MovieChat Forums > Politics > 66% of Americans disapprove of Kristi No...

66% of Americans disapprove of Kristi Noem shooting and killing her dog


Former President Donald Trump thinks South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem — the only person on his vice presidential shortlist to boast about shooting and killing her own dog — is a “terrific” leader who’s simply had a “bad week.”

The problem, according to a new Yahoo News/YouGov poll, is that the vast majority of Americans disagree.

The new survey of 1,794 U.S. adults, which was conducted from May 10 to 13, shows that a full two-thirds of them (66%) disapprove of Noem’s decision to shoot her family’s 14-month-old wirehaired pointer in a gravel pit after the dog ruined a pheasant hunt and killed a neighbor’s chickens — a story Noem recounts in her forthcoming memoir, No Going Back: The Truth on What’s Wrong with Politics and How We Move America Forward, as proof that she’s willing to tackle even “difficult, messy and ugly” tasks.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that the puppy was “untrainable” and “less than worthless.”


By killing an innocent dog she destroyed any political ambitions she may have. What a loser.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/new-yahoo-newsyougov-poll-66-of-americans-disapprove-of-kristi-noem-shooting-and-killing-her-dog-220148462.html

reply

Wasn't that the same dog that attacked her children. Where was that part in your sacred book of yahoo?

reply

It doesn't matter. Most Americans see her as a dog killer and she will never see any political office.

reply

Good. She should be at home raising a family and supporting her husband.

reply

🙄

reply

She's too busy cheating on her husband.

reply

Probably is. One look at her plastic face gives a very good indication of her priorities.

reply

And what if a woman wants to have a career?

reply

"She should be at home raising a family and supporting her husband." I assume English is your first language?

reply

So no woman should have a career? Should they be prevented from doing so by the state?

reply

There's 2.

reply

There's 2 what? Questions, yes. Are you going to refuse to answer them?

reply

You say "refuse" as if I'm under any obligation to engage with you. You have difficulty disguising your authoritarian streak.

reply

It's basic courtesy. You ask me questions. You ask others questions. Why can't you hold to your positions? I'm sorry you're such a little bitch coward that you chicken out of expressing your actual authoritarian whims.

https://youtu.be/O-n_BxhvkVg?t=199 Does a woman doing this upset you?

reply

I'm always willing to engage openly with an honest interlocutor. But you're a dishonest git with a pronounced nasty streak. A rational exchange of ideas is impossible with your type. So you get what you get.

reply

I have no qualms with being a nasty to a piece of shit fascist who wishes to use the state to persecute me. You wish to slaughter almost all politicians. You wish to deprive women of their basic rights. You are a piece of shit and I will never address you in a neutral way.

reply

Oh, so you're light in the loafers! Now it makes sense.

reply

What did I say that was incorrect there?

reply

You asked why he wasn't answering your questions and he told you.

Then you validated his stated reason.

So, that should be teh end of it. Your continued... attacks after that is you being a troll.

reply

>You asked why he wasn't answering your questions and he told you.

Right. And then he suggested I was stupid. So I asked what accusations I lobbed at him that were somehow wrong.

>Then you validated his stated reason.

He refused to answer me a long time ago.

>So, that should be teh end of it. Your continued... attacks after that is you being a troll.

Don't care. I always speak to fascists like they are scum of the earth.

reply

No, he said it was because you were nasty and dishonest.

You admitted to be nasty and then attacked him... viciously.

Then just now, you pretended it was for something else. Which demonstrates how dishonest you are.

A sane person at this point would consider the converstation over and move on to another thread. Or even site. The internet is huge. Somewhere there must be someone or something that would like to talk to you.

reply

>No, he said it was because you were nasty and dishonest.

Post-hoc justification. I decided to be specifically nasty when I realised how much of a piece of shit fascist he is. I haven't been dishonest.

>You admitted to be nasty and then attacked him... viciously.

And I will continue to do so. No pearls before fascists. I'm quite happy to talk down with hatred to pieces of rectal discharge who want to remove the rights of women and murder politicians.

>Then just now, you pretended it was for something else. Which demonstrates how dishonest you are.

What? What did I pretend it was for?

>A sane person at this point would consider the converstation over and move on to another thread. Or even site. The internet is huge. Somewhere there must be someone or something that would like to talk to you.

I'll do whatever the fuck I like.

You can shove your concern trolling up your ass. I don't answer to you.

If I respond with "Why haven't you blocked me yet?" will you 404 and not know how to respond?

reply

You pretended it was just "Stupid", which was the least of his complaints.

Wouldn't you prefer to talk to people that didn't have complete contempt for you?

If nothing else, moving around a lot would give you new people on a daily basis that you are just getting to know, before they find out how shitty of a person you are.

I would think that would be an improvement from your perspective. AT least until they got know you, they would treat you with default level of civility.

reply

>You pretended it was just "Stupid", which was the least of his complaints.

Yes I was mean to the vile little fascist. Go play the smallest violin.

>Wouldn't you prefer to talk to people that didn't have complete contempt for you?

I'm quite happy to be contemptuous to scumbag fascists on here, amongst other things. I also don't only interact here anyway.

You also mistake the demographics on here with the wider demographics of other social media sites. The userbase here is heavily skewed by political and social rejects who through their own extremism and character have found themselves with nowhere else to go. I don't run into anyone like the abhorrent pieces of garbage elsewhere.

I can use other social media sites. The likelihood is that maixiu cannot.

For one thing, baseless accusations are met with scorn and bans on other sites. Telling people to kill themselves would meet with bans. Accusing people of being pedophiles would be met with a ban. Sounding familiar to you, scumbag?

>If nothing else, moving around a lot would give you new people on a daily basis that you are just getting to know, before they find out how shitty of a person you are.

I'm fine here. Why don't you just block me, dude? If I am that repulsive, just block me?

reply

Dude. My point with the "stupid" was not to whine about how mean you were, but to answer your question.

That was clear. BUT you responded as though I said something else.

It is worth noting though that you conflate being mean with being dishonest.

AND defend your decision to be so.

AND, that you justify it, not with him being mean to you, BUT with a claim of him disagreeing with you politically.


So, to recap you have admitted to being a completely dishonest asshole to people just because they disagree with you.

That makes YOU the bad person here.

reply

>Dude. My point with the "stupid" was not to whine about how mean you were, but to answer your question.

Okay.

>It is worth noting though that you conflate being mean with being dishonest.

I haven't been dishonest. You claimed I have, but can't pinpoint how I have.

>AND, that you justify it, not with him being mean to you, BUT with a claim of him disagreeing with you politically.

He doesn't just disagree with me politically. He wants to use the state to persecute people. That's more than just a disagreement.

>So, to recap you have admitted to being a completely dishonest asshole to people just because they disagree with you.

At no point did I say I was dishonest. I agreed that I was being mean.

And I thought you approved of dishonest behaviour? You know, when you justified people lying about me?

Or is your tolerance of honesty selective?

reply

Like I said, a polical difference.

You could have just said, AGREED, instead of typing so much shit.


reply

A political difference like that with a nazi. Would you speak with respect to a nazi?

>You could have just said, AGREED, instead of typing so much shit.

Except I didn't agree with you. I haven't been dishonest.

reply

A poiicy difference is a political difference.
Ask me again, this time using COMMIE.

reply

>A poiicy difference is a political difference.

Yes, it is. And some political differences are beyond the pale and deserve contempt.

>Ask me again, this time using COMMIE.

I don't know what you're getting at.

reply

1. Your justification for your bad behavior is... just your brain issue.

2. Leftards, if htey are not commies, like commies. Asking the question with commie, will make the answer make more sense to you, instetad of making you even dumber.

Ask your question again, this time with commie, and I will answer it.

reply

>Ask your question again, this time with commie, and I will answer it.

So you'll treat communists with contempt when you discover that they are communist.

What's the difference between that and me treating fascists with contempt? Why is one okay but not the other? Hell, if memory serves, I've seen you indignated at people who disagree with you regarding immigration policy and gun control.

What you're implying here is that if maixu was a communist, you'd be all in favour of me talking to them like this.

reply

No, I would not treat a communists with disrespect just for being a communist.

I was very clearly telegraphing that.

DId you really think my answer would be the other way?

Iff so, all that did was showcase how poorly you understand... other people.

reply

>No, I would not treat a communists with disrespect just for being a communist.

Okay. I would treat both fascists and (some) communists with contempt. Some marxist-leninists are simply red fascist pieces of shit.

I don't respect people who would use the state to subjugate me, or even kill me.

>DId you really think my answer would be the other way?

Yes. Given your conduct to others on far more normal issues within the general American political sphere.

reply

i don't believe you on eiteher point.

I think most commies you would be fine with.

reply

>i don't believe you on eiteher point.

>I think most commies you would be fine with.

That's a single point. And no I would not. You know little of my debates with communists.

I despise authoritarianism whether it is from a tankie or a fascist.

reply

Sure you do. Sure you do.

reply

Literally butted head with multiple communist-leaning types on here. Well, 2 of them.

reply

2? lol

reply

There are hardly any communists on here

reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h--HR7PWfp0

When I ask you why you haven't blocked me, does it trigger a reaction much like the actors from Blackadder when they hear "Macbeth"?

reply

No.

reply

So why have you not just blocked me then?

reply

Not sure. It might be because you are such a... bad person that you need to be called out on it.


reply

And you finally answer. After about 20+ times of asking it.

But then I can just throw your words back in your face: "Wouldn't you prefer to talk to people that didn't have complete contempt for you?"

reply

When you feel a need to spam your posts with retarded neg talking points, that presents me with a choice to either bog the discussion down terribly by addressing each retarded point you make, OR picking which ones I want to discuss.


The downside of the second is that it allows scum of the earth to use the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion, where assertions made often enough and not challenged gain a false credibility.

it is an effective technique. Very useful to people who are bad, and know that they are bad, and yet want to trick other people into support their bad ideas.


So, I choose carefully what to respond to. It is a tough thing to get right.

If you don't like it, you could try being more concise and using LESS shit person tactics like that.

BUT, I know that would be very hard for you.

And by hard, I mean impossible.

reply

>When you feel a need to spam your posts with retarded neg talking points, that presents me with a choice to either bog the discussion down terribly by addressing each retarded point you make, OR picking which ones I want to discuss.

I thought you were capable of addressing multiple points in a single reply.

>The downside of the second is that it allows scum of the earth to use the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion, where assertions made often enough and not challenged gain a false credibility.

Asking why you haven't blocked me is not part of an argument. It was a general query since you're so constantly angry about me being here. Yet you can make me disappear with a single click of a button.

reply

I am, clearly. I explained why I don't do that.

YOu read it, and responded, but you didn't actually saying anything relevant.

Can you see how much of a fail that is on your part?

reply

You were waffling on, whining about not wanting to get bogged down in multiple points in threads (even though that I repeatedly asked you as a single question, many times, why you don't just blocked me)

That's your problem, not mine. I'll address as many points as I can with responses.

reply

People block you because you are too dumb to argue with. Nothing ever sticks. You're one of those dipshit liberals who can't think for themselves and constantly ask for a link. As if if some shithead on the internet doesn't support it, it's invalid. You're a complete waste of time and not even entertaining.

reply

>As if if some shithead on the internet doesn't support it, it's invalid.

Why should people just accept claims presented with zero evidence? Claims supported with no evidence can rightly be considered presumptively defeated.

If I just made claims about Trump, or Republicans, would you accept them without any questioning?

reply

An opinion or point of view is not a "claim", half wit.

reply

Plenty of people have made definitive claims about reality, and not presented their position as an opinion.

reply

It's funny watching Scumvau just get destroyed in literally every discussion he has on this board, yet he insists on sticking around. He must love being humiliated. Maybe that's his thing? What a weird little guy.

reply

Someone could just say "no u" to me and you would call it a powerful, destroying argument.

reply

You have a humiliation fetish dont you.

reply

It's just the same small bloc of fascist-leaning users. No new names.

reply

is that a yes?

reply

Fascist? Thanks for proving how stupid you are.

reply

How so?

reply

To many (most?) of your retarded posts, it would be a fair and accurate response.

reply

You prove my point. Cult-like scientology mentality. Anyone could say anything to me and you lemmings would sit on the sidelines applauding it for its tenacity, its wisdom, its strength of argument.

But I already knew this given how you're willing to lie for the same cause.

reply

It woudl be TRUE.

reply

You don't care about truth. You admitted that when you said it's acceptable to lie about me.

reply

We were talking about your point.

Are you droppoing that piont? Are you admitting it? You certainly didn't defend it?

Seriously. DId you not get to talk to people when you were a child?

reply

>We were talking about your point.

What point, specifically? What are you asking me to defend?

reply

You point about "no u".

You just dropped it. And wandered off into the weeds.

Last relevant point was when I pointed out that for many if not most of your points, that response would be true.


YOu probably know that. Which is why you tried to change the subject.

Or maybe your brain is really in that bad of shape that you couldn't hold the thread of the conversation for .... minutes at a time.

reply

>You point about "no u".

Yes. I've seen you and others applaud basic "rebuttals" just because they were said to me.

You, without a shred of self-awareness, responded "It would be true" to my quip there. What do you want me to say to that? How am I supposed to address that? Obviously I don't think basic thoughtless responses are credible rebuttals to things I say, or indeed anyone says.

>Last relevant point was when I pointed out that for many if not most of your points, that response would be true.

That's not a point. That's just a claim, and not backed up by anything.

>YOu probably know that. Which is why you tried to change the subject.

It's unfalsifiable gibberish. Although I'm well aware you're not versed in the concept of unfalsifiability. I could just say that "no u" is good enough for you. How would you go about somehow disproving that?

reply

Most of your posts just seem to be calling people assholes and fascists and liars.

You are all of that.

So, "no u" would be all that would normally need to be said.

Sure, minor details, might be off, but, the generaly gist would be served.

reply

>Most of your posts just seem to be calling people assholes and fascists and liars.

I literally had a discussion on another board here with a user who admitted they are a fascist. They openly endorse slaughtering all 'woke' film/tv/media producers.

Maixu wants to remove women's rights to vote and thinks they should not have careers. He wants to massacre almost all US politicians. He's notably silent on what he wants for LGBT people beyond them "getting back in the closet". I think that in itself is somewhat damning given his otherwise general authoritarian instincts.

TVfan openly endorses anti-LGBT laws from Russia, wants to censor the media and basically purge the entire Democrat party. He's also a massive anti-semite.

Yes, these are "political" disagreements. I see no problem though in calling them all fascists.

---

Also, I don't really accuse people of lying. The users you're referring to aren't dishonest about what they think. I said you might lie because you've admitted that it's acceptable to lie about me.

reply

Why haven't you blocked me yet?

reply

That's because people are pathological about dogs, these days.

reply

LMAO All this poll shows is that 1,184 people out of 330 million hold this opinion... it is not reflective of the entire country.

reply

Apparently you are too stupid to know how polls works. If this poll showed that Trump was in the lead by 1% you would be screaming about it. Also the fact that you think it was a good thing when Noem shot her innocent dog makes you disgusting. No one like dog killers like you.

“I hated that dog,” Noem writes, adding that the puppy was “untrainable” and “less than worthless.” What a lovely woman. So much for her political career.

reply

When an animal attacks children, it should be put down. It's no longer "innocent."

reply

And like clockwork, Lige goes right to name calling. I'm surprised you didn't use your favorite, tired incest accusation.

reply

Who do you think will win D.C.'s 3 Electoral College votes?

reply

Well, considering DC likes to be an unsafe. leftist suckhole, I'd say the Democrats.

reply

How can you say that, there hasn't been a single vote cast?

reply

You asked what I think. That's what I think. Just like I think that even though the Democrats have been ruining Detroit and Chicago for more than half a century, they'll keep voting Democrat.

reply

You think that, because statistics and samples have predictive value.

reply

It's rather historical.

reply

You marrying your sister is disgusting.

reply

Wow! So fresh and original, Lige!

reply

Apparently you are too stupid to know how polls works


Credibility killer right off the bat... no surprise there.

If this poll showed that Trump was in the lead by 1% you would be screaming about it.


Actually I wouldn't. I know how polls work...and I know how certain types of statistics are bullshit and can be manipulated to drive an agenda.

The country is way too politically divided for 1165 people to represent anything.

People also lie a lot.

I'm ignoring your deflection attempt, as I don't care about Kristi Noem. Work on your credibility.

reply

The puppy killer has been making racist comments against Native-Americans hoping to get her sicko slaughtering tendencies off the news.

reply

It wasn't a puppy and it attacked her children. I'm not surprised at your hypocritical virtue signalling since you hate children.

reply

You = puppy killer apologist

Immediately after the psycho puppy killer slaughtered a goat. Did the goat attack her rowdy brats, too?

reply

You = child killer apologist

The dog attacked humans and and livestock, there's nothing to apologize for.

reply

I still wouldn't kick her out of bed for eating crackers.

reply

she would shoot you in the face if you did

reply

From a "dogfree" (someone who dislikes dogs) perspective:

-A takeaway I can claim from all this is that not all people who have dogs as companions are nice, empathetic people. Noem is an example of that. I would actually argue many, if not most are empathetic, but its not applicable to everyone, as Noem has shown. That's why I disagree with dog people saying dogfree people are the ones who are soulless and lack empathy - we just simply want nothing to do with dogs, we don't go as far as killing them as some dog people do.

-Another takeaway is that I'm not surprised. Most people in the West love dogs and the killing of one is sure to spark outrage. Noem is finished, even if she tries to rehabilitate her image by working with or promoting ASCPA, PETA, or whatever.

-I personally think Noem should have rehomed the dog or put in an animal shelter. Killing the dog would have been too much.

reply

You don't "rehome" a dog that has attacked people and livestock. They're not people, they're property. Any dog that attacks people and livestock should be put down immediately. She did the right thing, she just shouldn't have told the story about it. People are stupid about dogs.

reply

It's pretty jaw-dropping how quickly she torpedoed her future in politics. Before this drummed up, I saw her as the top contender to be Trump's running mate (and new bunk mate ;P). But even he knows that bragging about killing dogs is a stupid decision.

reply

Only the snowflakes are having a meltdown over putting down an animal that attacked her children.

The media twisted and distorted the narrative as usual for the gullible sheep to swallow the Kool-Aid.

reply

Make all the excuses you want but this dumbshit who killed her dog destroyed her political career.

reply

"Killing an innocent dog"???

First, guilt and innocence are human conditions. Only people with more feelings than brains conflate them with animals.

No, she had a problem and took care of it like folks who live in the real world often do. The dog was untrainable and killed livestock. That's a killing offense in most states. If a dog kills your livestock, you shoot it. You don't catch it and take it to the vet to be put down. That's for you disconnected city folk, who have neither livestock, nor the capability of quickly and HUMANELY killing an animal. I know it's difficult for you emotionally stunted liberal fucktards to comprehend but that's life in the country. Her only mistake was putting it in her book.

reply

"guilt and innocence are human conditions."

There's a difference between a Wirehaired Pointer and a Sperm Whale.

reply

This story also brings to mind Dr. Anthony Fauci's experiments on dogs, wherein he stuck the heads of sedated beagles into mesh tents filled with diseased sandflies.

So the one that provided a quick and painless kill shot is vilified, while the one who tortured dogs is a secular saint. I think I understand.

reply