this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2024
549 points (99.5% liked)
Memes
45625 readers
852 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
But like, why? Also why admit to it? Is she just a moron or something? Is there a lore reason for this?
Why kill the dog? It didn't listen to her, embarrassed her, and she couldn't have that. Why admit to it? People already knew about it; she thought she could get in front of the story by spinning it as "hard decisions had to be made" rather than "sociopath murders dog."
True that may be, however anyone with the capacity to reason should have been aware that this may not be the appropriate response to such an offense, especially with their future goals in mind. Someone bestowed with such an ability should also understand, that telling people about it is itself not the brightest idea, especially if one does it honestly. The question remaineth: is she an imbecile? (yep i head some fun with this)
The secret ingredient is the capacity to reason
I've heard two good explanations as to why she'd publicize such a story:
She botched a common Republican technique by choosing the wrong victim to villainize (full explanation here)
There are witnesses to the puppy murder (construction crew) so this is her way of getting ahead of the story before someone else tells it (AFAIK so far we've only heard her version; maybe reality is even worse)
That is what Democrats in the state legislature are claiming. That this was known in a lot of circles already and there were witnesses.
So this was damage control. The worst attempt at damage control I've ever seen.
Even Republicans love dogs.
(Almost) Totally out of context comment warning
Some parts of these articles are always so weird for me. It's not that I disagree or don't understand the point, but that it's always such a stupid part where they say "...now then, Trump said we're X and Y, now this actually isn't true, because in fact, he is." and I can't help but very silently yell to myself "my brother in Christ you are yet to prove your point in a logically sound way". I mean I know that he is and he acts like people other than him are, but it shouldn't be assumed I have that knowledge.
I think it's just bad writing from the journalists' part, that's all.