158
submitted 2 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

South Dakota's governor gets the sadism of Trump supporters, but screws up by saying the quiet parts out loud

Squint hard enough and perhaps one can see how Gov. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., thought it was a winning political move to brag  about murdering a puppy. It's the same trolling strategy used by MAGA Republicans like Donald Trump, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas: Say something extremely evil, stupid, or both. Draw the inevitable liberal outrage or mockery. Play the victim, claiming that it's more proof the "elites" hate the common sense working folk of MAGA. Then sit back and watch the dollars and followers roll in

For Noem, however, her tale of shooting her dog Cricket is not working out quite as planned. Sure, she got the predictable outrage and disgust from Democrats. But she also seems to have alienated the very Trump supporters she was trying to impress with her bloodthirsty tale. Fox News let their displeasure be known by doing a round-up story of conservative social media influencers denouncing Noem, often with quite harsh language. "Did she just intentionally end her career?" asked trollish podcaster Tim Poole. Other high-profile right-wingers blasted Noem as an "Absolute Psycho" and called for her to be "criminally charged for animal abuse." Even the notorious right-wing troll Catturd — who has 2.4 million Twitter followers because he acts as vile as his name suggests — drew a line at killing your child's beloved pet. 

Noem, however, still seems to think she can win over Republican voters by doubling and tripling down on her tale of executing a 14-month-old Wirehaired Pointer because it got confused and killed some chickens, instead of the pheasants she was training it to hunt. On Friday, she bragged about "the media gasping" at her "politically INcorrect" dog murder while hawking her new book. By Sunday she seemed to grasp that even Republicans were grossed out. She released a longer statement, trying to recast her choice as "hard and painful," claiming, "I have never passed on my responsibilities to anyone else to handle."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] hrimfaxi_work@midwest.social 112 points 2 months ago

I'm pleased that she's experiencing the fallout from all this, but whatever logic she used to calculate that political risk is baffling.

Four John Wick movies have grossed over a billion dollars on the conceit that harming a dog is a legitimate emotional catalyst for someone to kill 450 people.

[-] nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The initial story in her book was made largely without political calculus. The current political calculus of doubling down is simply that apologies are for pussies and pussies are liberals and I ain't no fucking liberal. That's it.

[-] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 18 points 2 months ago

Apparently the story was known locally in south dakota political circles, so there is conjecture this is her trying to get out ahead of it if she was nominated.

[-] somas@kbin.social 5 points 2 months ago

@hrimfaxi_work

For all we know people in GOP-world think Wick is the villain in the series

this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
158 points (95.9% liked)

politics

18072 readers
2953 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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!
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS