Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Noem’s Office Blames ‘Conservative Cancel Culture’ for Backlash Over Not Signing Trans Athlete Bill

Noem’s Office Blames ‘Conservative Cancel Culture’ for Backlash Over Not Signing Trans Athlete Bill

Disagreeing with you is not canceling you.

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s office sent an email slamming “conservative cancel culture” for the criticism she received after she did not sign a bill banning biological males from competing against biological females.

Disagreeing with you is not canceling you. You’re canceling yourself by whining and crying because, God forbid, someone disagrees with you.

When you wrote that you wanted the legislature to make sure the bill did not apply to collegiate athletes!

From The Daily Caller:

“Governor Noem is very used to fighting off criticism from the left,” Noem spokesman Ian Fury said in a Wednesday email. “After all, in the past year, she was the only governor in the entire nation to never order a single business or church in her state to close. The left bullied her incessantly, but she didn’t cave.”

“But if any number of conservative pundits are to be believed, that same governor who refused to cave is now caving to the NCAA and Amazon on the issue of fairness in women’s sports. What? Apparently, uninformed cancel culture is fine when the right is eating their own,” Fury said.

There is more:

Noem listed the changes she wants in the bill, but this caught everyone’s eye:

I am also concerned that the approach House Bill 1217 takes is unrealistic in the context of collegiate athletics. In South Dakota, we are proud of our universities’ athletic programs, and in particular the great strides we have taken to gain national exposure and increase opportunities for our next generation over the past two decades.

South Dakota has shown that our student athletes can compete with anyone in the country, but competing on the national stage means compliance with the national governing bodies that oversee collegiate athletics. While I certainly do not always agree with the actions these sanctioning bodies take, I understand that collegiate athletics requires such a system – a fifty-state patchwork is not workable.

Tucker Carlson confronted Noem after she sent the bill back to the legislature. She wants to form a coalition:

“I’m sick and tired of the NCAA threatening states, challenging us and bullying us,” Noem said. “So we are going to build a coalition of leaders, athletes and people who want to protect women’s sports and want to make sure that our women keep Title IX in place to protect their right to be competitive and to be rewarded by participating in these team sports and make sure this coalition can fight the NCAA to make sure we are protecting Title IX.”

Her statement makes no sense. You literally wrote that you do not want the bill to affect collegiate athletes.

But if you watch the entire segment, you will see that Carlson gave her time to explain her position. She acted defensive and played victim. She did not provide specifics but relied on vagueness. Why didn’t she go into detail about the coalition? How about writing an op-ed on the said coalition?

Noem keeps talking about these scholars and renowned legal experts. She hasn’t named any of them. Not a single one.

You know why? Because Noem made it loud and clear that she does not want the bill to affect collegiate athletes. I’ve written that three times, but I do not care.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Going from an up and comer to an also ran in a week is causing her to lash out.

Defending a bridge to nowhere?

    Which was a leftist slogan for a legitimate bridge between Anchorage and a deep water port (presently limited by second highest tides in world) plus the major commute area … saving about 30 miles of road … especially in winter. There was a second bridge proposed by Stevens for linking a city with its island airport in Southeastern. But… why not reuse their slogan when it fits?

So anytime someone disagrees with a decision, it’s cancel culture now?

How convenient!

    chrisboltssr in reply to irv. | March 24, 2021 at 3:22 pm

    And, besides she chose to be a politician Subject to the whims of voters. She can be canceled for cause at any time.

The legislation contains 4 sections, Gov. Noem wants two gone. The one getting attention is the section regarding collegiate female athletes. The second section is the right for females to sue if the educational systems ignore the law; in essence she neuters the entire legislation by not allowing redress.

Ace of Spades had an interesting take on this. Ace speculated that behind the scenes the NCAA and other corporations laid down the law to her and told her that her life after politics (meaning a cushy corporate sinecure) would be jeopardized if she did not block the bill from passing.

http://ace.mu.nu/archives/393311.php

I don’t know if that is what happened, but Ace’s version is at least plausible. The GOPe is certainly hip-deep in lefty corporatist types determined not to rock the corporate boat (Mitt Romneycare, George W Bush, etc), and Noem does not seem to be an exception.

Here is possibly one of these mysterious legal experts Noem mentioned but did not identify. There is definitely an insider creepiness about him:

https://www.capjournal.com/news/mccaulley-controversial-behind-the-scenes-power-broker-in-pierre/article_4d4172a2-6498-11ea-b218-070784c040ed.html

    She already allowed trans prisoners to be housed in the prisons of their declared “gender” so it isn’t a stretch to say she’s already shown that she’s sympathetic to trans people. She tweeted support for the bill on March 8th, and vetoed it. I’m not buying the “trial lawyer’s dream” baloney. Now her office comes out with the “conservative cancel culture” bull-oney? She sold out and doesn’t like what the GOP base is saying about her. She and Nikki can have a good cry together.

So next time, keep your word and don’t cave to bullshit demands. Your principles ought not be situationally applied. Problem solved.

chrisboltssr | March 24, 2021 at 3:23 pm

Why is it that conservative politicians must always feel the need to kowtow to some blatantly immoral people?

Her interview with Tucker was very bad and we all know it. She’s Nikki Haley-lite and after Trump the GOP base isn’t going to put up with anyone who won’t fight back. Caving to the NCAA isn’t fighting back. Idaho’s teams are still playing other NCAA opponents, as are Mississippi’s, both of which passed similar legislation to South Dakotas.

    MarkS in reply to Dave. | March 24, 2021 at 4:05 pm

    Speaking of caving, Sydney Powell is caving on her Dominion case saying that no reasonable person should belief her BS. Another fraud who should be cancelled

      Milhouse in reply to MarkS. | March 24, 2021 at 5:47 pm

      No, she isn’t caving. It’s true that no reasonable person believed her BS, but that’s not her defense. Her defense is that in all her BS about Dominion she never once made a statement of fact; it was all opinion, and any reasonable person would understand it that way. And opinions can’t be defamatory.

      The fact is that she has no Dominion case, and never did. She made up a pack of vicious lies about them, defamed them to half the country, and bet that they wouldn’t sue her. Well, she bet wrong and they have her dead to rights, so her only possible defense is to say it was all opinion and speculation, and she never crossed the line into making factual allegations. Which is itself BS, but it’s her only hope.

        Danny in reply to Milhouse. | March 24, 2021 at 6:08 pm

        She told Tucker she had evidence she was refusing to let him see. The moment Dominion plays that segment of the Tucker Carlson show where he revealed that interaction to the public and blew the whistle on her that defense is toast.

        Her only hope is to pay low damages based on the normal income Dominion brings in, it isn’t exactly Facebook or Google.

          LOL, she won’t be able to plea on this for damages, low or otherwise. She’s the kind of lawyer that give lawyers a bad name, and she will be raked over the coals for her perfidy.

          I am still shocked that anyone took her seriously. Release the Kraken? Really? Ugh.

          Milhouse in reply to Danny. | March 24, 2021 at 11:39 pm

          She told Tucker she had evidence she was refusing to let him see.

          Yep, that destroys her defense. That is precisely the difference between a statement of fact and one of opinion.

        She is a slimy piece of work; I have no idea why anyone bought into that Kraken crap (except maybe wishful thinking). I don’t think she ever made a statement that will be deemed by a court of law to be more than opinion, but she’s in big trouble here (and deservedly so).

        I’m more angry that her crazy gave gullible people hope than I am about her lies.

      gibbie in reply to MarkS. | March 25, 2021 at 12:09 am

      Powell did good work for Flynn, but she appears to have lost her mind on the election.

      Lin Wood did good work for Sandmann, but he also appears to have lost his mind on the election.

      Something in the water?

To me it looks like she caved to SOMEBODY applying pressure.

At an absolute minimum, if she actually had a big enough problem with the legislation as written, then she should have been involved BEFORE it passed both chambers and got sent to her to sign.

Suddenly deciding at the 11th hour that the entire thing needed to be re-written smacks of either being completely disconnected from it, or having special interests apply pressure to force her to get rid of it.

Neither of these options is a good look.

Who is she addressing that comment to? It sounds like a “good-bye” to conservatives. So now what? Confirm our suspicions that she truly is a squish and ally with the GOPe squishes? I’ll bet she is hearing it from he South Dakota conservatives and is now trying to salvage a career somewhere else.

Whoever is advising her must be a Democrat.

“Disagreeing with you is not canceling you.”

Yahbut… the number of comments I have seen on other conservative websites of the form “I was considering her as a possible presidential candidate, now I will never vote for her” strongly suggest employment cancellation.

    Burn_the_Witch in reply to henrybowman. | March 24, 2021 at 8:36 pm

    Changing your decision to vote for a political candidate is not “cancellation”.

    Cancellation is when people are ‘canceled’ from from non-political positions for political reasons.

    healthguyfsu in reply to henrybowman. | March 24, 2021 at 10:35 pm

    Refusing to vote for someone in an election is not cancellation…..good god this crap has gotten out of hand.

As I’ve said previously, the problem with politicians is that they are and always will be politicians first.

You just had a guy who wasn’t a politicians come in and achieve the impossible, deliver on his promises he made campaigning.

These “politicians” are always the same, they say lots of pretty words and then do fuck all when push comes to shove. This woman is no different. She said lots of pretty things but at the end of the day she caved and caved big time.

We don’t need another career politician like this. She is a done a dozen.

Her statement makes no sense. You literally wrote that you do not want the bill to affect collegiate athletes.

No, Mary, her statement makes perfect sense. She doesn’t want this bill to protect college women, because that would cause a fight with the NCAA which SD can’t win. Taking on the NCAA will require putting together a coalition of at least a dozen or so states, that will stand by each other and fight together.

But in the meantime why should the high school girls suffer? In the meantime Noem wants the legislature to send her a bill that protects them, so she can sign it and they can be safe.

You are pretending that she doesn’t want college women protected, and that is just not true. She wants them protected, and is willing to fight to protect them, but only when such a fight is winnable, which it isn’t now.

You, on the other hand, seem to argue that if everyone can’t be protected then no one should be protected. That is a classic example of making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    sheepgirl in reply to Milhouse. | March 24, 2021 at 6:36 pm

    I understood what Noem was saying, but I think she has chosen a strategy of surrender. She should have signed the bill. NCAA be damned and started work on the coalition. The NCAA does not want the competition of an alternative governing body that such a coalition will create.

    Her constituents wanted the bill as is and she should have listened. If the voters decided the consequences of the bill to life in SD were too damaging, they would simply demand it be repealed. That’s how responsive government works.

    Now she is stuck arguing in essence that she knows better than her constituents and is protecting them from themselves. But the truth is, she doesn’t KNOW what the consequences would be or if the threats would be followed up on, because she caved.

    Not caving would have provided more impetus and support for the desired coalition by forcing the NCAA to follow through on its threats, which would have a domino effect on flyover states joining the coalition and giving the NCAA the metaphorical finger.

    gibbie in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2021 at 12:20 am

    Milhouse, Oddly, the LI site is preventing me from upvoting you. Looks like a bug to me.

    Your comment is entirely correct. I’m sick of the counterproductive vituperation going on here.

    Burn_the_Witch in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2021 at 2:00 am

    And when, pray tell, would such a fight be winnable?

    Honestly, the pre-emptive surrender predisposition on the Right must be genetic. If it’s not pre-emptive surrender, it’s This Is Not The Hill To Die On.

Milhouse has this right. The Left is salivating over this opportunity to sue SD with the unlimited pocketbook of the Federal Government in a Lose/Lose proposition for Noem. This is an Inside SD/Outside SD issue, and as governor of SD, she wants to focus on the high school sports first and deal with the Outside SD issue with other states and the NCAA separately. Conservatives have blown a gasket over her wanting to hold the line inside the state instead of carrying *their* flag in glorious battle against the Federal court system.

The problem is not Noem. It is the Leftist governors who have quietly made arrangements to let whatever men want to play in women’s sports and Title IX be (censored).

    CommoChief in reply to georgfelis. | March 24, 2021 at 8:59 pm

    Agreed. Two separate things K -12 and collegiate athletes.

    I get why so many folks are PO at Gov Noam. What I didn’t see in any of the posts denouncing her for ‘caving’ or failing to ‘fight’ is the amount of money or personal time those posters are pledging to conduct what they insist is necessary. Lawfare isn’t cheap.

    IMO, all the folks blaming Gov Noam can take the lead on funding or is the ‘fight’ you demand be undertaken not quite that important?

      Interesting take, CommoChief. Here’s the thing, if she can’t stand her ground on local / state issues, how is she going to fare on the global stage? All any enemy nations have to do, seeing her bow to the NCAA, is threaten the economic well-being of America. What is her go-to plan to make up for lost NCAA revenue? Oh, right, no plan, just caving.

      Contrast with President Trump: faced with oil embargoes and threats from crazies, he just said, FY, we’ll be energy independent . . . and he made it happen. THAT is leadership.

      I meant to say this to gibbie, too, but I’ll say it here and hope he sees it, I’ve been wrong before. I was super wrong about Trump prior to his 2016 win, and I can accept that I may be wrong again. But I will look for a candidate I don’t have to write paragraphs to excuse, explain, and apologize for. Noem is not my pick. She’s weak, stupid, and an appeaser on the state level; my guess is that weak, appeaser mentality will not translate well to the national / world stage. /just my two cents, of course

        Milhouse in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 25, 2021 at 12:27 am

        Here’s the thing, if she can’t stand her ground on local / state issues, how is she going to fare on the global stage? All any enemy nations have to do, seeing her bow to the NCAA, is threaten the economic well-being of America. What is her go-to plan to make up for lost NCAA revenue? Oh, right, no plan, just caving.

        Fuzzy, that’s not a good argument. SD’s standing in the USA is not like that of the USA in the world. SD in the USA is like, say, Bolivia or Iceland in the world.

        When you’re a small country you can’t have a policy of always standing up to bullies. When you’re threatened by a large country, or a powerful multinational company or organization, generally your only option is to cave, unless you can form a coalition to stand with you. Imagine Costa Rica trying to take on Facebook, or China. A few years ago when the USA went up against Antigua over online casinos, they caved, because what choice did they have? Nobody thinks less of them for it.

        And that’s SD’s position versus the NCAA. Now if Noem were the governor of California, or Texas, she could take a completely different stance. Then she’d be like the USA in the world, able to stand up to bullies and take them on. So if she were to become president no other country will think she’s a pushover just because she was one when she was in a position where she had to be.

          I hear you, Milhouse, but mostly I just hear “blah blah blah.” Frankly, the entire reason we look to governors as potential presidents is their executive experience, their abiltiy to govern and to make meaningful decisions that affect their state. If you are now saying that’s not a good measure of a potential presidential candidate’s ability to govern because South Dakota is not the U.S., then, well, where are you on gubernatorial experience in the presidential race? I mean, if her inability to govern her own state effectively on an issue that matters a great deal not only to her constiutents but to the nation as a whole, suddenly doesn’t matter, what does?

          As i said, I get why people like her. I don’t. So what? I have only one vote in one state.

          Mim Moco in reply to Milhouse. | March 25, 2021 at 8:16 am

          Upvote for Fuzzy, just too low in the thread to allow votes. “I hear you, Milhouse, but mostly I just hear “blah blah blah.””

          Thanks, Mim Moco!

        And we are talking about “amateur” college athletics here, not academics. Telling the NCAA to stuff it doesn’t end women’s college athletics, which operate at a great loss, unless the colleges drop them. It WOULD protect women’s sports by effectively force trannies to compete against members of their own gender at birth.

        I really doubt SD’s athletic programs rely on NCAA competition anyway. Other then hockey, which is a regional sport, I don’t see any big money Ohio States or USCs in SD. And those programs keep getting hit with corruption scandals almost always involving alumni.

        The worst case scenario to Noam standing her ground against the NCAA is that SD higher education returns to focusing on education and allowing clean amateur sports for those interested. Sports should not be a big business for the NFL and NBA anyway. Let them organize their own farm systems. Most of these athletes don’t care much about diplomas. It’s about professional glory.

        CommoChief in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | March 25, 2021 at 1:25 pm

        Fuzzy,

        Gov Noam is doing just that; addressing local and State issues. The ability for female athletes to compete v female athletes K – 12 in competition sanctioned by the State of SD.

        The NCAA; National Collegiate Athletic Association is a um…….National body. Gov Noam and the State of SD can not influence the policies of the NCAA by themselves. They will need a coalition of the willing, likely exclusively red States, to come together, stay united and see it through.

        IMO, the important thing here is to focus on preventing harm to children; K -12 students. College athletes are legal adults. If Joe wants to become Jane, unless they have been adjudicated as suffering from a mental disorder that precludes them making their own decisions there isn’t a means to stop that.

        Adults are supposed to be able to take care of themselves. They can advocate for their own interests. Children can not. Lets focus on protecting the children while building a coalition of States to confront the NCAA.

      Burn_the_Witch in reply to CommoChief. | March 25, 2021 at 1:54 am

      Guess what, we’re totally free to criticize politicians without having to meet Commochief’s demands for legal funding. Votes aren’t predicated upon future legal costs. Try a better argument.

        CommoChief in reply to Burn_the_Witch. | March 25, 2021 at 1:10 pm

        Burn the witch,

        Of course you are free to criticize a politician for their policies. Though if you are not a voter in SD it’s just a noise of online mob criticism; A part of cancel culture. Which is the point of this particular article.

        Now if you are actually interested in advancing the issue you and others are demanding, that’s going to take funding and volunteer efforts.

        My point is if the issue is important enough to get posters fired up demanding Gov Noam take x action then, unless you are a hypocrite, the folks demanding that action will be lining up to send money and volunteer time in support of what is, to those posters, a critical issue.

        Obviously, I can’t demand you do so. Whether anyone does is between them and their own conscience and moral/ethical code.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to CommoChief. | March 25, 2021 at 4:34 pm

          Pounding that square peg harder isn’t going to make it fit into the round hole.

          I’m not sure where this silly idea that you must be a constituent to criticize a politician comes from, but it’s a patently stupid argument. State borders don’t offer immunity from criticism and criticism is not “cancellation” no matter how tightly you close your eyes and repeat the mantra. Nor does criticism come with a financial requirement to lend it moral or logical credibility.

          A stupid argument isn’t improved by making it more verbose.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | March 25, 2021 at 7:13 pm

          Burn the witch,

          Gov Noam is the Gov of SD. She doesn’t hold Federal office nor is she an announced candidate for any Federal office including 2024 Presidential.

          IMO, this is an issue for the folks in SD to take care of. I don’t want out of State folks intervening in my State nor attempting to influence my State.

          If she enters the 2024 Presidential Primary then by all means bring this issue up as a reason to oppose her candidacy.

          However, at the moment everyone not a citizen of SD is simply making noise on the internet, me included.

          As to making a commitment to follow through on one’s statements demanding a particular course of action or a more generalized ‘fight’…..if it is truly important then the advocates will pony up the cash or volunteer time to make it happen.

          If they fail to do so then they simply demonstrate a lack of conviction. Bottom line this is still a free nation. Write and say whatever you want, just keep in mind that for many of us observing this that the adage that
          ‘$ talks and BS walks’ still holds true.

          Barry in reply to CommoChief. | March 25, 2021 at 10:30 pm

          “…online mob criticism; A part of cancel culture. ”

          So, according to you, we have no right to criticize the decisions of any state, lest we become a “mob”. And criticism that you disagree with is “cancel culture”.

          Apparently you understand nothing about a blog such as this where people make their opinions known and criticize those they don’t like.

          The stupid is really strong these days.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to CommoChief. | March 25, 2021 at 11:11 pm

          “Gov Noam is the Gov of SD. She doesn’t hold Federal office nor is she an announced candidate for any Federal office including 2024 Presidential.”

          No sh*t, but nothing disagreeable here.

          IMO, this is an issue for the folks in SD to take care of. I don’t want out of State folks intervening in my State nor attempting to influence my State.

          Good for you. In the adult world of politics, we understand that we can and do talk about politicians in other states all the time. I don’t see CommoChief registering his righteous indignation on threads about Cuomo, or talking about the amount of money he’s pumping into that state if he is.

          If she enters the 2024 Presidential Primary then by all means bring this issue up as a reason to oppose her candidacy.

          You don’t get to set the rules on who I, or anyone else gets to talk about.

          However, at the moment everyone not a citizen of SD is simply making noise on the internet, me included.

          No sh*t. It’s called the free exchange of ideas, which, I should remind you, comes free of charge. If you don’t like it, that’s your problem.

          As to making a commitment to follow through on one’s statements demanding a particular course of action or a more generalized ‘fight’…..if it is truly important then the advocates will pony up the cash or volunteer time to make it happen.

          There’s that stupid take again. Repetition doesn’t lend credibility either.

          If they fail to do so then they simply demonstrate a lack of conviction.

          Conviction isn’t measured in dollars. But keep f*cking that chicken.

          Bottom line this is still a free nation.

          You are full of insight.

          Write and say whatever you want, just keep in mind that for many of us observing this that the adage that ‘$ talks and BS walks’ still holds true.

          Pretty sure it’s just you pushing this stupid line.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | March 26, 2021 at 12:34 am

          Burn the witch,

          You are living up to your screen name.

          I haven’t seen any rebuttal. In fact what I you keep doing is reinforcing the main thrust of my posts on this topic.

          You seem to prefer shooting your mouth off on the internet v concrete steps via funding.
          Talking about this isn’t going to solve the issue. It will take an investment in time and money.

          One thing you could do is lobby your local and State leadership to begin pressuring the Colleges and Universities in your State to adopt positions you agree with. Gather allies, build momentum for change.

          The policies of the NCAA are set by it’s member institutions. If enough people in enough States push this then that could have an impact.

          Neither you nor I running our yap on the internet is going to get it done. For the record I am following my advice in my own State. Hopefully you and others will do the same.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to CommoChief. | March 26, 2021 at 1:18 pm

          You are living up to your screen name.

          Irrelevant ad hom. You’re doing great!

          I haven’t seen any rebuttal. In fact what I you keep doing is reinforcing the main thrust of my posts on this topic.

          Your main thrust is wrong. I have explained why in unnecessary, but clear detail. That you apparently don’t get it isn’t my problem. Refuting your ridiculous claims is not “cancelling” you either. You can either maker a better argument, or claim victimhood. One of those gets you taken seriously.

          Here’s another point for you to miss and then claim I’m not offering – If we follow your stupid position to its illogical conclusion, then any politician who moves from the state level to the national level has their political slate wiped clean. Of course, that’s not how it works in political reality, and never has been.

          But from now on, I’ll be expecting not to see you chime in on state politics for any other state than your own.

          You seem to prefer shooting your mouth off on the internet v concrete steps via funding.

          Shooting my mouth off on the internet, like you are, is just one thing I choose to do. Anything else I do isn’t your business, Chief, and – get this – is totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Either you can engage in discussion, or you can make silly, irrelevant demands of others. One of those gets you taken seriously.

          Talking about this isn’t going to solve the issue. It will take an investment in time and money.

          I had no idea you were completely clueless how political debate and discussion works in a pluralistic liberal democracy, particularly ours for the last 250 years or so. I’m pleased to be the first to inform you of that.

          One thing you could do is lobby your local and State leadership to begin pressuring the Colleges and Universities in your State to adopt positions you agree with. Gather allies, build momentum for change.

          No shit. Again, some of us are capable of doing more than one thing at a time.

          The policies of the NCAA are set by it’s member institutions. If enough people in enough States push this then that could have an impact.

          Ahhh, now you’re starting to get somewhere. And Noem, being the executive in charge of on of those states occupies an influential position to lead that push. And since she’s a politician, the people have every right to try and influence her. And since the NCAA doesn’t just have members in SD, then – look out now – people from outside the state are chiming in when she goes the opposite direction from their political preferences.

          Neither you nor I running our yap on the internet is going to get it done. For the record I am following my advice in my own State. Hopefully you and others will do the same.

          I don’t really care what you’re doing outside of this forum. I love the “debate doesn’t help” idea. Thousands of years of recorded history would disagree with you, but go ahead and keep running with that, Chief. Either you can focus on the discussion, or you can’t.

          CommoChief in reply to CommoChief. | March 26, 2021 at 9:10 pm

          Burn the witch,

          The point is simply this. Most people want to be successful. Wanting is easy. Talking about goals is easy.

          Most people are unwilling to put in the necessary effort to achieve their goal. Whether that effort is measured in funding a particular cause or a lengthy/expensive education or time on a practice field.

          You seem to be arguing that it is someone else’s job to advance your political policy preferences. Similar to the folks in New Orleans waiting for someone to save them during and after Katrina.

          The ‘gubment’ nor any politician is going to save you nor advance all your political policy preferences. If you want a certain policy you are going to need to spend time and money to build enough momentum and a large enough coalition to get it.

          Either you are willing to do that or you are not. Debate and discourse have their role but refusing to actually roll up your own sleeves and get to work to make your policy ideas a reality isn’t going to help in any meaningful way.

          Burn_the_Witch in reply to CommoChief. | March 27, 2021 at 3:01 am

          The point is simply this. Most people want to be successful. Wanting is easy. Talking about goals is easy.

          No, your point was simply that criticizing a politician from another state is “cancel culture”. You have since tied yourself in knots trying to defend that indefensible claim by claiming, also incorrectly, that political discussion is pointless. You make this claim on a freakin’ political blog, where you routinely engage in political discussion. Your self-awareness has apparently been misplaced for days now.

          I’m just continuing this in morbid fascination at this point.

          Either you’re capable of discussion, or you’re not. This is a discussion forum, Chief, not Gofundme.

          You seem to be arguing that it is someone else’s job to advance your political policy preferences. Similar to the folks in New Orleans waiting for someone to save them during and after Katrina.

          And you seem to be reading for something other than comprehension. I’m arguing, in clear, concise terms, that it’s perfectly acceptable to discuss politics in a political discussion forum. This isn’t complicated. You seem to have some sort of bizarre condition that includes a financial stipulation when you advance a stupid argument.

          The ‘gubment’ nor any politician is going to save you nor advance all your political policy preferences. If you want a certain policy you are going to need to spend time and money to build enough momentum and a large enough coalition to get it.

          Yes, Captain Obvious, but you don’t build coalitions with money alone. You develop ideas and you debate, so that you can form a coherent platform. You want to raise money, go to a forum that’s explicitly intended to raise money. Clue: LI isn’t it.

          But I’ll make sure to hold you to this standard from now on on these forums, when you’re talking about politics and not putting your money where your mouth is.

          Debate and discourse have their role…

          In a discussion forum, yes. Go figure.

          …but refusing to actually roll up your own sleeves and get to work to make your policy ideas a reality isn’t going to help in any meaningful way.

          Who said I’m refusing anything? I’m pointing out, yet once again – and read slowly if you need to – that any action that anyone’s taking outside of this discussion forum is not only irrelevant to a general political discussion, but it’s also not your business.

          This is a really convoluted way of avoiding discussion in a discussion forum.

This is a ridiculous claim that completely minimizes actual cancel culture. No, Kristi, disagreeing with you, an elected public servant, is NOT cancel culture. This claim minimizes and mocks the people and businesses that have been cancelled.

What’s next, if you aren’t reelected, you’re “cancelled’ not rejected by voters in favor of someone they prefer? Grow the F up.

This makes me nauseous. She’s not a victim, she’s not being cancelled, and she’s a disgusting sack of SJW crap.

All this does it reinforce my negative opinion of her. I loathe whiners and victim-claimers only slightly less than I loathe appeasers.

Burn_the_Witch | March 24, 2021 at 8:39 pm

Cancel culture is when mobs try to get non-political people fired or removed for political reasons.

Getting politicians fired for political reasons is called, get this, politics.

    Fantastic point, Burn_the_Witch, but my guess is the next Noem ploy will be that deplorable Republican voters are misogynist haters who hate her because she’s a woman, oh, and some other ist hatred because she”s part native American. She’s a shoo-in for MSNBC or CNN pundit. She will never be president.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend