bullets13

I was really confused at first at how a bunch of people would know about her killing a dog on her ranch, until I heard the story itself, which I didn't find particularly believable. Then when I started reading some accounts that made it sound like she was just mad that it messed up her bird hunt and was tough to train, and that multiple people had seen some or all of this, her coming out with the story for seemingly no reason made a lot more sense.

multiple politicians from South Dakota have come out and stated that this event was well known in SD political circles. It's also being stated that multiple people witnessed it. Personally, I'd love to hear from them and the family who's chicken's were supposedly eaten. Would clear up a lot, but I doubt it would change much one way or another.

totally agree, but there sure is a lot of talk that this dog may not have been one of them.

you're doing exactly what you're mad at the media for doing. you complain about their double standards, but then you're comparing Obama eating dog in a dog-eating country as a small child to Noem shooting a dog as an adult. I don't like Obama, but give me a break on that comparison. And let's be clear here, the media didn't sink Noem's career. She sunk it herself. Not sure why all of you guys are conveniently ignoring it, but there's a whole lot of talk that her dog wasn't a chicken killer at all, and that she just shot it because it wasn't a good hunting dog and she didn't like it. If it was eating people's chickens, I have no issue with it, but it's looking more and more like she was trying to get ahead of things and fashion her own narrative before the actual story came out. for what it's worth, that's the only way her decision to publish this stuff makes any sense at all. Nobody will ever convince me that she and her handlers thought adding that story was a good idea, and had no ulterior motive to do so. The reaction to it is the most predictable thing ever, even if the most conservative among us are just totally disgusted that 3/4 of the country disagrees with her actions.

no doubt they'll make it as bad as possible, but it sounds like they may be able to just report the facts. Heck, what she self-reported was enough to turn 3/4 of the country against her, and it sounds a very real possibility that her version of events is inaccurate in an effort to justify her actions.

Depending on what actually happened, she may deserve whatever she gets. It sounds like there's a pretty credible chance that she shot the dog for basically no reason, in contrast to how she's trying to spin it.

Also, multiple sources out of the trump camp are saying she has zero shot at the nomination now.

For what it’s worth, there’s some talk that this incident is pretty well known about in SD and she was trying to get out in front of it. That story goes that she just got pissed at the dog because it messed up her hunt and she was having trouble training it, and now she’s trying to spin it into something more justifiable. There’s supposedly witnesses. If that’s the case, it’s a whole other issue. I’d sure like to hear from the family that owned the chickens the dog is supposed to have eaten at this point.

Appreciate the confidence. Why don’t we see how this works out for her. Going great so far. She MIGHT be able to get re-elected in South Dakota next election, but if a good candidate runs against her in the Republican primaries she may be in trouble. I don’t think there’s a chance in hades she gets the VP nomination, and if for some reason Trump is dumb enough to give it to her, his chances of winning are probably over. On a positive note, maybe DeSantis gets it now? If they win and do a decent job then we’d have a VP ready to run for president in four years with a good shot of winning.

I honestly don’t have an issue with it. I grew up around livestock. We had a neighbor lose nearly 30 animals in a 3-week period before they caught the dogs doing it. Those dogs needed to die. I was there when my uncle killed a dog that was eating his chickens… didn’t bother me. If one of my dogs ever bites one of my kids it’ll be dead. Immediately. But some things are better left unsaid, and probably 90% of the country loves dogs, with only a small fraction of them being able to relate to why she did what she did.

Lots of republicans are giving her hell over this. An overwhelming majority of moderates aren’t going to like it, and obviously the over offended left hates it. She’s tanked her shot at VP, whoever you want to blame. I stated in an early post that I don’t have an issue with some dogs being taken out if they’re biting and killing animals. But it’s not your opinion or mine that is going to matter on this one.

She didn’t need to be honest, she needed to leave it out of her book. And you can say what you want about the poll, but the majority of folks didn’t grow up dealing with dogs and livestock, and you’re never going to make them understand. I used the term bragging because she’s saying she told the story to show she can “make tough decisions.” So apparently she thinks it’s a good thing she did, and she wanted others to know about it. But most people don’t agree. There are plenty of republicans attacking her over this, so you can’t just blame it on the over sensitive left.

For what it’s worth, polling after this came out show her with an 81% disapproval rating. Only 21% of republicans said she’d be a good choice for veep, and only 28% of self-identified “very conservative” voters said she’s a good option. Bragging about killing a dog apparently resonates poorly across political affiliations.

They don’t, and they won’t. May not be an issue in South Dakota, but certainly is on the national stage. Even my mother in law, who strictly watches OAN and thinks Trump is a great guy who’s never committed a crime in his life is completely disgusted by this. I know about bad dogs, and don’t have an issue with what she did, and I’m sure most of us on here agree. But as is often this case, it’s not going to be our opinions that decide this election. I thought she might be a valuable running mate that could bring in the female vote, but I’m hoping Trump has the sense to stay away from her now.

A better decision would’ve been finding a better example of that and leaving it out of her book. I have no issue with someone putting down a bird killer, but 3/4 of the country doesn’t understand anything about that, and it sounds horrible to them.

In certain things I’d agree, but I don’t think anyone would ever find out about this unless she told someone. If it was going to come out the dems would’ve drug it up the second her name started being mentioned as VP. And like I said, growing up the way I did, I know that it’s necessary sometimes, and if hers was eating chickens and biting people, it needed to go. I don’t have an issue with it, but it’s the sort of thing that’s gonna upset pretty much everyone who didn’t grow up with dogs on a farm or ranch.

well then I'm with you on the other stuff you stated. I don't at all have an issue with a basketball player getting some jump shots in during football, or some easy BP swings, etc. But I don't want basketball players doing box out drills, batters facing live pitching, etc during football, and vice versa on football drills during those seasons. I guess I should've clarified my original post with the caveat that I don't think they should be doing major work in multiple school sports at the same time.

of course not. Kinda got the impression you were for it.

It's common knowledge that this sort of thing happens on ranches, out in the country, etc. I'd be willing to bet that a good number of people who participate in this forum have had to do something similar. That said, she's an absolute moron for putting it in a book, period. The act of killing the dog can be justified, especially for those of us familiar with how life on a ranch/farm works, but publicizing it is inexcusable for someone in her position. I honestly have no clue what she was thinking. 60% percent of the country already doesn't like trump, and now his most likely running mate has a major controversy over killing a dog. Pure stupidity.

There are times when certain things are appropriate, and when they are not. We can agree to disagree on the appropriateness of star baseball players doing contact football drills in the days leading up the baseball playoffs.

are you suggesting that if the football coach runs spring drills then the kids won't play fall ball without supervision? Because if not, this argument has no relevance. One doesn't take the place of the other. one the AD has control of, the other he just tries to.

and I'll concede that this is more realistic. but a good AD can make football the primary focus without messing with the success of other sports.

but they're 10-3 this year. playoffs in basically everything except boys and girls basketball, which i mean, that's understandable. and from what I'm hearing, the different programs feel supported over there. which is kind of the point of the athletic director. It's not the football director.

I played 3 sports and went on to play college soccer. But the football coach wasn't having me do contact drills (or kicking drills) in the middle of soccer district, jeopardizing my soccer playoffs, either. I think that's the issue here. All of the guys on here who pretty much only care about football think that's the way the AD should run things, and a good AD should be taking care of all athletes and making sure all teams are as successful as possible.

Texas is a football mecca, but a good AD still does more than win at just football. this isn't 30 years ago. screwing over other programs and only concentrating on football is not a recipe for promotion. You can't tell me that these big time jobs aren't going to look beyond football record when they have hundreds of applications?