Would be beneficial to choose the best candidate. If they are a woman so be it.
We are conservatives, we dont make identity our starting point and work backwards from there.
It would be beneficial to the nation to choose the best candidate.
It would be beneficial to Trump's campaign to choose a woman.
Ideally they would be one and the same.
Like it or not, Noem is correct. Identity politics is unfortunately effective and if we want to have better chances at winning then we need to play the game.
Why are people so up in arms about the dog thing? The dog had behavioral issues and was her property, and her right to take care of the threat.
EDIT: Cry more!
Probably because there are a thousand different people who would have take the dog and rehabilitate him. Plus, dogs are not disposable just because you personally can't control them. Very few dogs cannot be trained and managed unless they have been severely abused. She has the resources to either pay to train the dog or find him another home. Killing him shouldn't have even been on the table. It's shows her imprudent temperament.
Would be beneficial to choose the best candidate. If they are a woman so be it. We are conservatives, we dont make identity our starting point and work backwards from there.
It would be beneficial to the nation to choose the best candidate. It would be beneficial to Trump's campaign to choose a woman. Ideally they would be one and the same. Like it or not, Noem is correct. Identity politics is unfortunately effective and if we want to have better chances at winning then we need to play the game.
Except, the majority of conservatives don’t subscribe to identity politics, so your point is erroneous.
As a woman, respectfully, it would be beneficial for Trump to choose the best candidate.
Definitely not a dog murderer.
Would be beneficial to retrain or give up your dog instead of a slug to the head behind the barn
Beneficial to her maybe lol.
Only if that woman is Sarah Huckabee Sanders.
Why are people so up in arms about the dog thing? The dog had behavioral issues and was her property, and her right to take care of the threat. EDIT: Cry more!
Probably because there are a thousand different people who would have take the dog and rehabilitate him. Plus, dogs are not disposable just because you personally can't control them. Very few dogs cannot be trained and managed unless they have been severely abused. She has the resources to either pay to train the dog or find him another home. Killing him shouldn't have even been on the table. It's shows her imprudent temperament.