1186
Kristi Noem is a fraud. (media.patriots.win)
posted ago by d_bokk ago by d_bokk +1206 / -20
Comments (340)
sorted by:
45
whraglyn 45 points ago +54 / -9

cant make up my mind in re biz owner rights v state mandate bans; her take on the matter seems most amenable to my own rather libertarian Christian Patriot pov, so in this matter I cant fault her non-statist approach herein.

Howwwwwever; she were not only on the stand for xiden install, her enthusiastic congrats to the rat immediately after install 'oath' went far above and beyond 'polite' or 'professional courtesy' standards: it were quite clear she approved 100% of TheSteal right in her face.

Her cooperation w SpinelessGregAbbott on the whole 'we'll secure the border using state resources legal and NG' headfake also marks her as just another RINO who cannot be at all relied on when chips are down, imo.

And those dead-ass zombie eyes in every frame public of her face...

24
Porkbut 24 points ago +24 / -0

Anti-discrimination is not just a left wing issue, and this is directly that. Are we the party of individual freedom or business rights? And when the two are at odds, who should be supported? I understand the argument against business mandates as a principle, but then there also needs to be extensive trust busting to allow actual competition and not monopolies which are antithetical to laissez faire capitalism. In other words, if she does this she also has to go after the walmarts, amazons, etc. operating capacities so that actual competition can be engaged in.

27
Prudentwait 27 points ago +27 / -0

This isn't a problem in a small business economy. The problem is when there are 10 monopolies and every other business is eclipsed or shut down by the government.

20
tyuah8 20 points ago +23 / -3

This idea that "private businesses can do whatever they want" really needs to go, as this creates an infinite source of power to carry out agendas.

If we have laws governing how governments can behave, why don't we have laws governing how private businesses can behave, given that many of these private businesses are more powerful than entire countries/governments?

17
FreddyThePatriot 17 points ago +17 / -0

This idea that "private businesses can do whatever they want" really needs to go, as this creates an infinite source of power to carry out agendas.

The only people I will listen to with this opinion on those who admit civil rights laws need to go. Until you tell me that my business can fire a person of a race I don't like or a sex I don't like, then fuck off with 'businesses" can do what they want.

14
deleted 14 points ago +15 / -1
2
glow-operator-2-0 2 points ago +3 / -1

Bake the gay cake, and I can ejaculate the frosting.

0
Dialectic 0 points ago +1 / -1

Ok don’t. Laws were never going fit perfectly together. Customers and businesses need protections from being forced to do things

-16
deleted -16 points ago +2 / -18
15
d_bokk [S] 15 points ago +15 / -0

Oh, look, a handshake account is pro-Gay. There's nothing "holy" about sodomites.

-22
deleted -22 points ago +1 / -23
17
d_bokk [S] 17 points ago +17 / -0

Said the degenerate.

8
Gurren_Laggan 8 points ago +8 / -0

He literally says so in the Bible 🤷🏼‍♂️

6
Porkbut 6 points ago +6 / -0

If God cares enough to make a natural order, maybe we should care enough to respect it? Maybe He cares what you do in the bedroom because unholy bonds tend to degrade men, and the most intimate expression of a bond is done by being intimate. So maybe perverting that is perverting His design, and if thats the case then further corruption is not good for men, and maybe He cares about your soul more than you do your flesh?

1
AppalachianTactical 1 point ago +1 / -0

But what if you didn't want to make the cake? Just one individual baker turned it down and offered the job to another baker in the same business. The gay dudes partner got bitchy because they demanded HER artistry, but she said it was at odds with her faith.

0
deleted 0 points ago +1 / -1
1
AppalachianTactical 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know exactly what im talking about handshake dipshit.

7
HuggableBear 7 points ago +9 / -2

You don't solve that problem by mandating how they must do business, you solve it by shattering the monopolies.

7
Axios87 7 points ago +7 / -0

Problem isn't just monopolies. It's corporate culture that all the companies are bullied into compliance. Kroger is by no means a monopoly but they will require passports because all the other corporations require passports

0
HuggableBear 0 points ago +2 / -2

You simply set a maximum size on a company. Once companies reach a certain size, they must be broken into smaller entities or face penalties so harsh it's no longer worth doing business.

Yes, it's a complicated problem that would have lots of people trying to get special dispensation and coming up with a million reasons for it to be done differently. That's no different than any other national government program.

Except this one would be designed to protect consumers instead of profits.

5
tyuah8 5 points ago +5 / -0

How are you going to stop those "monopolies" when the same people who say "private businesses can do whatever they want" are the same people against any form of intervention to... "shatter the monopolies"?

How about not having unrestricted power, since even governments themselves do not have unrestricted power.

2
HuggableBear 2 points ago +2 / -0

How are you going to stop those "monopolies" when the same people who say "private businesses can do whatever they want" are the same people against any form of intervention to... "shatter the monopolies"?

This is indeed the crux of the entire problem. If we had politicians with balls, these companies would have been gone long ago.

1
Necrovoter 1 point ago +2 / -1

You don't solve that problem by mandating how they must do business,

Good thing they don't have to get a business license, or pay taxes, or follow employment laws, or zoning laws .. or

Wait, are business really governed by laws? When did that happen?

If Joe Biden said that all Americans must allow him to sniff their children, would you be okay with companies mandating all employees sign a sniffing consent document?

Wake UP! Common sense Trumps purity of ideology. "muh business rights" too often falls into the ideological purity zone.

1
HuggableBear 1 point ago +1 / -0

If Joe Biden said that all Americans must allow him to sniff their children, would you be okay with companies mandating all employees sign a sniffing consent document?

Yeah, i would, despite this being a ridiculous strawman, because I could go somewhere else to a business that doesn't require that. It's how markets work.

They only cease working that way when you end up with companies that are so large they function as monopolies and there is no longer another option. Which is why you fix it by breaking monopolies, not by mandating bullshit.

And since you brought them up, I also believe that business licenses, business taxes, and employment laws are all equally bullshit. The only one you mentioned that is acceptable to me are zoning laws because the local population absolutely should get to decide where businesses are allowed to open.

For all your other brilliant points that you think you're making, you can miss me with that shit too.

1
Necrovoter 1 point ago +1 / -0

The only one you mentioned that is acceptable to me are zoning laws because the local population absolutely should get to decide where businesses are allowed to open.

Local population. 2 blocks? The same street? One city block? A small town? A county? A state?

There is no single definition of "local" The Constitution recognizes states as having rights and historically, states had differing perspectives on how things should be run.

I could go somewhere else to a business that doesn't require that. It's how markets work.

In a truly free market you could. As competition dwindles and choices become limited to a very small group, you can no longer do that. When a company has a monopoly, such as a utility, you can no longer "choose" which company to shop with. If you think monopolies can be shattered by consumer choice alone, you are living in an imaginary world.

There is a reason for studying history - so the same mistakes aren't made over and over. A limited set of regulations on businesses are needed. Most of what we have now is garbage, but not all of it.

If you had paid attention to President Trump, you would have remembered that he never pledged or wanted to eliminate ALL regulation on business, but that he wanted to cut 75% of it. His executive order that required agencies to revoke two regulations for every new rule they wanted to issue, is a good example.

Like Newton's three laws of motion, some business laws are necessary to keep everything functioning and from becoming one giant criminal cabal.

Anti-bribery laws for instance.

1
HuggableBear 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you think monopolies can be shattered by consumer choice alone, you are living in an imaginary world.

Dude, are we even in the same conversation here? I'm literally arguing that you fix this shit by having the government break up monopolies.

You're the one arguing that the government should instead mandate how companies run their business.

4
nickybops 4 points ago +5 / -1

Libertarians are cringe as fuck.

1
AppalachianTactical 1 point ago +1 / -0

the problem is these new libertarians are all disenfranchised democrats, when I became more libertarian it was back when Ron Paul was thr main example.

Perfect libertarianism doesn't exist, it is utopian garbage too. You have to balance it out with some common sense. Its like they all strive to be perfectly in sync at the cost of their own principles. Real libertarianism is less intervention balanced with some principles.

Obviously people should have more rights over their business, you should be able to say who comes in just like your home, but until we stop allowing monopolies again there are some things where the individual should come first, There should be some contractual protections and businesses shouldn't be able to dictate anything regarding a person's health beyond not having them come in while they are sick and potentially spreading, but only until they are better.

4
whraglyn 4 points ago +5 / -1

'...and this is directly that.'

My understanding of current court doctrines herein, is that what most call 'discrimination' is unlawful because it is based on innate physical characteristics not alterable by anyone; whereas mask/vacc mandates, esp by private entities like small, (under 200 emp), biz, are neither legally nor philosophically similar, inasmuch as such are behavioral rather than innately based mandates.

Throw in biz owner rights of free association, on top of their biz property rights, and the case for her stance herein seems to me to be about as based Constitutionally as possible, from a rights perspective.

Iow, 'anti-discrimination' is a catchall term for most folks, meaning 'racist bias against or for a given person based on race creed color etc', not based on behaviors of such persons so 'discriminated' against, and with which her decisions herein are in no way at all related to behavioral mandates re masks/vaccs.

Again, though herein her decision is rather strongly MAGA, imo, her many other failures MAGA are stains ineradicable, imo she is forever unreliable for any trust MAGAwise.

9
SecurityBlanket 9 points ago +9 / -0

My understanding of current court doctrines is that the Roe v. Wade decision was predicated on the justices of the supreme court perceiving within the constitution an expansive right to medical privacy whence is derived (after some elaborate contortions) a right to abortion.

Odd how this right to privacy seems to have narrowed to apply only to abortions.

5
Porkbut 5 points ago +5 / -0

What physical characteristics are exhibited by being gay? Yet it is a protected "class", same with religion, therefore it cannot be about physical characteristics that are unalterable, otherwise it does not follow its own definitions. Both are behaviors.

1
whraglyn 1 point ago +3 / -2

bro, no diss no slur, just diff interps liberty in re, is all.

also, libtards hold that 'gay' is inborn, thus protected.

we and they know the claim is moot even if not as false a premise as the day is long, yet that premise dictates policy.

not here to argue fine points philosophical even w fellow pedes, just stated my long considered perspective in re a matter of liberty.

Dunno if you are much of a reader, but anyone who thinks at all about such matters, because such matters do matter, will yuuuuugely enjoy the R A Heinlein 'Farnhams' Freehold' time travel social commentary fantasy adventure from early '60s.

Havent read it since college years, but still glad of all i gained in each of the over a doxen times i read it before then.

Highly recommended for sheer reading enjoyment of a rollicking fun story, told by a master even his critics admire for perfection of what is called the 'dialog ear', the writing knack for natural and engaging dialog, which is among the elements foremost in inviting reader engagement to point of suspension of disbelief and jumping into the narrative.

Many insights Liberty related, also, my brother pede.

In fact, its been near 40 yrs since i dove in, lol, so here goes....

;-)

9
IeatCrakerzNbed 9 points ago +9 / -0

Gays: Gay is inborn

Also Gays: singing in harmony "We'll CONVERT your children...we're coming fooooor yooour choiiiildreeeen!!".

That don't sound like they believe it's inborn.

...Just an independent observation.

1
Necrovoter 1 point ago +2 / -1

My understanding of current court doctrines herein, is that what most call 'discrimination' is unlawful because it is based on innate physical characteristics not alterable by anyone;

So, the NBA would be forced to hire a 3'10" basketball player who wants to be a center, because he can't change his innate height? Surely, short people could prove disproportionate hiring standards in the NBA based off of heights.

whereas mask/vacc mandates, esp by private entities like small, (under 200 emp), biz, are neither legally nor philosophically similar, inasmuch as such are behavioral rather than innately based mandates.

I'm not sure if you've ever run your own business. If you have/had, then it should be painfully obvious to you that you don't get to look at your employees medical records, even if you are paying for their medical insurance. Vaccines are medical, and protected by HIPAA.

That the government (HHS’ Office for Civil Rights ) relaxed a lot of standards under false pretenses doesn't make them legal. The law itself wasn't changed.

Wake up! Quit pretending businesses can legally violate Constitutional rights.

12
Gnometard 12 points ago +12 / -0

The country wasn't founded for businesses.

It was for the people.

Businesses have A PRIVILEGE, the people have rights.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
9
krzyzowiec 9 points ago +9 / -0

There are certain things you just don’t do, one of which is medical experiments on your employees.

It’s not their business to mandate anything about your health.

This story reminds me of those women who painted watch dials with radioactive material. They were even putting it on each other’s faces for fun because they had no idea how bad it was.

8
defiant_liberty 8 points ago +8 / -0

Unfortunately, a lot of these companies are publicly traded, and they are effectively being propped up by printed up money from the federal government imposed central bank. I'm all for companies making their own private choices with their own private property, but I'm not all for companies fucking people over because they want to be the government's bitch.

6
IeatCrakerzNbed 6 points ago +6 / -0

^exactly this^

The same companies that can tell people if they don't want to get clot shots, they can find jobs elsewhere, can ALSO tell employees who are vaccinated, that if they're so scared of vaccine failure and people who have the right to refuse the shots, that THEY can find work at places who only hire lab rats like them, instead of demanding others take unnecessary risks for the sake of their irrational fears. There's always turning the focus on the fact that just because they assumed a medical risk in an experimental therapeutic, that this don't justify anyone else being forced to lose their job for refusing a potentially hazardous procedure. That's the person's own personal choice to place their faith in an experimental procedure that they obviously have little faith in the efficacy of.

If the shots are effective then get back to work and mind your own business or find work elsewhere...they have no problem telling people who don't want to risk permanent physical Damage from a shot that supposedly prevents a strain of the flu.

They aren't mandating any other type of flu shot. Why not?

2
bigly4trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

OSHA made covid-19 transmission in the workplace a recordable event and so all of these companies are trying to cover their asses. Yet i could literally infect someone with tuberculosis at work and that doesn't need to be reported to OSHA.

2
IeatCrakerzNbed 2 points ago +2 / -0

Exactly, or or someone in California can run around with AIDS deliberately infecting people and the the law protects a deliberate murderer. Anyone can come to work with any other coronavirus, the common cold or influenza, where's the authorization edicts about those? Now we all have to subject ourselves to a government funded medical experiment because someone gave this fucking flu a scary number after it's name. Authoritarianism is thousand times as deadly, spreads even faster and there's only one known cure for that, there's many platforms and deliver systems for that one cute for it, but it's starting to look like the world has a far more imminently dangerous threat.

5
Gnometard 5 points ago +5 / -0

Isn't it amazing how they got so many people to support oligarchy under the guise of business rights?

It's crazy, I mean the constitution is pretty clear that rights are granted to businesses by the creator.

Oh..

Wait.

Businesses don't have rights because they're not people?

Too bad it's too late to unfuck fat retardation

2
Stanwyk74 2 points ago +3 / -1

And by China

4
Ghostof_PatrickHenry 4 points ago +4 / -0

I like the compromise of “employee assumes all liability of side-effects caused” because it basically makes it a non-starter. At the very least the employer would really have to do their homework on any potential mandate.

26
DomTullipso 26 points ago +30 / -4

You know she was for lockdowns, for masks, for all that bullshit:

Her legislature stopped her, although she takes all the praise

8
Patriot_Lettuce 8 points ago +8 / -0

Very good info to know!

5
lixa 5 points ago +5 / -0

You know she went to the fake inauguration and posted her congrats to the imposters on twitter? F her.

24
TwitterIsTrash 24 points ago +24 / -0

This is what scares me. I have not seen ONE state pass a law banning employers from mandating vaccines. If I can’t work, I can’t earn money to live. This means vaccine or homelessness. That is some North Korea BS

2
TXPatriot_73 2 points ago +4 / -2

Start your own business, hire other unvaxxed.

18
deleted 18 points ago +18 / -0
8
Coolgenner 8 points ago +8 / -0

Same boat, but to enjoy old age I have to give up the job for the jab. FML.

4
bigly4trump 4 points ago +4 / -0

Hold out, resist, make their lives hell for as long as possible

13
MAGAholic2 13 points ago +15 / -2

Will this board, filled with low IQ morons, still shill for her? Like they did when she folded against transgenders because of the ncaa?

16
d_bokk [S] 16 points ago +17 / -1

The shilling should have stopped when Noem allowed a couple dozen communists to block the entrance to President Trump's celebration of America at Mt. Rushmore.

But what can you do? Simps gonna simp.

11
krzyzowiec 11 points ago +13 / -2

She is weak, but this is a female politician so what do people expect?

14
Cyer6 14 points ago +14 / -0

I think she's a female Governor Abbott. When she sees her numbers dropping, she'll do some kind of right-leaning thing to boost them. Then when all is quiet again, she'll go right back to being a Rino when she thinks no one is paying attention. This is what Abbott does.

2
clownworld30330 2 points ago +2 / -0

Vote Allen West for governor.

1
OKRancher 1 point ago +1 / -0

She’s a politician. Women are normally more lenient and “care givers” by instinct but she’s not weak because she’s a woman. Look at Boebert and Green.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +2 / -1

There's no such thing as a strong woman.

0
AlexWin1939 0 points ago +1 / -1

Boebert and MTG have bigger balls than you and have done more for conservatives than you ever will.

1
krzyzowiec 1 point ago +1 / -0

That's fair, I don't use Twitter at all.

1
lixa 1 point ago +1 / -0

MTG and Boebert aren't weak. There are even more weak men in politics. Lame.

0
krzyzowiec 0 points ago +2 / -2

There's no such thing as a strong woman.

3
lixa 3 points ago +3 / -0

Like they did when she went to the fake inauguration and congratulated them on social media? That's worse than anything.

-2
AlexWin1939 -2 points ago +1 / -3

Another fucking GED Retard!

oh let me guess, muh transgender sports bill.... "I did executive orders the very next day to ensure only girls were playing girls sports in South Dakota" Noem explained that the original bill "ALLOWED ANY STUDENT THAT DID NOT MAKE A SPORTING TEAM TO SUE THE TEAM AND THE PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM" She also pointed out that it didn't define what steroids or performance-enhancing drugs were acceptable, such as cortisone shots and inhalers, predicting the "flawed" bill would ultimately become a "litigation nightmare." """ You haters are so dumb you think any student that fails to make a high school sport team should be allowed to sue the school. You haters are true liberals wanting everyone to get a participation trophy. """ "We have to be strategic in how we fight these fights to win. I'll fight every day of the week, but I fight to win. I’m just not going to fight stupid fights that will set us up for failure," Noem said. """ You haters will cheer for rhetoric that does nothing to fix the problem, over actual substance that will fix the problem! """ The South Dakota governor revealed she plans to introduce her own bill she is confident will pass in the state legislature and can withstand challenges in court. """ Noem has done more for conservatives than you've ever dreamed of. SO what else ya got to hate on her for, give me the material...

1
MAGAholic2 1 point ago +1 / -0

"SO what else ya got to hate on her for, give me the material..."

Lmao. This topic. She just said coerced vaccinations are okay. Stop simping. Go rub one out and stop being an idiot.

1
AlexWin1939 1 point ago +1 / -0

Sounds like you need to rub one out to Big Mike faggot.

9
deleted 9 points ago +10 / -1
9
deleted 9 points ago +9 / -0
9
FreddyThePatriot 9 points ago +9 / -0

There are no free business when government is colluding with businesses.

We live under corporate fascism.

8
Monzie 8 points ago +8 / -0

The main problem is when all businesses in a field collaborate to all require vaxx so that no one can leave their job to go elsewhere. Norm is retarded if she thinks large businesses aren't going to do that.

1
Necrovoter 1 point ago +2 / -1

She knows they will and doesn't care.

Krusty Kristy might as well have said this:

"Workers whose employers are mandating that all employees be male for continued employment have the power to say no. Our robust economy and job market gives women the option to find a new employer that might hire a woman"

7
Prudentwait 7 points ago +9 / -2

"The capitalists will sell us the rope we use to hang them." - Vladimir Lenin

7
EvilGuy 7 points ago +7 / -0

We need fighters not tolerance. Not meet in the middle compromisers.

I think most people reading this realize that's the main thing that got us here.

We need to start fighting every single shitty battle and picking new ones as well. We are never on the offense against the left.

6
FreddyThePatriot 6 points ago +6 / -0

Told ya. Republicans always fuck you in the end.

6
MuhNameJeff 6 points ago +6 / -0

Get this to the front page!

6
MythArcana 6 points ago +6 / -0

So, her stance on the matter is to simply go find another job. And when they all decide to mandate, then what? She's not very good at taking a stand on anything. She rolled over on tranny sports, let the feds bully Mt. Rushmore out of Independence Day fireworks, and now this.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
bigly4trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

I am suspicious of all these "firebrand" female Republicans like MTG and Boebert. I think when the rubber hits the road they will be conspicuously absent from the fight

1
AlexWin1939 1 point ago +2 / -1

They have bigger balls than you and have done more fighting for conservatives than you ever will.

2
bigly4trump 2 points ago +2 / -0

Speak for yourself you limp wristed faggot. I'm tired of these grifters who talk a loud game on twitter then roll over an apologize when the leftists get riled up (see MTG apologizing for holocaust comments). If you can't trust them in peacetime to not grovel before the enemy, then what about wartime?

1
AlexWin1939 1 point ago +1 / -0

And you haven't and won't do shit, while they risk everything fighting every day in the public eye. How pathetic you are.

1
bigly4trump 1 point ago +1 / -0

Speak your yourself again you fucking stupid piece of shit. Did you even get off your fat lazy ass and go to DC on 6th? No? Then kindly fuck off.

0
AlexWin1939 0 points ago +1 / -1

You think making 1 trip to a rally means you’ve done more for conservatives than Governor Noem?? Wow you really aren’t playing with a full deck. She’s a better conservative than you will ever be. Make sure to wear a helmet when you go outside.

6
Dictator_Bob 6 points ago +8 / -2

Another Nuremberg violation. Was the money worth her soul?

6
Smurfection 6 points ago +6 / -0

I have to agree with the "instincts of a gerbil" assessment. She was wrong on biological man playing on women's sports teams and she's wrong to tell EMPLOYEES to basically just find a new job.

btw, I don't like calling people "workers". Up until around the 1990's, we never referred to people in the USA that had jobs as workers. Only communists and socialists called them working. For most of the 20th century, we called people who had jobs, Employees and it implied there was an employer/employee relationship.

5
hillarysdildont 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wow there is some desperation in the air when the deep state calls one of their deepest infiltrated assets to the stage to shill NWO talking points and federal expansion.

4
DragonEnergy2 4 points ago +4 / -0

After the betrayal of 30Pence, it's understandable that Noem, DeSantis et al, would come in for some hyper scrutiny. Frankly I doubt there is a single GOP leader other than Trump who is not controlled.

3
entwickelnden 3 points ago +3 / -0

also, its experimental.... its experimental... how can it be mandated?

3
deleted 3 points ago +4 / -1
3
zzzil 3 points ago +3 / -0

For the people who say "they're a private business. They can do what they want," well they've never been doing what they want. They're saddled with Affirmative Action and diversity BS and we know for a fact that Democrats politicians threaten them to make them do their political work. Not to mention all the Twitter crazies harassing them. So while you're saying "they can do what they want!" Democrats are saying "You'll do what we tell you to do."

We're facing disgusting, immoral people that have zero consistency in their beliefs and only want power. They spent all last summer supporting rioters while short circuiting about January 6. People need to stop playing the good guy and worrying about their values against people that have none. The only goal any conservative should have should be destroying the Communist agenda

2
TDS_Consultant 2 points ago +2 / -0

If we abondon anyone who does one or two things we don't like we will quickly dissolve our own movement. This opinion of hers is dumb and she should be informed that it lacks support. To just abandon support and call her a fraud is absolutist and unsustainable. Are we going to call Trump a fraud next because of operation warp speed? If we act like this there is practically NO ONE that would be good enough to support.

We cant just abandon leaders that offer a net positive over a few bad ideas. We DO need to make it known that they should reevaluate their position. Eating our own is something that should be left to the leftist.

1
AlexWin1939 1 point ago +1 / -0

So many people here are either full retards or actually shills that want patriots to fail.

1
d_bokk [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

You know you're a lemming when you're more worried about abandoning a bad leader than that bad leader abandoning their constituents.

2
Urusovite 2 points ago +2 / -0

Duh. Who didn’t already know this? We talked about this ages ago at her other fuckup when it came to signing a bill to ban CRT or maybe it was to combat big tech. She didn’t sign it though.

2
Throwingway22 2 points ago +2 / -0

After the RINOs we need to purge the conservaterians.

2
2
Populist_Leader 2 points ago +2 / -0

Republicans like her suck. Being a “principled libertarian” is stupid this day in age. The sole objective needs to be like Jesse said: protect citizens from the system.

On one hand, everybody in SD could reject that amazon job, but amazon would just import 3rd world folx to do it anyways

2
basedvirginian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Notice all the down doots on the post? Not a lot of people want the based wahmen on our side to be called out for their grift too

2
SamQuentin 2 points ago +5 / -3

It’s a matter for the courts, not gubernatorial decree. She is correct on the facts.

2
Easter_Bunny 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not everybody is going to be in lockstep with your values, she's done a hell of a lot more than most anybody else out there. She's done some great stuff so quit trying to crucify everybody over one issue.

2
deleted 2 points ago +5 / -3
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
thallos 2 points ago +4 / -2

She's right though

1
BoughtByBloomberg2 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hmm hard to say. If businesses mandate vaccines any state benefits should be revoked because they are imposing something upon the workers. But a company can and should be able to demand certain protections. Just like divers have to get a medical check up to prove they don't got one lung or whatever.

1
y_do_i_need_to_hide 1 point ago +1 / -0

Corporations run everything because we want cheap shit. If you let your employer tell you what to do, you deserve what you get. If you think it is your government's job to save you, you are a Democrat.

1
FL_Trumpnado 1 point ago +3 / -2

THIS IS 1000% Garbage just like Desantis hit piece

2
d_bokk [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1

Notice how WAPO and NYTs leave Noem alone? It's because she's on their side.

1
becky21k1 1 point ago +2 / -1

Jesus Christ you guys are going to have nobody to ever support if you throw everyone overboard the second they do one damn thing you don't like.

2
d_bokk [S] 2 points ago +3 / -1

Here's a tip for women, if you want to be perceived as conservative you should, you know, be conservative.

1
Scumbag-reddit 1 point ago +5 / -4

Bull shit she is.

She isn't able to dictate whether the state can stop a private business from choosing to only employ vaccinated people; that would have to come from state legislation or judicial ruling.

She's doing what she can and is one of the very few based as fuck governors.

1
d_bokk [S] 1 point ago +2 / -1

Cunt vetoed the bill to stop mentally ill boys from inflicting brain damage on girls in sports. She's 100% RINO.

1
Scumbag-reddit 1 point ago +3 / -2

My friend you are mistaken; read up on it a little more. She declined to sign the bill because she believed the bill wouldn't get past legal challenges by democrats. She offered revisions to the bill that lawmakers declined so she declined.

She then signed a couple of her own executive orders instead that banned men from participating in women's sports.

1
d_bokk [S] 1 point ago +4 / -3

Yeah, I heard her lies last time. They were just as retarded as the lies she's using now to support vaccine mandates. Like I said, she's a fraud.

-1
Scumbag-reddit -1 points ago +2 / -3

You sound like a retarded shill.

I just undid your entire argument now you're moving goalposts.

Fucking shill.

0
d_bokk [S] 0 points ago +2 / -2

No you didn't, you cucked for CCP corporate America.

0
clownworld30330 0 points ago +2 / -2

That's idiotic. If the dems were going to sue, let them. They might win, they might not.

0
Scumbag-reddit 0 points ago +2 / -2

She. Signed. An. Executive. Order.

Meaning she took the bullshit language out that she knew would get struck down, and made it official with her EO.

I dont know what's so hard about that for you people.

If its challenged in court it means they cannot enact it until the ruling is brought down.

By issuing her EO instead, it bypassed that and immediately banned trannies from playing in women's sports.

Holy fuck you shills.

2
clownworld30330 2 points ago +2 / -0

How about she makes a stand and if the courts say no then try your way. Who's the shill? You are.

1
AlexWin1939 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lmao what a fucking retard you are. She did EOs the next day and I already explained that but you just ran away and threw weak insults since there is no logical retort.

1
muhlum24 1 point ago +2 / -1

There’s no winning side here imo. You either give the business the option to choose or you potentially fuck the employee.

4
d_bokk [S] 4 points ago +4 / -0

Seeing as nearly all businesses are cucking for communists, the winning side is choosing the average patriotic American.

2
clownworld30330 2 points ago +2 / -0

What the fuck are you talking about. She could ban vaccine mandates. She could ask the legislature to do so if the courts reject her EOs. There's no losing in that.

1
Grond999 1 point ago +3 / -2

Noem is cancer. Amarxica builds.

Noem is for mandated school vaccines too.

1
jsnforce 1 point ago +2 / -1

She's not a fraud, she's just wrong in this instance. Jesus you fucking puritans.

1
k_the_c 1 point ago +2 / -1

Very disappointing. She did the hard part when she refused to lockdown and impose mask mandates only to throw it all away.

1
CoffeeIsForClosers 1 point ago +1 / -0

FHUTA then a chopper ride.

1
clownworld30330 1 point ago +1 / -0

Not one governor signed onto Paxton's lawsuit. DeSantis is perhaps the biggest disappointment.

My guess is they all got the GOPe memo, and either always on board or got on board. Not one fought.

1
k_the_c 1 point ago +1 / -0

I thought a few states signed on to it? Was this a different lawsuit?

1
clownworld30330 1 point ago +1 / -0

25 AGs did.

No governors though.

1
k_the_c 1 point ago +1 / -0

Didn't know that. I assumed the AGs were proxies for the Govs.

1
clownworld30330 1 point ago +1 / -0

They're elected. No governor signed on.

2
k_the_c 2 points ago +2 / -0

I hope DeSantis has the stomach for all of this. It'd be a shame if he turns out to be another Romney-type. He seems to be working hard to atone for the initial shutdown he imposed.

1
Dialectic 1 point ago +1 / -0

You’re not free to change jobs when there are no jobs left that arent tyrants because the elected reps won’t do their fucking jobs

0
d_bokk [S] 0 points ago +1 / -1

Maybe not everyone is a loser like yourself who changes careers once a year from barista to bus boy? They don't want to lose all the work they put in just because of fascist libertarian idealism.

1
Dialectic 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lmao this fucking faggot. You’re probably ok with banks banning customers for political ideas too

2
d_bokk [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

ngl, I misread your post and thought you were one of the dozen Noem white knights spamming this thread.

2
Dialectic 2 points ago +2 / -0

Sorry bro. I misread stuff too. Frenly fire! Green on green!

1
nickybops 1 point ago +2 / -1

Libertatians are cringe

0
OwlHoller 0 points ago +3 / -3

Sounds like the free market to me.

Leave those jobs, the old job scales back or fails when it can’t hire adequate work, new job booms and takes over.

Aaaaand the fucking government doesn’t have to tell everyone what to do.

2
DaemonKrog 2 points ago +5 / -3

Yeah, I agree with Kristi Noem. If your job demands you get the vaccine, leave your job and find a better one. This will ensure both that you find a better job who's employer respects individual choice and also ensure that the woke employers go broke when all of their employees end up sick and/or dead. Government should not get involved in every little aspect to "help" citizens. The citizens need to take on the mantle of protecting their self rather than always fall back on big daddy government.

2
Forbidden_outcast 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are coming for every single employer. Just like they came for the internet, and television, and the media, until there are not enough voices left to be heard.

I don’t understand how people cannot see this and demand that their states prevent employers, in state or out, from mandating any medical procedure for something with a 99.7% survival rate for the working population

2
DaemonKrog 2 points ago +2 / -0

I don't care what it is. I want the government to stay out of my private life and out of manipulating markets and businesses. If they can use their time and energy to mandate some law saying a business can't force employees to get vaccinated they could also just as easily (or easier) put a stop to all of this by ending this farce of a "pandemic" and maybe put a stop to the propaganda via the MSM while they're at it. There's a whole lot more the could make use of their time and energy with than making new laws.

That said, I'm not going to bitch much if my state happens to make a law like this.. It's a matter of preference to me. I'd rather leave it to the free market. Then I can know if the company I work for is a piece of shit or not.

I refuse to work for a company that will not respect my personal medical choices (I.E. my human rights). If they're that cucked to cave into some external demands (of forcing vaccines) then I won't give them the benefit of my hard work. I've already told my employer that if they ever require the jab that I'm out. They said they understood and would not ever require it. That at least counts as a verbal contract. A bit bold maybe.. but I'd rather stand my ground than behind beaurocrats.

1
Forbidden_outcast 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree with every thing you say. But you are completely missing the fact that after they get all the big businesses to align with mandates, the little business will have to align or be closed. We see it with big tech. We saw it with the lockdowns. We see it online censorship. We see it deplatforming.

Once they get the big businesses to align- the ones out there offering you sanctuary now, will then be forced to comply or close. There big talk won’t get them anywhere when the full force of federal and state mandates comes down on them.

That’s what will happen. That’s what the plan is. Please don’t be fooled

1
DaemonKrog 1 point ago +1 / -0

If they're forced to close it would be by more government overreach, mandates, and laws... So again if they'd just stay out.. things would be fine.

1
Forbidden_outcast 1 point ago +1 / -0

But they’re not staying out it. They’ve just turned it over to the people that actually have more power than them- and without any of the regulations that they are held back by.

Turning major decisions over to big tech and big business is then skirting their own laws and the constitution.

1
DaemonKrog 1 point ago +1 / -0

Government staying out of free market doesn't turn everything over to big tech/business. Usually it's governments getting involved that does this. Governments get lobbyists from big business all the time and get laws passed in there favor or exceptions made for them. Small businesses don't have that luxury.

If govt. stays out of it then some businesses would try to dictate that all employees got vaccinated. Some would some wouldn't. I'd estimate that probably 30-40% of the employees in those jobs would leave or at least protest and stop working. Loss of productivity and or hiring new workers adds up quickly. If they fight their employer they could change things.. if not they leave and the employer has to find new workers (costs money). If this happens en mass, it will cost a collective shit ton of money and impact only those businesses requiring the jab negatively.

Any business that does not require the jab here stands to benefit the most and would likely overtake any that require it.

At worst.. the jabbed later on may start getting sick and/or dying. Businesses that required the jab will literally ad figuratively die.

Grow a backbone, take responsibility for your own personal health, and quit running to big daddy government to protect you. The government does not care about you. At best they would write a law to look like they protected you from this but will add exceptions to any businesses or industry that lobbied to allow them to d it anyway. Healthcare industry would lobby for it 100%. Point being... Any business that wants to do it is going to find a way to do it regardless.

1
Forbidden_outcast 1 point ago +1 / -0

I agree completely. It’s just that we are so far past that point that it’s almost silly to even bring it up.

We were so busy protecting -private businesses and the free market, that we neglected to see what would happened when private businesses became worth more than the government itself.

That led them to assume that since they (private businesses) were more powerful, then they should be allowed to set the rules for all of mankind.

This is directly opposed to a government of the people..... for the people, and who consents to be governed.

That’s where we are now. We no longer consent to what this shitshow has become.

Yet they are laughing at the fact that we’re just now catching on to how we got swindled out of our country, our families, our societies, and our jobs.

What’s been done cannot be undone, and it went so far (and so fast) over our heads, that we’re still sitting here talking about private businesses and their rights.

1
DaemonKrog 1 point ago +1 / -0

And private business and rights are always relevant. Using government to force something is always wrong. Government mandates got us into this sit, more government mandates will not get us out. Individuals in mass taking a stand will.

1
clownworld30330 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's ok for the Left and the Dems to use government force to do just about anything. It's not ok for Republicans to force businesses to not force their employees to do something.

LAME

0
DaemonKrog 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's not ok to use the government to force us to do anything. Full stop.

0
clownworld30330 0 points ago +1 / -1

You sound like a libertarian who says they want open borders and nip welfare state but concedes that they can't get no welfare state so hey, at least they'd like open borders. I know a number of those. Always surprising how stupid people can be.

0
DaemonKrog 0 points ago +1 / -1

You sound like an republican who loves big government.

Why are you trying to make a strawman out of me because I DON'T want the government to constantly try to "fix" problems. They always, without fail, make problems worse.

Btw you're only partially right. I am Libertarian.. but why the fuck would I want open borders??? I want a secure border and an end to welfare as well as the income tax all the same. Sound fiscal, policy and a balanced budget..

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
OwlHoller 1 point ago +1 / -0

“Govern me harder daddy” as we heard on slightly offensive last week.

You’re exactly right.

0
Kdiddy 0 points ago +2 / -2

A fraud? She never locked her people down. The only governor to NOT lock down. She can make mistakes, but not a fraud. She went against everyone - EVEN TRUMP - that is worth credibility in my book. We are just as taken by cancel culture as the left sometimes.

1
d_bokk [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because the SD legislature wouldn't allow her to shut it down, same legislature that passed the anti-tranny law that she vetoed like a Democrat. Same one she sent this tweet out for so they don't pass another bill that she'll veto like a Pence.

2
Kdiddy 2 points ago +2 / -0

Oh no… (that oh no has zero sarcasm behind it)… I really have that she was one of the good ones. So really she wanted to shut it down, but the legislature said no???

0
swift_water 0 points ago +16 / -16

She doesn't want the government interfering with business. If people hold up their end they'll leave these companies and they'll fail. That's a win win for SD, we don't want those companies here anyways.

But it does require we don't expect the government to save us.

12
d_bokk [S] 12 points ago +23 / -11

That's the excuse she uses to allow for conservatives to be turned into second class citizens, same one as the leftist libertarians. Your free market isn't free, it's controlled by oligarchs and you'd have to be a retard to side with her here.

0
swift_water 0 points ago +7 / -7

She's also the executive branch though not the judiciary.

She has the power to and has said she will not mandate this.

If a company is going to anyways they're open to lawsuits. Take that shit through the courts.

I'm not so "live and let live" anymore myself, I'm more so just pointing out the thinking around this.

4
d_bokk [S] 4 points ago +12 / -8

Oh, the courts? Like with the election fraud? She has the power to protect conservatives from having their life upended, but she's a lying coward who's doing the bidding of Biden. Quit making excuses, she was spineless when came to protecting girls from mentally ill boys in sports as well.

Cut the "principled" conservative bullshit.

-2
swift_water -2 points ago +3 / -5

Oy I'm not saying it would work relax.

And you're obviously well versed in that bill, and know WHY she didn't sign it.

Fuck yall are stupid sometimes.

I'm basically a theocratic monarchist mate lmao like the furthest thing from a libertarian.

2
d_bokk [S] 2 points ago +7 / -5

It wont work, and you know it, that's why people like you and Noem support it. Your types love to lose gracefully.

0
swift_water 0 points ago +1 / -1

Come on man, you ain't black.

No but seriously all I'm saying is it's consistent with her bullshit to date. Shouldn't be surprising.

-1
NomadicCuriosity -1 points ago +3 / -4

This is the line where you decide whether you want big government or not. There are pros and cons to both sides.

10
d_bokk [S] 10 points ago +11 / -1

Big government is the one coercing corporations into issuing this mandate because they know they legally can't do it themselves.

4
plaaaa 4 points ago +4 / -0

I want the government to protect me from psycho eugenists.

0
Necrovoter 0 points ago +1 / -1

This isn't big government. You haven't read the US Constitution in a long time have you? Re-read it and please tell us about ALL the parts that talk about the rights that business has.

...crickets.....

People have rights, states have rights - businesses do NOT have rights, except those that belong to people.

Does "Big Government" forces companies to collect sales tax in most states? Should all government rules on businesses be eliminated because we must "decide whether we want big government or not"?

Stop being a purist fool. Start using some common sense. If you have forgotten what that is, go back and watch some videos of President Trump. He will teach you how to win again.

-3
deleted -3 points ago +5 / -8
5
Projectedsoulimage 5 points ago +6 / -1

Then why can't you discriminate based on race or disability???? Oh that's communism from your viewpoint and it's an unassailable argument cuz it's government interference in how a business conducts it's business.

5
deleted 5 points ago +6 / -1
3
d_bokk [S] 3 points ago +8 / -5

No it isn't, the Founders loved tariffs and economic nationalism.

1
Towel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Correct.

-3
Asshat4Congress -3 points ago +6 / -9

she created the 3rd lowest unemployment rate in the nation, that gives laborers more power than any government should, so I think it is kinda retarded to think she is doing something wrong. What type of unemployment rate did the dude talking shit on twitter create?

8
d_bokk [S] 8 points ago +13 / -5

So that's an excuse to force mothers and fathers to choose between a paycheck and vaccine? How generous of her to allow them to be fired and force them to start over, true hero.

-10
Asshat4Congress -10 points ago +5 / -15

and your solution is to run every business out of town that wants to require a vaccine, that may be owned by a franchisee and the decision is made by the board in NY? why don't you just throw em in a ditch and shoot them for starting a business Mao?

14
d_bokk [S] 14 points ago +18 / -4

Yes, run those Democrats out of town. Exactly, they don't deserve to be protected by Noem, the people who voted her into office deserve it. Sick of you libertarian faggots who value communist business owners over Americans.

-6
swift_water -6 points ago +4 / -10

I'm the furthest thing from a libertarian.

She's not making them quit their jobs, the overreaching government is.

Is it her fault these people work for companies that are that woke?

We DO have some personal responsibility in this mate.

5
d_bokk [S] 5 points ago +8 / -3

"mate"

What country are you from?

-7
Asshat4Congress -7 points ago +2 / -9

ummm the communist hated business owners and exploited the working class, kinda sounds like you...as I said Mao

6
d_bokk [S] 6 points ago +10 / -4

When every corporation is decked out in rainbow flags and BLM fists -- yeah, they're the Marxists.

9
Nezmith 9 points ago +9 / -0

and your solution is to run every business out of town that wants to require a vaccine their employees to become part of an unethical science experiment

FTFY, let's stop this discussion here.

6
Projectedsoulimage 6 points ago +6 / -0

Why cant businesses discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or disability? Why is discrimination based on vaccination status any different?

You're no friend of MAGA if you're for businesses discriminating against people because of vaccination status.

That type of discrimination has not been practiced by businesses before and shouldn't be practiced now. And any businesses that have practiced it should cease immediately.

1
Asshat4Congress 1 point ago +3 / -2

no shirt no shoes no service commie, Trump doesn't like commies, MAGA doesn't like commies and if you think you're not a commie then maybe stop preaching government should control the means of production to protect the workers.

3
Projectedsoulimage 3 points ago +3 / -0

Let's let Democrats mandate the vaccine by pressuring businesses into mandating the vaccine so ultimately they don't have to.

Would be nice to live in a society where you could discriminate and choose who you wanted to hire with freedom as it was intended. That's ideal, but what happens when society uses that freedom of choice to actively seek to manipulate another group of people into submitting to their will and violating their freedom of choice by utterly destroying their lives?

But you know what? When you hired a whole bunch of people and then suddenly say get the vax or you're fired, and government and media and healthcare organizations are pressuring all businesses to mandate vaccines just so they don't have to then they can say all those who got vaxxed to keep their job got it willingly, you're going to moral yourself into perpetual poverty.

If you think they're going to just let the unvaxxed create a parallel society where they can function vaccine free you underestimate these people.

0
Necrovoter 0 points ago +1 / -1

no shirt no shoes no service commie,

A man in a wheelchair with no legs and thus no shoes comes in - you fail to serve him for not wearing shoes and you are going to lose a very large lawsuit.

Take the example of a business owner forcing his employee insurance provider to tell him which employees are getting botox treatments (on threat of withholding payments). That's a class 3 HIPAA violation and could get the owner up to a $1.7 million dollar fine and five years in prison.

Forcing employees to disclose their vaccination is the same kind of violation, under the law. The OCA decision in 2020 doesn't change the law.

2
krzyzowiec 2 points ago +2 / -0

My state did it and nothing happened.

2
clownworld30330 2 points ago +2 / -0

It's ok for the Left and the Dems to use government force to do just about anything. It's not ok for Republicans to force businesses to not force their employees to do something.

1
Stanwyk74 1 point ago +3 / -2

And yiu are why this country is fucking doomed.

2
swift_water 2 points ago +4 / -2

I own my house I don't owe you shit.

1
Stanwyk74 1 point ago +3 / -2

Just eat shit and shut the bitch up

0
ObongoForPrison2020 0 points ago +6 / -6

Meh. She is literally empowering employees. Sometimes people need to be reminded that they have an option, and she is reminding them that even if they DO get fired, her state has plenty of ethical employers hiring. Why would you want to work for an organization that mandates a death shot, anyways?

3
AbrahamLincoln 3 points ago +3 / -0

How many ethical employers are there, and how many will remain that way now that they've been given the green-light to demand their employees take part in medical experiments?

1
ObongoForPrison2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yesterday was the vaccine tipping point.

-1
d_bokk [S] -1 points ago +6 / -7

"Empowering" them to lose their jobs? More leftist lingo, I bet you think abortions are "empowering" too.

0
ObongoForPrison2020 0 points ago +4 / -4

That's a stretch. .Win's purity spiral over perceived slights has left it with few friends.

.Win glorifies grifters but shits on Noem on the regular, despite her being more than solid over time. You don't know what bad governance is. Trying being MAGA in NY or CA.

1
glasses2020 1 point ago +4 / -3

It's worse than Reddit and they don't even see it. You're exactly right, being a conservative in a heavily blue state really opens your eyes. This type of shit is pathetic.

2
ObongoForPrison2020 2 points ago +4 / -2

It's not like there are many businesses mandating in SD, anyways. Noem is literally warning businesses not to mandate shit because they will lose great employees to the competition.

"Conservatives" love to talk about political instincts and then completely miss the obvious.

0
ramennov 0 points ago +2 / -2

She has the soft heart of a woman.

0
glasses2020 0 points ago +4 / -4

My business my rules. Not forcing any of my employees to work for me. It's my decision if I want to shoot myself in the foot. Stop forgetting what side you're on.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
0
pelt 0 points ago +2 / -2

meh

0
Towel 0 points ago +3 / -3

She's not a fraud, she's consistent. Morally she's right - government shouldn't dictate what a business (or individual) can do.

BUT many companies are so entangled in government today that they're essentially extensions of the government. Crushing those "false businesses" is something that needs done for free enterprise to flourish.

2
clownworld30330 2 points ago +3 / -1

Which is why she's on the wrong side on this, and since she's been on the wrong side on surprising things, it's fair to question where she stands more generally.

1
Necrovoter 1 point ago +2 / -1

Morally she's right - government shouldn't dictate what a business (or individual) can do.

So, a business can tell their employees they can't own guns at home?
So, a business can tell their employees they must vote democrat?
So, a business can tell their employees they must start hormone treatments for transitioning to the opposite sex?

Wake up! Pull your head out of your butt. Stop being a "muh business rights" purist.

Or - on a practical note - next time you buy something at a store, try telling them you won't be paying for the sales tax, because it is morally wrong for government to tell businesses they must charge sales tax.

Wake up! Pull your head out of your butt.

Requiring employees to abort their first child (while still in the womb) and sacrifice it to Moloch isn't a business right. Nor is telling employees what kind of medical treatment they must have.

Wake up! Pull your head out of your butt.

0
Towel 0 points ago +1 / -1

Of course they can say those things, and of course you can quit.

Why would anybody continue working for or spending at a business that would do those things?

Wake up, stop being a "muh daddy government" slave.

0
Necrovoter 0 points ago +1 / -1

If you think Businesses can legally tell people they must vote for a certain candidate, you've got the brains of Joe Biden.

If you think most customers are aware of internal politics at the places they patronize, you have less brains than Joe Biden.

If you think the Constitution doesn't obligate government to protect citizen's rights over business rights, then you are already a government stooge.

You need some mental Narcan.