Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Kristi Noem Vetos Bill that Bans Males from Destroying Female Sports
South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem has vetoed (twice) the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act. But she’s claiming that she didn’t veto the bill. The very constitutional provision she cites in her letter (the right) states that what she did was veto the bill! “Bills returned shall be treated in the same manner as vetoed bills.” But she seems to be pretending that the legislature vetoed the bill by not complying with her demand to allow men to compete in women’s college sports. Or something. I’m somewhat confused!
But one thing’s for certain: She’s pretending she didn’t veto the bill, even though she did. It’s not enough to throw girls and young women under the bus, she’s gaslighting her constituents (and the rest of us).
What a disappointment. What is she thinking?
Published in Politics
She stated on Tucker Carlson about a week ago that she was going to ask the legislature to fix the situation. She saw the situation just as you have expressed your view of it.
I haven’t followed up on her since her Tucker Carlson interview, but maybe the legislature has not met yet, or maybe they refused to fix it.
We voters in Calif are in the same pickle repeatedly. We have propositions that the public has clamored for finally arrive on the ballot. “Save Children From Sex Trafficking” or whatever. (Hypothetical case.)
But if you read the bill, it turns out in the small print that after the bill is passed, any parent who screws u up with an unpaid parking ticket can have their kids taken from them by the state.
So then you have to vote against the “Save The Children” Act.
How easily all you ninnies – sorry, Ricocheti- are stampeded by the superficial. Noem explained her position but no one is listening. Far easier the facile but ultimately ineffective show piece legislation. She takes the long view that it will be far better to build an effective opposition than to pass legislation that will invite opposition to be knocked down one by one. Please consider what she says rather than reacting to the emotional moment.
Thank you. Headlines have turned the public against her, but she is aware of what the ramifications of the bill could mean.
We are not yet in April, and if she stalls the needed law until it is thoroughly refined, and then that offers the better legal option, I think the public in the Dakotas can afford to await. Even if it takes til July.
I think @jameslileks has used it occasionally in The Ricochet Podcast.
There is much not to like here. When does a debate about Noem’s actions that’s been going on for some time cease to be “superficial”? In a similar vein, is it really only a “moment”? Hardly. I’ve been following this to the point of reading the Argus-Leader from SD, and have no axe to grind against Noem even after this dispute. Still her messaging–right or wrong–has been poor. She has traded on not being a typical pol, so we should not be surprised when she gets called out for starting to sound like one.
Taking this kind of aspect too seriously can mean that some greatly-needed changes will never happen. Mortgage interest deductions, etc. People buy more house than they really need and/or can reasonably afford, based on the interest deduction. If you then want to do something about the deduction because it’s… well, basically just a bad idea, really… you’re told that you can’t because of all those people who “depended on” the interest deduction when they made a foolish decision. Maybe 10 years ago, maybe 20 years ago… maybe last month.
She explained her position. Many of us don’t find her convincing on this issue. That doesn’t make us ninnies, nor superficial. Please read the article I linked earlier, which I do find convincing in terms of why her statements don’t hold water. E.g., There is already a coalition working on the issue. Forming another is redundant.
If you’re suggesting I’m one of those people, you missed my point.
My point was that Trump’s propensity for starting what were often inane Twitter spats regularly overrode his accomplishments, taking the wind out of his sails and making it even more difficult for him to get positive press coverage than it naturally seemed to be. One of the last examples I remember of this was his considerable accomplishments in the realm of Middle East peace, against all odds, and trying a completely different strategy from anyone before him. In the midst of the series of announcements that this country, and that country, and the other country, were signing up, Trump went off on some completely unrelated Twitter thing (about what I don’t even remember, but he probably started a fight with a Republican, who’d been a supporter but had done something Trump didn’t like, something like that). It sucked all the air out of the Middle East news, as all of the media went after the Twitter rants, instead of being forced to confront the good news that was coming out of the Middle East.
That’s what I objected to. Not that he said stupid things on Twitter, but that he said stupid things at incredibly inopportune times, things which diminished his accomplishments and gave his adversaries fuel for their fires. I don’t guess I’m alone in this attitude, which may be what people call “pearl-clutching” at Trump’s demeanor, but that is a gross mischaracterization of it.
I would argue that they only “diminished his accomplishments” for certain people who likely weren’t paying much attention anyway. They were told what to believe by the media, and they did. The evidence is that it wouldn’t have made any difference if it was some other Republican.
QED.
Great, so all you have to do is fix all of the media. Because you can’t fix the voters.
You’re not.
Are members of Ricochet more properly called “Ricocheti” or “Ricochetti”? I prefer the later, but Geezer Bob prefers the former? We need for one of the PTB to weigh in!
I thought that he should’ve stuck with ninnies. The other two alternatives sound like something they serve in Naples with a nice Marinara.
Or something that happens in a bad Italian “Western” movie.
I’d like a biscotti with my ricochetti.
Actually, sounds more like it’s related to a machete. Ricochete.
Ricchoscetti: Pasta shaped like a deformed bullet.
Isn’t that shells?
I don’t know about anything else, but Machete was a fun movie. It was made because the fake promo for it during the “Grindhouse” double-feature was so popular.
Colloquially shells are known simply as pasta cartrigiana.
You’re right, I won’t. But it’s OK, Bryan, you can say his name. We all know you would walk through fire to see Mitt Romney get the nomination again.
They have a recording of it on Glenn’s web site. This link will take you to it, the video is most of the way towards the bottom of the page. It is 12:42 long.
Ricochetti. For verification I looked on the official store for Ricochet merchandise.
Thank you, @randyweivoda. This is deserving of a follow up post to deal with the evolving story.