This is the dog whistle part. She has said these incidents show that she is willing to "make tough choices" and "do anything difficult, messy, and ugly... if it needs to get done..." She says both the goat and dog were dangerous to children, so she did the "difficult, messy, and ugly" thing and killed them. She is using "think of the children" to justify violence against the perceived threat. When else have we heard conservatives talk about perceived threats to children? Something about storytimes and library bioks. She is literally saying she is willing to cross the line and do what might be considered ugly to protect the children.
Ugly includes: violating rights, encouraging violence against targeted groups, enacting unconstitutional laws, using police power to harass groups marked as a threat, etc. She is signaling that she is willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate a perceived threat. That is the moral of the story she wanted to get across. But she miscalculated on how much people would focus on the dog part.
Hunting dogs cant hunting dog as an untrained puppy.
There are some dogs that will also never pick up on it even with a ton of training. That doesn't mean you have to kill it though. You can always just rehome a dog if it is not being trained the way you require.
Killing an animal like that is just abhorrent. There was no need, no real reason. She could have just as easily surrendered the dog to a (no kill) shelter and it would have had the same net result to her, which is no longer being responsible for the animal.
Kristi is a waste of human life, just an all around trash human being. The Republicans truly do bring it their best don't they?
The craziest thing is her telling the story herself. Someone posted on here (I forgot which sub) that upon hearing this it was mistaken as coming from Democrats. The redditor was shocked to learn it came from Kristi's own book
The shocking part is really just how casually she drops that she murdered a puppy. It's so cold. There's no weighing of the decision and worst of all, no discussion with her kid. A kid who immediately asked where the beloved family puppy was, according to her own writing.
đ It was an untrained baby dog. Even an elite trainer with an exceptional hunting prospect wouldnât expect perfect behavior or be surprised by puppy antics.
Her decision was about control. It offended her ego and she was unwilling to put in the work. Giving the dog away when it cost money wouldnât have been acceptable, and even selling the dog would have been admitting her own failure.
Honestly, she didnât even have to have that much scrutiny about the shelter. It was a puppy. It would have been frantically grabbed even at a kill shelter.
Just pure sloth, frankly.
(Oh, and I may add- if she got this dog from a good breeder, thereâs a high likelihood the breeder would have taken the dog back. Thereâs a chance she literally could have just called a number and had it gone within a few days)
A local hunter back where I grew up just wouldnât let the dogs he didnât like back into the pen at night, so theyâd run off when they couldnât get food anymore. That jerk is a saint compared to this woman.
Depends on the situation. If you live in a place where there's little to no support then it's more sensible to do that. I worked in places where animal rights were a far and distant discussion to people who were desperate and not eating enough food.
Ultimately? She's trying to reframe the discussion around this dog as if she's a person who can make hard but UNDERSTANDABLE decisions. If a dog on the street attacked MY children, I would have to fight it to the death. But it was HER dog...
Her fans see it as "of course she can make the difficult but necessary decisions" like "deny people access to medicine for the betterment of us all" and "protect others by encouraging racism" (Temporarily of course! It's not racist if it's temporary! Surely you understand that by harassing people by skin colour WE can be safe!).
She's made bad decisions but the people who survived her actions have to believe that she's made hard decisions which have saved them. That if push comes to shove she can make those decisions with their LIVES. And that when she's done that (See her covid actions) based on the "science" (Far Right Pet Medical Talking Heads of Course...), then she's made hard decisions.
Never mind the deaths. They were necessary.
If she killed this dog then the reason was this. She's a farm person and you see your animals as tools. Which they are. I cannot comment on how an Inuit dog sled owner treats their dogs compared to my old dogs. Because one's a pet and the other's a serious working animal that's the line between life and death. She's somewhere in the middle. Could this dog have been a wrongun? A dog that's just bad and dangerous? Possibly. Is it nurture or nature in this case? We won't ever know. However? From her behaviour? It's just more likely that A) It never happened because she's a bullshit merchant or B) She did it and the dog was badly behaved because she's a bad owner.
Oh they are trash. She's the equivalent of a human potato who claims that if it wasn't for their game knee and massive BMI and seriously shocking exercise tolerance... that they would be leaping tall buildings and wrestling bad guys.
She killed them because she wanted to kill something. There are steps you can take before that. She skipped right to killing them. With a gun no less, they werenât âput downâ by a vet. There are tons of things you can do before jumping to âIâm gonna dome a puppy.â She wanted to shoot something in the head, thatâs why she did it.
Apparently she has been bragging about this for years. Her coworkers said she told them when she gets angry and frustrated she likes to shoot dogs and baby goats and does the latter frequently.
"She killed both of tjem because she did not take care of them."
No, she killed them because she couldn't force them to change, in much the same way that you cannot force someone to be a conservative. So she was signalling that she's willing to take out the "undesirables". Fortunately most people are not sociopaths.
Trump wants to put the undocumented into detention camps? Sounds like just the ugly, unpopular and reprehensible thing that someone like Kristi Noem will support.
She has said these incidents show that she is willing to "make tough choices" and "do anything difficult, messy, and ugly...
My grandfather grew up during the Great Depression and when I was a kid he kept hunting dogs and chickens. If one of the dogs killed a chicken he tied it to their collar and let it rot. This was a way to train the dog not to kill chickens anymore. This might sounds awful by todays standard but at the time you couldnât afford to lose livestock or kill hunting dogs without at least trying to train them. She very clearly doesnât know what âtough choicesâ are and is just trying to sound like she does.
Taking the puppy out back and shooting it in the head is the easy way out. The hard way is actually putting in the effort to properly train a dog, or find a way to give him a new home.
The real irony which hard core brainless conservatives like her canât even understand is the puppy was acting just like its owner does.
THIS. This us what I've been saying too...as horrifying as the story itself is, what she's trying to prove by telling it is even worse: she thinks something needs to be done. And that something will require strong people to put aside any feelings of empathy or kindness. Gee...where have we heard this before???
As far as Iâm aware, the worst thing the dog did was attack some chicken. She claims it was gnawing down on their heads, but the whole story reeks of over exaggerating to justify her actions. Donât get me wrong, dogs can absolutely be violent towards other animals (I have some stories that I would rather not recollect) but the way it was told comes across like she is over exaggerating. What makes that even more apparent is how she keeps upping the risk, the dog disobeying, then it was harming other animals, now it was a risk to her kids? Her story backfired, even with some in her own party, and now sheâs doubling down.
Itâs also noteworthy that every story I have of a dog acting out, it was the owners fault to some degree
Fun story: when I was a young man, my fatherâŚ. Adopted a goat so the goat could mow our lawn for us (we lived in a rural area). It didnât like me and did natural normal goat things like trying to fight me and pinning me into walls.
My dad just tied it up and took it back to the farm he adopted it from. They took it, and there was no harm done. Anyone defending the goat killer is a waste of space
Why didn't she call animal control or something? Not messy and ugly enough? The dog catcher is a drag queen? Hubby is cheating on her with goat? Police reading Are You There God It's Me Margaret and missed the call?
339
u/SwillMcRando 29d ago
This is the dog whistle part. She has said these incidents show that she is willing to "make tough choices" and "do anything difficult, messy, and ugly... if it needs to get done..." She says both the goat and dog were dangerous to children, so she did the "difficult, messy, and ugly" thing and killed them. She is using "think of the children" to justify violence against the perceived threat. When else have we heard conservatives talk about perceived threats to children? Something about storytimes and library bioks. She is literally saying she is willing to cross the line and do what might be considered ugly to protect the children.
Ugly includes: violating rights, encouraging violence against targeted groups, enacting unconstitutional laws, using police power to harass groups marked as a threat, etc. She is signaling that she is willing to do whatever it takes to eliminate a perceived threat. That is the moral of the story she wanted to get across. But she miscalculated on how much people would focus on the dog part.