649
Trump, 78, says ‘only stupid people put old’ people in top federal roles
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
649 points (96.4% liked)
politics
19047 readers
4187 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Then don't. You aren't obligated to defend him.
I disagree with his sentiment. Higher turn over on the Supreme Court is part of the proposed Supreme Court reform.
Defending him because "nuance" is stupid, he doesn't have any, why project it on him? What has he done to earn it? This is how narcissists maneuver -- people's eagerness to see their good side; it doesn't exist for the narcissists.
The problem is when misrepresentations run wild, the other side can highlight examples and say "see, the left is out there lying and twisting the obvious truth", and destroy the credibility of all the other material.
Like when Fox News would bash Obama for wearing a Tan suit or fist bumping someone. Any potential legitimate criticism they could relate is undermined by being a laughing stock over such stupid stuff.
With Obama, I suppose I could get it as a strategy because he didn't supply enough "juicy" material to be substantive, so they didn't have much alternative but to try to generate stupid outrage. With Trump, he is constantly blatantly showing maliciousness or incompetence, why bother undermining credibility by wasting time highlighting and trying to distort a rare occurrence of him not being incompetent?
This is like that "sanewashing" thing. "What he means is this..." no. No need to do him any favors.
But it's not even that. He said what he meant and then the chucklefucks looking for clicks went on with the "BuT HeS oLd ToO! HuR dUr, HoW dUmB!" when it's not the same comparison at all.
I guess I'm just sick of all large media outlets lately.
I’m just happy to see users calling out these bullshit articles taking shit outta context. I don’t have a ton of time to read the news. So I prefer my brief overviews of titles to be factual and contextual to what the authors implying. Which it’s the independent so already knew it was probs bs.
But what bothers me is that even when the blatant deception is pointed out, you still have a large percentage of people here actually defending such bullshit.
Just because he's an asshole doesn't make what he said wrong. I'm more angry at "the media" for trying to make something out of nothing for clicks. Their comparison is stupid.
Really they are just defending honest assessments of facts. Unfortunately, because the title of the article is so disgustingly disingenuous and blatantly misleading, it led a lot of people to believe his statement is blatantly hypocritical. . .so by pointing out reality you are actually "defending Trump."
You are all but admitting that reality doesn't matter. Sounds exactly like Trump supporters. Please don't be like them.
Then what you want is term limits.
I don't like Trump, but I get his point. It's the same argument he makes about taxing the rich. Guess who has the power to fix that, too?
People in power rarely make laws to limit themselves.
"His point" makes it sound like he's thought about it. I guarantee you he has not. This is a talking point he was reminded of five minutes before the planted question was asked and he almost blew that.
Seriously, he's demented. His only thoughts revolve around him and his money - that's it.