This text is a scathing critique of South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s interview, drawing strong parallels to Donald trump’s dialog style and disregard for facts. Here’s a breakdown of the key points and arguments:
* Rambling and Denial: The interview is described as “Trump-esque rambling” characterized by Noem repeatedly accusing the interviewer, Margaret Brennan, of lying, even when presented with data from her own agency (DHS).
* Misleading Statistics on ICE Detainees: Noem claims 70% of those detained by ICE have committed violent crimes, but Brennan points out DHS data shows only 47% have criminal convictions. Noem dismisses this as incorrect. This highlights a pattern of distorting facts.
* Erosion of Truth: the author argues the management, mirroring the Trump years, is actively rejecting objective truth, defining it rather by what they say is true.
* Justification of Violence & Misinterpretation of the First Amendment: Noem defends potentially lethal force against citizens (“murdering citizens on the street”) by citing vehicles used to attack law enforcement.She then proposes a system where protests are only allowed in ”peaceful protest zones” designated by the government, which the author argues is a direct violation of the first Amendment. The author points out the hypocrisy of such restrictions,suggesting they wouldn’t be applied to pro-Trump protests.
* Hypocrisy & “Doxxing” Claim: Noem criticizes brennan for using the name of an officer involved in a shooting (Jonathan Ross), labeling it “doxxing” despite the name being publicly available.This is seen as a ridiculous claim and further evidence of Noem’s disingenuousness.
* Overall Assessment: The author concludes Noem is “fully cooked” and indistinguishable from Trump and his inner circle, embodying a risky disregard for truth and a willingness to manipulate facts to fit a narrative.
In essence,the text paints a picture of a politician who prioritizes political spin and loyalty over honesty and adherence to the law,echoing the tactics and behaviors of Donald Trump. It’s a highly critical and opinionated piece, but it’s grounded in specific examples from the interview to support its claims.
