Kristi Noem fondly recalls the day she killed her dog

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

No sense of responsibility, no competence, no ability to make  judgement calls, and killing the victim of her own bad choices - seems like the perfect standard-bearer for the modern GOP.

If America doesn't reject them at the ballot box, Republicans will end up trying to treat the rest of us like Noem treated her dog.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This was the dog, it wasn't even one of those pitbull mutations. And it was a puppy too which didn't deserve to die for misbheaving. The reason Noem killed it was because it embarrased her in front of other people, plain and simple. It had nothing to do with "danger", but more so she got humiliated because instead of training it she was doing ads for dental surgery in Texas.

It look like a German Wirehaired Pointer, it’s good hunter of small game, but also a good companion and guard dog, it should be easily trainable, but if untrained it can be hostile toward strangers and it will go after small animals.

It seemed pretty obvious even from Noem's version of the story that she took a young, poorly-trained or under-trained dog hunting, and then killed it when it performed poorly. Even if putting it down was justified after its behavior, the dog's behavior is still entirely Noem's responsibility. She killed the dog, not just by pulling the trigger, but by her own bad decisions - which she then paints this is a triumph of hard judgement rather than an ugly and revealing personal failure. That she obviously doesn't get what was wrong with her actions is the most ugly, depressing, and predictably Republican part of this story. Zero self-awareness, zero-shame, zero-empathy  - I am so damned sick of Republicans who turn their backs on everything that makes them human. 

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

There is nothing wrong with euthanizing a dog, especially one which has been violent with people. The fact that people care about this as much as they do shows how incredibly backward society's priorities are.

Sure, but if the dog attacked people, you would think she would write about it, no? It seems more like she wanted her poorly-trained dog out of her life, and instead of finding a competent dog trainer or a new home for it, she decided to personally shoot her own dog.

From the Guardian article in the OP:

By taking Cricket on a pheasant hunt with older dogs, Noem says, she hoped to calm the young dog down and begin to teach her how to behave. Unfortunately, Cricket ruined the hunt, going “out of her mind with excitement, chasing all those birds and having the time of her life”.

Noem describes calling Cricket, then using an electronic collar to attempt to bring her under control. Nothing worked. Then, on the way home after the hunt, as Noem stopped to talk to a local family, Cricket escaped Noem’s truck and attacked the family’s chickens, “grabb[ing] one chicken at a time, crunching it to death with one bite, then dropping it to attack another”.

Cricket the untrainable dog, Noem writes, behaved like “a trained assassin”.

When Noem finally grabbed Cricket, she says, the dog “whipped around to bite me”. 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”.

If you read the quote from the book, she did write about it. It killed all of her neighbors chickens and then attacked her when she tried to stop it.

Through it all, Noem says, Cricket was “the picture of pure joy”.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that Cricket had proved herself “untrainable”, “dangerous to anyone she came in contact with” and “less than worthless … as a hunting dog”.

I cannot find the actual text, so I will likely have to wait until my library has it to check, but the above describes:

-taking a poorly trained dog on a hunt
-failing to control the dog on the hunt
-failing to control the dog after the hunt

The takeaway from which is Noem is unfit to own a hunting dog. And she doesn't realize that's what she's telling us, instead choosing to brag about her satisfaction at killing.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Via mastodon:

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Kristi Noem Is Gunning for Biden’s Dog

“At the end of the book, you say the very first thing you would do if you got to the White House that was different from Joe Biden is that you’d make sure ‘Joe Biden’s dog was nowhere on the grounds. Commander, say hello to Cricket.’ Are you doing this to try to look tough?” Brennan asked.

“Well, number one, Joe Biden’s dog has attacked 24 Secret Service people,” Noem said. “So how many people is enough people to be attacked and dangerously hurt before you make a decision on a dog and what to do with it?”

“Well he’s not living at the White House anymore,” Brennan interjected. Commander was removed from the White House and sent to live with other members of the Biden family after the German Shepherd bit Secret Service personnel on at least 24 occasions.

“That’s a question that the president should be held accountable to,” Noem replied.

“You’re saying [Commander] should be shot?” Brennan asked incredulously.

“That’s what the president should be accountable to. What is the number?” Noem said.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If this indeed removes Noem from VP consideration, then I’m relieved (but you can never be certain, I think there still is a non-negligible chance Trump picks my governor to be his running mate.) The potential for a Trump victory return to the White House is horrifying enough. His VP selection doesn’t seem all that important in comparison. Progressives need to focus like a laser on keeping the raging tangerine man out of the White House. Still, I’d prefer Trump’s VP not be too close to home…not sure that even makes sense, she’s physically closer to home as Governor, with more immediate impact on day-to-day life in that position than she’d ever have as Trump’s VP…maybe there’d be perks to having Kristi kicked upstairs…

But if Trump is elected, you'll repudiate all attempts to challenge his election.  Right?

While I cannot speak for TDAS04, I feel obligated to point out that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States (in ways that he was not when formally taking office in 2017). He is barred by the 14th Amendment, and he cannot take the Presidential Oath of Office in good faith.

If he is elected in a free and fair election in accordance with the laws of the United States, then the Vice-President elect ought to take office in January 2025. Assigning the office of President to Donald Trump would be a fraud, a rejection of the letter and spirit of the Constitution while pretending it remains in force.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

If this indeed removes Noem from VP consideration, then I’m relieved (but you can never be certain, I think there still is a non-negligible chance Trump picks my governor to be his running mate.) The potential for a Trump victory return to the White House is horrifying enough. His VP selection doesn’t seem all that important in comparison. Progressives need to focus like a laser on keeping the raging tangerine man out of the White House. Still, I’d prefer Trump’s VP not be too close to home…not sure that even makes sense, she’s physically closer to home as Governor, with more immediate impact on day-to-day life in that position than she’d ever have as Trump’s VP…maybe there’d be perks to having Kristi kicked upstairs…

But if Trump is elected, you'll repudiate all attempts to challenge his election.  Right?

While I cannot speak for TDAS04, I feel obligated to point out that Donald Trump is constitutionally ineligible for the office of President of the United States (in ways that he was not when formally taking office in 2017). He is barred by the 14th Amendment, and he cannot take the Presidential Oath of Office in good faith.

If he is elected in a free and fair election in accordance with the laws of the United States, then the Vice-President elect ought to take office in January 2025. Assigning the office of President to Donald Trump would be a fraud, a rejection of the letter and spirit of the Constitution while pretending it remains in force.

I had deleted that post not wanting to take this thread in this direction.

It's amazing how many people seem to comment on posts that I quickly self-delete after I post them, then have second thoughts.  I don't mind asking the question, but I concluded that, no, I don't want to here the sorry complaints of "derailing" from the usual suspects (even if doing so actually elevated the discussion, given the quality of the thread topic).  I'm not responding to your post one way or the other.  But I find this amazing; I deleted the post about two (2) minutes from posting it.  There is no on on this site whose posting activity merits a message noting that they posted for me to respond to.

(Bold is mine.)

Thank you once again Fuzzy, for such an exemplary example of a Republican post. Brightened my day right up.