She can't even make it through interviews w Fox and Newsmax without looking like an idiot, nobody is letting her off the hook for the North Korea gaffe and she keeps doubling down.

Right-wing MSM is ready to cut bait and move on at this point.

Glad to see Republicans taking the dog out back, shooting it, then kicking its carcass into the gravel pit. Go team!

This is another perfect example of the differences in integrity between conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, we have no problem calling a spade a spade on one of our own. We don't defend them unnecessarily just for the sake of defending "one of our own".

Well said!

Despite a couple of examples from posters here, that applies to 95% plus of conservatives!

TRM said:

---

bobbranco said:

---

Glad to see Republicans taking the dog out back, shooting it, then kicking its carcass into the gravel pit. Go team!

---

Forget to log into your sock?

---

Dog pile away. Enjoy the hole you create.

Tramp96 said:

---

This is another perfect example of the differences in integrity between conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, we have no problem calling a spade a spade on one of our own. We don't defend them unnecessarily just for the sake of defending "one of our own".

---

that's not true at all

plenty of "conservatives" defend Noem and her infidelity. or the Alabama Senator candidate who dated 18 year olds when he was near 40 and backing him cost us the Senate control. or the witch in Rhode Island Senate. Or Kari Lake who is a loon.

how many arguments have their been on here about Trump's lies where his supporters will literally type "don't care, voting for him!"

LMCane said:

---

Tramp96 said:

---

This is another perfect example of the differences in integrity between conservatives and liberals. For conservatives, we have no problem calling a spade a spade on one of our own. We don't defend them unnecessarily just for the sake of defending "one of our own".

---

that's not true at all

plenty of "conservatives" defend Noem and her infidelity. or the Alabama Senator candidate who dated 18 year olds when he was near 40 and backing him cost us the Senate control. or the witch in Rhode Island Senate. Or Kari Lake who is a loon.

how many arguments have their been on here about Trump's lies where his supporters will literally type "don't care, voting for him!"

---

Nobody defends Noem's infidelity, the Senate candidate's dating habits or the others but thanks for consistently with falling for the lefts' discord and then not voting or voting against your best interests.

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump's a salesman, an embellisher, and yes, he is loose with the facts, but he doesn't tend to tell bold deliberate outright lies so much. With Trump the debate gets dragged into how hyperbolic something is or the degree to which something could be considered exaggerated. It isn't typically a statement of fact that is completely wrong in a material and consequential way to the issue at hand. The difference is more along the lines of getting someone convinced how important a thing is versus where it exists or not. But yes, Trump is one of those exceptions where conservatives have been put in a conundrum of do they take the good with the bad, which is why there has been such a substantial ambivalence over Trump with conservatives, in that he's not the first choice of many but they will take the bad with the good if he is the only option.

I think we're seeing the emergence of technology that can catch psychopathic or narcissistic BS'ers in self promoting of self advancing lies much faster than in the past. In the past to research and fact check took a lot of manual time and effort but with modern resources, not so much. This means the manipulation that was used so freely in the past is not going to be a low risk as it was in the past.

Notice there is very much a "dog pile" effect. Once someone offends a group, that group (or activists manipulating them) then goes and searches for any possible similar past offense and brings it to light to take part in the moment, and amplify it.

---

I don't know how you can say Trump doesn't tell bold deliberate and outright lies much. He lies pretty constantly and perhaps most his very frequent lies are the self aggrandizing used car salesman sort, but he still tells more outright substantive lies than most politicians you can name. The man just can't help himself. A simple example is his election fraud claims anytime he loses.

what's amazing is that Sarah Palin was pilloried much worse than Noem

and yet Palin is actually a pretty decent human being. she was just out of her depth as a national candidate.

Noem is the opposite. someone who pretends to be some super conservative warrior, but in reality was having an extra-marital affair with Lewandowski and lying about the North Koreans.

Palin is far superior to Noem on every level!

Which says we have to pick the liar with the best policies.

Personally, I am just fed up with all the liars.

Aggrad08 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump's a salesman, an embellisher, and yes, he is loose with the facts, but he doesn't tend to tell bold deliberate outright lies so much. With Trump the debate gets dragged into how hyperbolic something is or the degree to which something could be considered exaggerated. It isn't typically a statement of fact that is completely wrong in a material and consequential way to the issue at hand. The difference is more along the lines of getting someone convinced how important a thing is versus where it exists or not. But yes, Trump is one of those exceptions where conservatives have been put in a conundrum of do they take the good with the bad, which is why there has been such a substantial ambivalence over Trump with conservatives, in that he's not the first choice of many but they will take the bad with the good if he is the only option.

I think we're seeing the emergence of technology that can catch psychopathic or narcissistic BS'ers in self promoting of self advancing lies much faster than in the past. In the past to research and fact check took a lot of manual time and effort but with modern resources, not so much. This means the manipulation that was used so freely in the past is not going to be a low risk as it was in the past.

Notice there is very much a "dog pile" effect. Once someone offends a group, that group (or activists manipulating them) then goes and searches for any possible similar past offense and brings it to light to take part in the moment, and amplify it.

---

I don't know how you can say Trump doesn't tell bold deliberate and outright lies much. He lies pretty constantly and perhaps most his very frequent lies are the self aggrandizing used car salesman sort, but he still tells more outright substantive lies than most politicians you can name. The man just can't help himself. A simple example is his election fraud claims anytime he loses.

---

If there are so many, I'm sure you could come up with a few more examples right?

Im Gipper said:

---

Kristi Noem crashes and burns this morning on Newsmax 👇

NEWSMAX HOST ROB FINNERTY: If you asked me a month ago who's at the top of the list to run with Donald Trump, I would've said your name. If you asked me that same question this morning, I don't even think you're on the… pic.twitter.com/3sKHpo3pFY

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 7, 2024

In hindsight, going on the talk show circuit was not the best idea

---

I don't get why she keeps going out there. What can she possibly benefit from this?

Looking bad on the lame stream media is one thing, but doing it on non left wing Newsmax is something else.

Gov. Noem - You don't double down when you have 17.

Does she really think that is playing well?

I'm beginning to think her handlers are about as bright as she is.

BoydCrowder13 said:

---

Does she really think that is playing well?

---

She's interviewing for a cabinet position she's done as VP candidate. Likely if she were Trumps secretary of the interior she would have numerous press events where she is being assailed by the media.

She needs to prove she can handle this kind of a situation or she can hide and her career really is over then

Anonymous Source said:

---

Dan Scott said:

---

Can't trust politicians that go on book tours.

She was on CBS again this morning not looking any better.

---

If she thought it was going to be any easier on her this morning than it was yesterday, then she's too ****ing stupid to be elected to office.

Oh...and she's *****ing about "fAkE NeWs" who keep interrupting her while she's peddling her book full of...(checks notes)...FAKE NEWS

Commence obligatory MAGA whiny victimhood sequence … pic.twitter.com/V2zSVtlWuP

— Ron Filipkowski (@RonFilipkowski) May 5, 2024

---

All of this aside of which I've paid little attention to...her statement here is 100% accurate. There are two sets of rules in the media.

It sounds like she is reaping what she has sown. However, a Democrat would never face this level of scrutiny and push back from the media.

This is fact.

bobbranco said:

---

Glad to see Republicans taking the dog out back, shooting it, then kicking its carcass into the gravel pit. Go team!

---

Hard for Noem to complain when you put it like that.

Plus absolutely gorgeous

French official disputes Kristi Noem book passage about Emmanuel Macron: It’s the second time the South Dakota governor and VP contender has come under scrutiny for anecdotes in her book involving heads of state. https://t.co/HhRHVNWHhp

— Josh Mankiewicz (@JoshMankiewicz) May 12, 2024

Space-Tech said:

---

In order to have a constructive debate, both side must be grounded in a common reality. But when one side is devoted to its own conspiracy theories perpetuated in its own echo chambers then any commonality is gone. It's impossible to talk to most in good faith because you've let your feelings become fact, regardless of what the universal truth may be.

It's actually pretty sad that you so vehemently hate
your fellow countymen because they are not ideologically in lockstep with you.

---

Wow. Where to start? In order to have a constructive debate you need a POTUS that can speak in complete sentences without a teleprompter or pre-scripted questions provided by his handlers to the media.

Your second paragraph succinctly describes what the vast majority of Democrats think of Trump supporters.

Then there's THIS unapologetic LIAR...

No idea why Jen Psaki is trending but this is hilarious! pic.twitter.com/O8p45bTbEa

— Freyja™ (@FreyjaTarte) May 13, 2024

BurnetAggie99 said:

---

She's on the outs with Republicans in her own State. The dog & goat thing just added more fuel to the fire. She's pissed off the Native American's in her State as many have banned her from the reservations.

---

You called it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/noem-now-banned-south-dakota-141155884.html

Quote:

---

Noem now banned from all South Dakota tribal lands

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem (R) is now banned from all tribal lands in the state after the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe voted to bar her from their reservation Wednesday, citing her repeated claims that tribal leaders work with drug cartels.

Noem sparked the controversy in March when she said tribal leaders benefit from the presence of cartels operating on their land.
. . .
All nine tribes in the state have banned Noem from their lands - nearly 20 percent of the Mount Rushmore State - over the remarks, which she has refused to back down from.
. . .
Noem doubled down on the sentiment again in an interview last week.

"They are … definitely have set up operations in South Dakota. We've seen the Bandidos there, MS-13 is there," she said. "They've recruited members from the tribes."
. . .
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe spokesperson Alli Moran told The Hill last month that several tribes "share the same sentiments" regarding Noem, specifically that she does not respect or "fully understand" tribal sovereignty.

The governor blamed the criminal activity on the Biden administration and called on the tribal governments to step up their efforts against gang violence.
. . .
"I have no jurisdiction there because I'm a governor," Noem continued. "If they're a sovereign nation, the federal government has to step in, and the tribal leaders have to step in."
. . .

---

I suspect they make more useful bogeymen than they do constituents, so the level of care about this is probably pretty low for Noem. It may even help burnish her bona fides.

Aggrad08 said:

---

MouthBQ98 said:

---

Trump's a salesman, an embellisher, and yes, he is loose with the facts, but he doesn't tend to tell bold deliberate outright lies so much. With Trump the debate gets dragged into how hyperbolic something is or the degree to which something could be considered exaggerated. It isn't typically a statement of fact that is completely wrong in a material and consequential way to the issue at hand. The difference is more along the lines of getting someone convinced how important a thing is versus where it exists or not. But yes, Trump is one of those exceptions where conservatives have been put in a conundrum of do they take the good with the bad, which is why there has been such a substantial ambivalence over Trump with conservatives, in that he's not the first choice of many but they will take the bad with the good if he is the only option.

I think we're seeing the emergence of technology that can catch psychopathic or narcissistic BS'ers in self promoting of self advancing lies much faster than in the past. In the past to research and fact check took a lot of manual time and effort but with modern resources, not so much. This means the manipulation that was used so freely in the past is not going to be a low risk as it was in the past.

Notice there is very much a "dog pile" effect. Once someone offends a group, that group (or activists manipulating them) then goes and searches for any possible similar past offense and brings it to light to take part in the moment, and amplify it.

---

I don't know how you can say Trump doesn't tell bold deliberate and outright lies much. He lies pretty constantly and perhaps most his very frequent lies are the self aggrandizing used car salesman sort, but he still tells more outright substantive lies than most politicians you can name. The man just can't help himself. A simple example is his election fraud claims anytime he loses.

---

What substantive lie has he told the public that had any material effect on any policy or initiative during his administration? He engages in frequent salesmanish puffery and exaggeration that can be off-putting, but most objective people understand this is just the Queens real estate deal maker schtick. No one should take it seriously ("my administration did xyz the most/fastest/biggest etc."). Nothing is an outright fabrication like Biden has told his entire political career.

As far as election fraud, that's been proclaimed by the left and corporate media (but I repeat myself) to be "unfounded" or "illegitimate" but the only thing that can actually be said is that it's unproven in a court of law. As to why that is the case, a lot of courts used standing and mootness in a clever way to avoid even addressing the issues presented. I think most reasonable objective observers can acknowledge there were incredible irregularities in key precincts in the last election and many of those were never litigated. So Trump can say it as a matter of opinion, and others can disagree. It's not an objective truth there was no fraud.

Flavius Agximus said:

---

What substantive lie has he told the public that had any material effect on any policy or initiative during his administration? He engages in frequent salesmanish puffery and exaggeration that can be off-putting, but most objective people understand this is just the Queens real estate deal maker schtick. No one should take it seriously ("my administration did xyz the most/fastest/biggest etc."). Nothing is an outright fabrication like Biden has told his entire political career.

As far as election fraud, that's been proclaimed by the left and corporate media (but I repeat myself) to be "unfounded" or "illegitimate" but the only thing that can actually be said is that it's unproven in a court of law. As to why that is the case, a lot of courts used standing and mootness in a clever way to avoid even addressing the issues presented. I think most reasonable objective observers can acknowledge there were incredible irregularities in key precincts in the last election and many of those were never litigated. So Trump can say it as a matter of opinion, and others can disagree. It's not an objective truth there was no fraud.

---

First, I think we are all clear that trump lies as a basic matter of course. And most often in defense of the stupid or to self-aggrandize in humiliating ways. He lies the way a man child or moron would lie, and most the time it isn't policy related, because broadly, trump doesn't even know policy. His go to response is to say "we have the best plan ever, we will release it soon" and then to never do so because he has no clue how to respond.

And no his lies are not limited to exaggerations, though are often not about important policy. He lies outright from everything to Obama's citizenship to crowd size to funny enough his own heritage which he falsely claims is Swedish.

He lies at a frequency that no other American politician in history can be compared to without exception. And at what point is an exaggeration just an outright lie? When he says the economy during his tenure was the greatest in US history, or that his tax cuts were the largest in US history, or that job creation was the greatest in US history ect, it's just not a reflection of reality. Or for a bolder lie he's repeatedly congratulated himself for passing the veterans choice act...passed by Obama.

As far as trying to limit the conversation to lies he tells about policy, ok he's done that to, but I don't see how that trying to confine it to policy talk in this thread makes sense. Most politicians lie more about non-substantive rather than substantive things:

"We are going to build a wall and mexico is going to pay for it".

In other statements he indicated at least 1,000 miles of wall as the goal.

Trump ended up building 52 miles of new wall, and upgraded existing fences for a few hundred, mexico paid for nothing.

Trump also claimed he would eliminate federal debt over 8 years....That worked out.

Trump claimed Chinese exporters were bearing the brunt of the pain for his tariffs and not American consumers...

Trump on COVID: "We have it under control. It's going to be just fine" (January 22, 2020); "Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away"

Trump claimed that his administration "filled up" the strategic petroleum reserve but that under Biden it has been "virtually drained"; in fact, the reserve was not "virtually drained" under Biden, and it actually contained less when Trump left office than when he took office

As far as the election you have nothing and have had nothing since day one. The evidence for election determinable fraud has sat at 0 from day one. Trump claimed to have proof. Where is the proof? Let's be clear the president of the united states has unequivocally convinced his followers that he had proof of election determinable fraud in 2020 and that he actually won the election. It's hard to think of a lie that actually damages a republic more.

There very simply has never been a US president with less regard for the truth than Donald Trump. And it's not like presidents don't lie.

Aggrad08 said:

---

Flavius Agximus said:

---

What substantive lie has he told the public that had any material effect on any policy or initiative during his administration? He engages in frequent salesmanish puffery and exaggeration that can be off-putting, but most objective people understand this is just the Queens real estate deal maker schtick. No one should take it seriously ("my administration did xyz the most/fastest/biggest etc."). Nothing is an outright fabrication like Biden has told his entire political career.

As far as election fraud, that's been proclaimed by the left and corporate media (but I repeat myself) to be "unfounded" or "illegitimate" but the only thing that can actually be said is that it's unproven in a court of law. As to why that is the case, a lot of courts used standing and mootness in a clever way to avoid even addressing the issues presented. I think most reasonable objective observers can acknowledge there were incredible irregularities in key precincts in the last election and many of those were never litigated. So Trump can say it as a matter of opinion, and others can disagree. It's not an objective truth there was no fraud.

---

First, I think we are all clear that trump lies as a basic matter of course. And most often in defense of the stupid or to self-aggrandize in humiliating ways. He lies the way a man child or moron would lie, and most the time it isn't policy related, because broadly, trump doesn't even know policy. His go to response is to say "we have the best plan ever, we will release it soon" and then to never do so because he has no clue how to respond.

And no his lies are not limited to exaggerations, though are often not about important policy. He lies outright from everything to Obama's citizenship to crowd size to funny enough his own heritage which he falsely claims is Swedish.

He lies at a frequency that no other American politician in history can be compared to without exception. And at what point is an exaggeration just an outright lie? When he says the economy during his tenure was the greatest in US history, or that his tax cuts were the largest in US history, or that job creation was the greatest in US history ect, it's just not a reflection of reality. Or for a bolder lie he's repeatedly congratulated himself for passing the veterans choice act...passed by Obama.

As far as trying to limit the conversation to lies he tells about policy, ok he's done that to, but I don't see how that trying to confine it to policy talk in this thread makes sense. Most politicians lie more about non-substantive rather than substantive things:

"We are going to build a wall and mexico is going to pay for it".

In other statements he indicated at least 1,000 miles of wall as the goal.

Trump ended up building 52 miles of new wall, and upgraded existing fences for a few hundred, mexico paid for nothing.

Trump also claimed he would eliminate federal debt over 8 years....That worked out.

Trump claimed Chinese exporters were bearing the brunt of the pain for his tariffs and not American consumers...

Trump on COVID: "We have it under control. It's going to be just fine" (January 22, 2020); "Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away"

Trump claimed that his administration "filled up" the strategic petroleum reserve but that under Biden it has been "virtually drained"; in fact, the reserve was not "virtually drained" under Biden, and it actually contained less when Trump left office than when he took office

As far as the election you have nothing and have had nothing since day one. The evidence for election determinable fraud has sat at 0 from day one. Trump claimed to have proof. Where is the proof? Let's be clear the president of the united states has unequivocally convinced his followers that he had proof of election determinable fraud in 2020 and that he actually won the election. It's hard to think of a lie that actually damages a republic more.

There very simply has never been a US president with less regard for the truth than Donald Trump. And it's not like presidents don't lie.

---

Well, it may not technically be "drained" but it's at the lowest level it's been at since 1983...It stayed essentially flat during Trump's term. In fact, since the SPR was created in 1975, it has NEVER fallen anywhere near as much under ANY POTUS until Biden...

So, when you consider NOBODY ever took it more than about 6% down at any time prior, I might view that being down 44% since Biden took office to be "virtually drained"...

Words have meaning and drained means drained. To say your gas tank is virtually drained is to indicate you might have a mile left. To say you "filled it up" when in fact you decreased it, isn't exaggeration it's just a lie.

Thats not to discuss the appropriateness or inappropriateness of the amount used.

There are non idiotic ways to make these statements and these arguments. When did we start pretending otherwise?

Still take him over Biden, so there's that.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

She's gonna need to find a new career

---

Yeah, she done messed up AA Ron

Skimmed your response. Simple repetition of a narrative as if it were objective truth doesn't make it so. And a big flaw in your argument is to turn promises or statements of intent that were only partially achieved into "lies." Most normal politicians of either party state policy objectives and goals. Whether they achieve them or not comes down to a lot of factors, including being thwarted by the opposition. He didn't achieve some of his goals thanks to divided government and unprecedented resistance from the federal bureaucracy. That's not misstating an objective truth. Interestingly, Biden made virtually no promises other than amorphous stuff like bring us together or return to normality or be "not Trump." He's certainly succeeded in being "not Trump," but as to the rest he's been a miserable failure, or in your way of thinking, he lied.

Unless you are illiterate which is a solid maybe, there is plenty of Trump misstating objective truth. You can read plenty of examples in that same post.

your argument that a lie about campaign promises doesn't count is absurd. Which lies exactly count?

There are more examples of Trump misstating objective truth than literally any other politician.

Go ahead, list every Biden lie, there are plenty, and you'll have more than three from Trump for each.