Posted on 09/10/2023 9:04:27 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
She’s not a swamp creature at least. He certainly has an interesting choice to make.
Noem is excellent choice based on her record in SD.
If true, what is Trump fan boy Ramaswamy to do?
Kristi Noem caved to the "transgender" lobby when she vetoed a bill that would have prevented biological males from competing in women's sports or entering women's locker rooms and bathrooms. If she's afraid of a lobby that represents less than one percent of the population, how the hell can you expect her to stand up to the Red Chinese, the Russians, BRICS, the Deep State, and other groups that wield real power?
If you have valid arguments against her then state them. But don’t fall back on “oh well selecteing a woman is pandering.” You chased yourself up that tree, not me. Personally I have no idea who should be Trump’s Veep, and I am not even sure that I care, actuallyl
She signed a bill to ban men in women’s sports.
It is a common meme, here on Free Republic, that Kristi Noem went liberal on us on the transgender issue. It keeps cropping up .
signed a bill to ban men in women’s sports.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/south-dakota-gov-kristi-noem-signs-bill-banning-biological-males-from-girls-sports
South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill on Thursday that bans biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in the state, including provisions for college athletics.
The bill, SB 46, is designed “to protect fairness in women’s sports.”
The governor signed the legislation during a live stream from the state’s Capitol.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzcyMHkHEXU&t=11s&pp=2AELkAIB
South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem signed a bill on Thursday that bans biological males from competing in girls’ and women’s sports in the state, including provisions for college athletics.
The bill, SB 46, is designed “to protect fairness in women’s sports.”
The governor signed the legislation during a live stream from the state’s Capitol.
Noem addressed the transgender controversy last month in a statement from her office that noted plans to push the bill forward.
“One way a young girl exercises her liberty is on the fields and in the gyms of South Dakota: playing basketball, swimming competitively, and running track, just to name a few popular sports here in the Mount Rushmore state,” the governor said in the statement.
“It is in playing sports that a young girl can learn how to achieve and how to succeed. But some in our society want to take those opportunities to succeed away from our young women. Some schools and organizations across the country have sought to take away their freedom to achieve by changing the rules of the games,” she added.
Noem argued the “playing field” is not equal between boys and girls due to “common-sense biology.”
“When our children participate in sports and activities, they learn valuable lessons like teamwork, perseverance, and hustle. For many activities, the playing field is level for boys and girls: debate, theater, and academic competitions, to name a few. But for other activities, the playing field is not equal between boys and girls because of basic, common-sense biology,” she wrote.
The bill’s text reads:
Any interscholastic, intercollegiate, intramural, or club athletic team, sport, or athletic event that is sponsored or sanctioned by an accredited school, school district, an activities association or organization, or an institution of higher education under the control of either the Board of Regents or the Board of Technical Education must be designated as one of the following, based on the biological sex at birth of the participating students:
(1) Females, women, or girls;
(2) Males, men, or boys; or
(3) Coeducational or mixed.
Only female students, based on their biological sex, may participate in any team, sport, or athletic event designated as being for females, women, or girls.
For purposes of this section, biological sex is either female or male and the sex listed on the student’s official birth certificate may be relied upon if the certificate was issued at or near the time of the student’s birth. The failure to comply with this section is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for relief authorized under this Act.
I didn’t bother reading past this slop in the article:
She didn’t support the January 6, 2021 riot on Capitol Hill.
We are all entitled to peacefully protest. Violence is not a part of that. What’s happening in the Capitol right now must stop.
— Governor Kristi Noem (@GovKristiNoem) January 6, 2021
What the hell is this guy's point? That Kristi Noem would be a more credible VP candidate if she supported violent rioters?
She posted the exact same message President Trump had given when he called on his supporters to peacefully demonstrate at the Capitol.
Now that we’ve gotten this out of the way … which “GOP insider” would you prefer to Kristi Noem?
Selecting an evangelical Christian in 2016 to address a major weakness for Donald Trump was also “pandering.” It’s called POLITICS.
Pence an “Evangelical Christian” after being a fall-away Catholic?
After 1/6/21, he showed himself as either an atheist or open satanist.
I don’t care what happened in 2021. I’m explaining why he was selected as Trump’s running mate in 2016.
Interior Secretary.
Politics are often of the moment. And you are quite correct. The Pence selection was brilliant in 2016.
Yep, she is.
I won’t utter the name because the haters will start spamming the thread. It’s someone who is of one mind with Trump on most things.
———————————————————————
I’ll say it for you.
Ramaswamy.
IF you haven’t known a candidate’s political positions for years before a race, there’s no way you should consider them for such a high office.
————————————————————————
What stupid advice. What if we had taken your advice concerning Donald Trump?
Especially since years before his run for office, we did know his political positions. They were very liberal.
You should care.
Especially since it means he was the deep state’s plant back in 2016, and Pence’s “evangelical” posturing was just that; not that it got the evangelical vote for Trump who got it on his own (in both elections).
Well, that’s not the case.
Otherwise, you should be pushing for Donald Trump to run as an independent ... which sounds great until you realize he'd just be Ross Perot version 2.0.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.