending out e-mail addresses, this morning the Yes on Amendment H campaign is sending things to e-mail addresses.
The Yes on Amendment H campaign sent out an e-mail asking people to Vote Yes on H, and also provided a link to a pretty good TV Commercial that the group ran during the olympics:
Attorney General Jackley, Board of Regents File Complaint Against NCAA Settlement Plan on Behalf of SDSU, USD
PIERRE, S.D – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announces his office and the South Dakota Board of Regents, on behalf of South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota, have filed a complaint against the NCAA, and its proposed settlement on its past conduct.
The complaint, filed Tuesday in Brookings County Circuit Court, alleges that a proposed $2.8 billion settlement between the NCAA and the “Power Four” conferences unfairly forces smaller schools like the South Dakota schools to be responsible for a disproportionate share of the settlement cost.
Money from such a settlement would go to mainly “Power Four” student-athletes whose earning potential while in college was restrained by the NCAA’s amateur rules. Attorney General Jackley said while student-athletes deserve the financial award for their hard work and efforts, the burden of the settlement should not fall on the smaller universities like the South Dakota schools.
“As a former college student-athlete, I believe strongly in a system that presents our athletes with opportunities to compete and treats all of our athletes fair and equal,” said Attorney General Jackley. “I am disappointed that our South Dakota athletes and universities are paying the price for a settlement that did not involve any of our conduct. This settlement unlawfully and blatantly discriminates against female student-athletes by limiting them to less than 10 percent of the proceeds.”
The complaint states that the Power Four conferences caused the “vast majority” of the damages that the settlement addresses, but those responsible conferences are being required to pay less of the financial burden.
South Dakota Board of Regents President Tim Rave said this is a fairness issue.
“The South Dakota Board of Regents, the Attorney General’s Office, and our universities are taking action to voice our concerns about the disproportionate allocation of our state’s Division I athletic programs in the proposed NCAA settlement,” he said. “This settlement will significantly impact our two largest athletic programs, and we appreciate the support of the Attorney General’s office as we navigate this issue.”
Presidents of South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota have stated that the proposed settlement will reduce NCAA revenue for their size schools. Both universities agree that the settlement will have significant implications for their athletic programs while not providing comprehensive benefits for the state’s student-athletes.
The complaint includes requests for a judgement in the Plaintiff’s favor on all issues; for damages to be determined by a jury; and, for an injunction protecting the Plaintiff from unjust disbursements based on the proposed settlement.
No court hearing date has yet been scheduled for the complaint.
Statements from the Presidents of South Dakota State University and the University of South Dakota:
South Dakota State University President Barry Dunn
“South Dakota State University appreciates the efforts of the South Dakota Board of Regents and the Attorney General’s Office in addressing our state’s concerns surrounding the proposed NCAA settlement/ The settlement poses significant implications for our athletic programs without providing comprehensive benefits for our student-athletes. We appreciate the support from the Attorney General’s Office as we navigate this matter to seek fair outcomes for our state and universities. For any inquiries related to the legal proceedings, please direct them to the Attorney General’s Office.”
University of South Dakota President Sheila Gestring:
“The University of South Dakota is grateful for the continued support of the Attorney General’s Office as we work through our concerns to guarantee equitable treatment for our state and universities. The proposed House vs. NCAA settlement will substantially impact our athletic program and our ability to support our student-athletes. Due to current legal actions, if you have any inquiries regarding the NCAA, please direct them to the Attorney General’s office.”
Received an interesting e-mail from the No on H organization yesterday. If you aren’t familiar with your acronyms, they’re the ones fighting open primaries. And while they are fighting open primaries, they also seem to be fighting stupidity.
Clearly, they seem to like the open exchange of information, as they sent out the e-mail addresses of over 400 Republican County Officials, Donors, and Convention attendees out to the world for God and everyone to see.
And harvest. Let’s not forget they sent them out to harvest.
So, here’s the e-mail that looked like an innocent solicitation, until you caught it:
And here it is – the part that should get your attention:
If you’re sending out an e-mail to a group of people, if you put the names under BCC: (Blind Carbon Copy), no one sees who else you’ve sent the e-mail list to. But if you CC:, a.k.a. Carbon Copy, everyone gets it, AND everyone sees everyone else’s e-mail.
It’s a golden nugget for a marketing person looking for a list of Republican activists.
That’s right. Between No on H chair Ezra Hays and his East River Coordinator, Juliann Talkington, neither one knows how to send out a group e-mail to save their life. Because everyone in the group now has everyone else’s e-mail, to do with as they wish. Page after page of e-mails.
Just to give you an idea of how many Republican e-mails they sent to the wind, here’s the list, although slightly blurred:
That’s a lot of e-mail addresses.
Suffice it to say people are displeased. And even more than that, the committee isn’t exactly entirely honest about where they got the list.
One of the hundreds on the list went to the committee to ask where they got their contact information, and the No on H team couldn’t even be honest about that.
In the exchange that was shared with me:
Juliann Talkington,
How did you get my personal information because I do not recall ever personally giving it to you. Did you personally talk to everyone else attached to this email too asking their permission to be contacted?
I know you didn’t because I sure didn’t give out my personal email to either of you. Take me off any and all lists that you have.
to which they replied ..
I am sorry. It is my fault that everyone’s email was visible. I am traveling overseas and the bcc did not work properly. The information is available through the secretary of state system, but we try not to send emails the way I did.
Again, I am very sorry and am happy to remove you from the list.
Juliann
What? Since when does the SOS hand out hundreds of e-mails? The problem wth this response is that this answer was complete bulls*t.
Juliann,
I do not believe anything you say when you can’t even be honest about where you got my email? It was not from the Secretary of State system, but stick to that story if it makes you feel better about yourself.
How about you not straight up lie. My email is not on my voter registration.
Here is an idea for you, get familiar with and read the federal TCPA laws- telecommunications protection act. It forbids the use of data mining for the purpose of sending political messages and robocalling. I hope where ever you got my personal email from you also didn’t get everyone’s cell phone numbers too because sending those without permission is illegal too.
As you immediately remove me from your email list. Do yourself a favor and remove the rest of the 400 some people included, because I know you didn’t get all of our personal emails from the Secretary of State system.
These lists were not from the Secretary of State, who last I knew were not in the business of handing out personal e-mails.
They clearly came from the GOP, who does collect this information for convention, from donors, and from members of the State Central Committee and likely handed it over to the group, because they are joining the party in opposing Amendment H.
The mistake the party may have made is that they did not realize that they were working with stupid people who do not know how to use e-mail to send communications. The same stupid people who have now released closely held contact information for hundreds of Republican donors, activists, and convention attendees into the wind for all to see.
I suspect that the first zoom call meeting of the No on H Ground Advisory Board and Action Team tonight, if they can get any attendees, will be spent dealing with their first PR disaster; that they can’t be trusted to use e-mail correctly and to not hand out information shared with them for the campaign.
And if they can’t even be trusted to use e-mail correctly, why should anyone trust what they have to say about elections?
Attorney General Jackley Releases Final Explanation for Proposed 2026 Initiated Measure on Prayer in Schools
PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley has released the final ballot explanation for the proposed initiated measure that would require non-denominational prayer in public schools, which would be on the 2026 general election ballot if approved. The sponsor of the proposed initiated measure is Hillel Hellinger of North Miami Beach, Fla.
The Attorney General does not take a position on any such proposal. State law requires the Attorney General to draft a title and explanation for each initiated measure, initiated constitutional amendment, constitutional amendment proposed by the Legislature, or referred measure that may appear on an election ballot.
If the required 17,509 valid signatures are gathered and approved by the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office, the proposed initiated measure will be placed on the 2026 general ballot. A majority of the votes cast in the general election will be needed to pass the measure.
The Attorney General’s explanation was finalized after a review of all the comments received during the 10-day comment period on the Attorney General’s draft explanation. A total of 41 comments were received.
Language for the proposed initiated measure can be found here.
For more information regarding ballot measures, please visit the Secretary of State’s website.
Study: CO2 Project Equals $3.2 Billion Opportunity for South Dakota
ONIDA, S.D. (September 9, 2024) – Summit Carbon Solutions’ proposed carbon capture project would add more than $3.26 billion in gross output across South Dakota over 12 years, according to the latest economic analysis from the Dakota Institute released today.
“Summit’s CO2 pipeline is set to bring historic benefits to South Dakota,” said Doug Berven, the Executive Director of the South Dakota Ethanol Producers Association. “Increasing job opportunities, boosting income, and injecting billions into the state’s economy, this project represents a massive investment in the future of South Dakota. Ultimately, South Dakota’s family farmers and rural communities stand to gain the most from this project.”
The new report, commissioned by the South Dakota Ethanol Producers Association, seeks to quantify the economic impact of the proposed Summit project for the state, including updated construction and operation expenditures and new tax requirements under SB 201 benefiting landowners and local communities.
The combined economic impacts of the Summit project over 12 years include:
Total Employment 4,101
Personal Income $1.25 Billion
GDP $1.98 Billion
Gross Output $3.26 Billion
The South Dakota section of Summit’s multi-state project will stretch approximately 685 miles (27% of the project’s total miles) across 23 counties.
About South Dakota Ethanol
The South Dakota Ethanol Producers Association serves as a strong, unified voice of advocacy for the expansion of ethanol production, greater access to the marketplace, and increased use and acceptance in South Dakota and the United States. Members include Dakota Ethanol, Gevo, Glacial Lakes Energy, NuGen Energy, Poet Bioprocessing, Redfield Energy, Red River Energy, and Ringneck Ethanol.
Dakota News Now has this weeks’ edition of their weekly news program, Matters of the State, on-line via their website; this week featuring the arguments in favor of and against Amendment H:
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) and twelve members of Congress asked the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to brief members of Congress on the risk Chinese-manufactured drones pose to America’s food supply and what the agencies are doing to protect American agriculture.
Shenzhen DJI Innovation Technology Co., Ltd. (DJI) is a Chinese Military Company, linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), that makes thousands of drones, many of which are used in the United States. These drones operate on Chinese military software, firmware, and hardware, posing a significant risk to American agriculture and safety.
“The risk of these DJI agricultural spray drones being manipulated to carry out an attack in the United States cannot be ignored,” the members wrote. “Relying on our greatest strategic adversary for technology critical to the success of our agricultural production endangers the resiliency of our food supply.”
DJI’s advanced surveillance drones use LiDAR sensors and multispectral cameras which DJI states can collect and interpret crop data that is “impossible for the human eye to see.” The CCP’s access to this data and software gives them an unprecedented ability to control our agriculture supply chain.
The letter was sent by Reps. Mark Alford (R-MO), Ben Cline (R-VA), Neal Dunn (R- FL), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Michael Guest (R-MS), Ashley Hinson (R-IA), Dusty Johnson (R-SD), John Moolenaar (R-MI), Dan Newhouse (R-WA), Zach Nunn (R-IA), Elise Stefanik (R-NY), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI), and Robert Wittman (R-VA).
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) and twelve members of Congress asked the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to brief members of Congress on the risk Chinese-manufactured drones pose to America’s food supply and what the agencies are doing to protect American agriculture.