this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2024
151 points (94.7% liked)

politics

19120 readers
5165 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
all 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Rapidcreek 69 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That you choose to kill a dog because you’re unequipped to train it doesn’t mean you are smart or tough, it means you’re stupid and reactionary. Today’s GQP.

[–] fluxion 52 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Literally trained it to hunt pheasant and then shocked pikachu face when she takes it to visit the neighbor's chickens. Blaming others for your own failures in the cruelest way possible.

[–] AbidanYre 41 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Fucking hell, that article describes a 14 month old puppy acting like a puppy and this piece of shit just decides to shoot it because she can't be bothered with training.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 7 months ago

Personal responsibility is only for poor and/or brown people.

The rich white folks are victims of circumstance when something bad happens. It's never, ever their fault.

[–] TipRing 49 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This woman is a psychopath.

[–] Diplomjodler3 36 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Obviously. That's a minimum requirement to be a Republican politician these days.

[–] lennybird 14 points 7 months ago (2 children)

A reflection of their constituents to boot.

... Well, okay. Not all are psychopaths. Many are just naive, low-educated, and grifted.

[–] Diplomjodler3 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not all are psychopaths. but they're OK with being ruled by them.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Why does this asylum keep putting all the cool people in the locked rooms?

- People who vote R, probably

[–] Diplomjodler3 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Because those damn gay commie libruls hate freedom, obviously.

[–] lennybird 1 points 7 months ago

"Look I stand up for individual freedumb and small guv'mint and minding yer own beezwax... But I draw the line when I'm forced to see two men that ain't me holdin' hands or having to call someone a different name than they want, like Jon over Jonathan! The audacity!1!"

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

Honestly even if they do care about the puppy, it's still acceptable to them. They'd eat their own shit if it meant a lib had to smell their breath.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 7 months ago

She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done.

Holy fucking shit this is chilling. "If something is bothering you, Dear Leader, don't worry. I will murder to make that stop."

[–] jordanlund 28 points 7 months ago

Jesus... "I am a complete failure as a pet owner, let me tell you how..."

[–] WraithGear 23 points 7 months ago

In fiction, a character killing a puppy is short hand for irredeemable monster. Its one of few lines that when crossed, the audience will not accept their possible heel turn. It is a fundamental human trait. Even in situations where a hero kills an attack dog in self defense it’s imperative that not only is it emphasized that the hero has no choice, but the necessity of this situation negatively impact the hero, specifically to not lose the connection with the audience.

For example, The puppy getting killed in John Whick was in the story because the audience would find rooting for John as he goes on a prolific murder spree hard just because he got beat up, and has his car stolen. But after the dog died, you have literally everyone immediately primed for a 2 hour reverse horror movie.

I say this because you currently are seeing a political party using the unnecessary murder of a puppy for the sake of convenience and as a show of … “ChArAcTeR” to speak to their base.

An individual may be psychopathic which could be considered a medical condition. But for a political party? Thats mask off.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 7 months ago

Importantly, Trump sees his political opponents as dogs:

‘Like a dog’: Trump has a long history of using canine insults to dehumanize enemies

[–] FuglyDuck 14 points 7 months ago (4 children)

So… about that theory of mine, that trumped picks his VPs based on best blowjob….

[–] ccunning 7 points 7 months ago

“…yes Mother…”

[–] ours 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So there's hope for Stormy Daniels to run? Can't be worse that these psycho clowns.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That would be nice. That way if Trump kicks in office we'll have our first female president and she'll be perfect for the GOP. After all, it was their lord and savior, Saint Reagan, who said "Someone once said that politics is the second-oldest profession. I'm beginning to think it bears resemblance to the first." By that metric she is well suited for Republican politics.

[–] FuglyDuck 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I wouldn’t think she’d agree to be his VP after all this.

[–] ickplant 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

If only Nancy was still alive…

[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres 2 points 7 months ago

The Throat GOAT of Hollywood!

[–] ripcord 1 points 7 months ago
[–] ickplant 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

What’s wrong with giving the dog to a shelter?! So an actual human being can raise it properly and train it? This is psychotic behavior. Even more psychotic to brag about it in a book.

[–] chetradley 4 points 7 months ago

Because her mentality is that animals' lives have no value beyond the utility they bring to humans. It's a surprisingly common one.

[–] ripcord 4 points 7 months ago

But she says good politicians wouldn't admit it! That means she's one of us!

[–] profdc9 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Next up: Supreme Court declares Trump a living god. The living god demands a sacrifice.

[–] bhmnscmm 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Not saying her actions are right, but I live in a rural area and people personally shooting their own dogs and other animals that are deemed a danger is pretty common. People often do it when the animals need to be euthanized for health reasons too.

I personally know lots of people who do this. I have plenty of family members who have done it.

Again, I don't think her actions were appropriate. I just want to point out how commonplace shooting ones own animals is (in some places) since a lot of people here seem totally unaware.

[–] Rapidcreek 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

BS I was born in SD. The only time that I saw a dog being shot was when it was rabid. There are humane ways of doing things. And Kriste lives in a mansion, not in a rural setting.

[–] bhmnscmm 4 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Just to reiterate, I'm not saying it's right. There are absolutely better ways of addressing these issues.

But I don't know what to tell you--I don't live far from SD and I have personally spoken to multiple people (face to face) that have done exactly what Kristi Noem described.

[–] elbarto777 8 points 7 months ago (1 children)

She didn't do it because the dog was sick or dangerous. She did it because she didn't care about it anymore. So, instead of giving it up for adoption, let's just shoot it!

Not justifiable.

[–] bhmnscmm 6 points 7 months ago (5 children)

I'm not justifying it. I don't think it's justifiable. I just wanted to bring up how common this behavior is in some rural areas.

[–] elbarto777 2 points 7 months ago
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Rapidcreek 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It's not right. People that treat animals that way are not in rural areas with friends. Maybe you're living in an area where they do that sort of thing, and it's not met with scorn.

[–] bhmnscmm 5 points 7 months ago

I'm in complete agreement with you.

I just wanted to bring up a big cultural difference I've seen in my area that people seem to be unaware of.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 7 months ago

I'm waiting for the "shook newborn causing SIDS candidate…" /s

[–] [email protected] 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

This is the best summary I could come up with:


But in 2024 Kristi Noem, a strong contender to be named running mate to Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, has managed to go one further – by admitting killing a dog of her own.

“Cricket was a wirehair pointer, about 14 months old,” the South Dakota governor writes in a new book, adding that the dog, a female, had an “aggressive personality” and needed to be trained to be used for hunting pheasant.

What unfolds over the next few pages shows how that effort went very wrong indeed – and, remarkably, how Cricket was not the only domestic animal Noem chose to kill one day in hunting season.

Like other aspirants to be Trump’s second vice-president who have ventured into print, Noem offers readers a mixture of autobiography, policy prescriptions and political invective aimed at Democrats and other enemies, all of it raw material for speeches on the campaign stump.

She includes her story about the ill-fated Cricket, she says, to illustrate her willingness, in politics as well as in South Dakota life, to do anything “difficult, messy and ugly” if it simply needs to be done.

Then, as the chickens’ owner wept, Noem repeatedly apologised, wrote the shocked family a check “for the price they asked, and helped them dispose of the carcasses littering the scene of the crime”.


The original article contains 735 words, the summary contains 221 words. Saved 70%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!

[–] Diplomjodler3 8 points 7 months ago

Killing animals is how every serial killer got started.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 7 months ago

Wow they are really milking this “VP candidate writes about killing her dog” angle.