Connect with us

Opinions

Conservative Picks for the Kansas Primary

Published

on

I was interested to see if Kansas would look more like Nebraska or Oklahoma. By far Nebraska won. The Kansas GOP is in disarray. The Democrats are in such bad shape in Kansas, they ran as Republicans and won. Every Representative in the House is a RINO. Only one has a Conservative challenger. Each race however, is interesting in some respect. The 2nd District takes the cake for having the best chance to send a real conservative to DC. And that’s only because its a vacated seat. This seat could be in trouble because Paul Davis has $1000000 and a unified front to in the fabled blue wave to help him. The Kansas Primary has little chance of unseating any incumbents, nor would it really be of use to unseat the third or fourth district representatives.

Best Picks: Caryn Tyson, Nick Reinecker
Worst Picks: Roger Marshall, Ron Estes (both)
Best Race: District 2
Worst Race: District 4

District 1

After one term, Roger Marshall has proven to be an establishment hack. He is by no means Conservative. He is being challenged by Nick Reinecker. Reinecker’s first impression is strong enough to cast few doubts on his ability to be a better Representative than Marshall. He even comes with a promise to not vote for any bills with pork in them.

Conservative Pick: Nick Reinecker

District 2

District 2 is the race with the most action in Kansas Primary. A strong red district with a vacant seat is sure to create a feeding frenzy for Conservatives and big government Republicans alike. But Democrats have a million dollar candidate looking to make this seat competitive. The GOP has a trio of “young guns” vying for the nomination. On the outside, they all look strong, two state senators and an engineer. Steve Fitzgerald and Caryn Tyson are both in the State Senate. They are both more conservative than the average which says more about the Kansas legislature. Both are willing to buck the party line, but Caryn Tyson’s record is stronger. Enter the outsider, Steve Watkins. Watkins is claiming to be the outsider. He has the endorsement of RINO Roger Marshall, a red flag in a race such as this. He has no political history, and his positions are vague, which is less helpful when there’s no track record. Aside from being an outsider, its hard to see Steve Watkins as the pick in this race. Caryn Tyson presents a much safer option. She knows how to operate in the midst of several RINOs.

Conservative Pick: Caryn Tyson

District 3

Kevin Yoder has the highest Liberty Score of any Kansas politician. Yet he voted for omnibus. He is running against a RINO, Trevor Keegan. Keegan claims to be fiscally conservative and socially moderate. In politics, this is just a fancy way of saying you support a entitlement and defense spending. He would not uphold the Second Amendment. He doesn’t realize, as a challenger campaign finance reform has drastically reduced his chances, and is leftist on healthcare, immigration, and reversing the tax cuts. Tell me how believable his claims of reducing spending are.

Conservative Pick: Kevin Yoder

District 4

This race was spooky from the start. It features incumbent Ron Estes against Ron Estes. Incumbent Ron Estes is a RINO politician. Now will the real Ron Estes please stand up? That is what Ron M. Estes calls himself. But he’s a bigger RINO than the fake Ron Estes! He’s a Never-Trumper that went left like Rick Wilson and does nothing but complain about Trump. He supports Obamacare and gun control. he’s smart though. Running against the Congressman with the same name will surely give you a confusion bump, even if the ballot mentions the fake Ron Estes is labeled incumbent.

Conservative Pick: None

Facebook Comments
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Opinions

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

Published

on

Twitter ban of Krassenstein brothers is not the same as conservatives who get banned

When news broke today that Ed and Brian Krassenstein from #Resistance fame had their Twitter accounts permanently banned, reactions from both sides were predictable. Those on the left pointed at the event and said, “see there’s no Twitter conspiracy against conservatives.” Meanwhile, conservatives’ reactions were mixed between thinking it was Twitter’s attempt to balance things out so they don’t get sued all the way up to rejoicing that the site may have finally learned its lesson.

None of this is true. According to Twitter, they were banned for using bots and paid engagement.

“The Twitter Rules apply to everyone,” a Twitter spokesperson said in a statement. “Operating multiple fake accounts and purchasing account interactions are strictly prohibited. Engaging in these behaviors will result in permanent suspension from the service.”

While the brothers will go down in Twitter history as a rare example of prominent progressives getting banned, the reality is their removals from the site were economic. That’s rarely the case for conservatives who get banned for hateful speech or whatever the latest label is for telling people to “learn to code.” In fact, I don’t recall a single conservative getting banned for paid engagement or bot use. It happens, I’m sure, but as far as I can recall it hasn’t been the reason for any major political accounts to get the ax.

Either way, I oppose this and nearly all bannings that aren’t the result of spam, illegal activity like doxxing, spreading malware, or porn. If they want to stop bots and paid promotions, they should be catching these accounts and sending them stern messages. They can reduce their visibility. But if someone artificially inflates their engagement without using Twitter ads, they can and should be dealt with in ways that fall short of getting banned. Same holds true for most “hateful speech” that seems to unfairly target conservatives. Again, as long as the speech used is not breaking the law, it should be allowed.

Or, Twitter could simply establish that it’s a content site and not simply a platform. They would lose their protections, but at least they would be in line with the letter of the law. As it stands, they get platform protections while acting to police activities that are against the notion of free speech and therefore should not be allowed to continue getting platform protections.

Speech is free or it isn’t.

Comparing the Krassenstein’s permanent suspensions to any of the recent prominent conservative account suspensions is invalid. They weren’t banned for what they said. They were banned for bots and paid promotion. Conservatives are still being targeted.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Entertainment and Sports

‘Star Trek: Picard’ looks like it’s going to be a social justice warrior’s take on the future

Published

on

Star Trek Picard looks like its going to be a social justice warriors take on the future

Gene Roddenberry had one rule for the Star Trek franchise. The future had to be a perfect utopia. In his vision, man had evolved to a point where it had no character flaws: no malice, no greed, no secrets. There wasn’t supposed to be a Section 31, the dark NSA-like secret group. War was to be avoided at all costs. Even conflicts between Starfleet personnel had to be manufactured to pass muster; someone had to be mind-controlled for there to be fight between officers.

After his death, it didn’t take long for his rule to get broken again and again.

Perhaps this was a good thing, at least from the perspective of a modern audience that prefers to see internal conflict over pure humans operating in an impure galaxy. After all, his vision may have launched the series, but the franchise hit its stride after his death. Or did it?

The Star Trek franchise has never been a true blockbuster, at least not in a world with Star Wars and the MCU. It has a strong following and its winning people over from generations who were born after Captain Jean Luc Picard’s The Next Generation wrapped up on television to start making movies. But its ability to stay relevant has relied heavily on shifting storylines and new perspectives that are a far cry from Roddenberry’s original ideas.

None of this is necessarily a bad thing, but the upcoming CBS show, Star Trek: Picard, threatens to not only take the franchise into unexplored territory but also fundamentally change the character many of us have grown to love. And if my hunch is right, they’re going to do it by turning arguably the most beloved character in the franchise (sorry Kirk and Spock) into a social justice warrior.

Hints of a different type of Picard story have been swirling around the show since its inception. Patrick Stewart said he wanted this 20-year-older version of the Picard to be very different from the warrior-explorer-diplomat that we’ve admired for decades. Considering the direction he and CBS have both gone in recent years, that gave me the feeling they were going to have a betrayed Picard get drawn back in to right wrongs and fight for the little guy, as any good social justice warrior should. Now that they’ve released a teaser, my hunch has only been reinforced.

I hope I like it. but I have a very nasty feeling that I won’t. I have a horrible sense that they’re going to ruin a great character and tear down Roddenberry’s legacy for the sake of being socially conscious and progressively preachy. We’ll see.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Democrats

Pelosi’s endgame strategy: Impeach Trump during general election season

Published

on

Pelosis endgame strategy Impeach Trump during general election season

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has been playing a balancing act for the past few months. On one hand, she has to stop her caucus from becoming too zealous about impeaching President Trump, fearing the same public backlash the GOP received in 1998 during impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. On the other hand, she needs to keep the specter of impeachment alive so she doesn’t start getting attacked by the radical Democratic base who want the President out immediately.

But lost in the mix is the speculation that Pelosi is fully prepared to impeach the President, just not yet. She wants to bring impeachment and all the mud that will be flung at the President as a result during the heart of general election season.

Evidence of this is all circumstantial but compelling. In a closed-door meeting with committee heads yesterday, she instructed her team to keep up the pressure through investigation after investigation. This would normally not be enough to appease impeachment hawks like Maxine Waters and others, but their clear support for the strategy is an indicator that they’ve been promised vindication at a better time than now. Otherwise, there’s enough support for impeachment among the base for them to continue beating the drum louder and possibly even call for Pelosi’s ouster.

It’s also conspicuous that lower members of the Democratic totem pole haven’t gone after Pelosi, including known antagonists like Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ilhan Omar.

Pelosi knows her time is short if things don’t go her way quickly. She was able to gather support from opposition within her caucus by promising to only serve as Speaker for two years. But she has no intention of stepping down if Democrats retain control of the House of Representatives through the 2020 election. Instead, she intends to build her credentials by strategically beating the President, not only on the political arena but in the 2020 election itself. No, she’s not running, but if she launches her impeachment hearings in a way that can earn her credit for the Democratic nominee to win, she will have solidified her seat as Speaker for as long as she wants to stay there.

It’s a huge gamble. Depending on how the impeachment proceedings go in the eyes of the public, she could do enough damage to help kick the President out of the Oval Office. On the other hand, she could seal her own fate if the President wins as a result of sympathy he’s able to garner from the political move of a well-timed impeachment proceeding. It has the potential to backfire spectacularly if the public sees it as a dirty trick, one that could even cost the Democrats control of the House.

But in reality she doesn’t have much to lose. If she impeaches now when it won’t affect the election or if she chooses not to impeach at all, there’s a very good chance she’ll be held to her word to step down as Speaker in 2021. If she delivers the White House to the Democrats, she’ll be locked in her Speaker seat indefinitely.

This should infuriate Democrats more than Republicans, especially the growing radical wing of the party. Their goal, as stated by the Justice Democrats, is to take over the party from within. But Pelosi’s moves are not only meant to harm Republicans but also increase the power over the Democratic Party held by the establishment.

We may be witnessing the swampiest tactics every put on display from Capitol Hill as Speaker Pelosi plots the takedown of a sitting President. Some say she’s impotent, but clearly she’s a viper with plenty of bite left.

Facebook Comments
Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending