811
Trump, 78, says ‘only stupid people put old’ people in top federal roles
(www.independent.co.uk)
Well shit, we knew that
this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
811 points (96.2% liked)
politics
19097 readers
3434 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
He's talking about how long young people will last on the supreme court. Still gross, but this article is click-baity and dumb with its premise.
Ok, imagine Joe Biden said it.
Imagine the histrionics.
It would still be a dumb article.
Yeah, it's a bad look essentially saying you should only put young justices on the SCOTUS in order to control it for longer. However, that is not a dumb thing to say. It's logical if your goal is control, which his obviously is. It's why the lifetime appointments are so bad. It encourages putting young, less qualified justices on the court instead of older, potentially more qualified ones.
It applies and should apply no less to the most powerful office and single person in the world
Especially since that person would probably love to remove the term limit so he can stay in power
Yeah I'm not arguing that. But the point is different... He's talking about longevity, not acumen.
load more comments
(1 replies)
No, it doesn't apply, at least not for the same logic. He didn't say that because the older people are less capable. He said it because a younger person will give you control for longer most likely. They're lifetime appointments, so the logical choice for maintaining control is to appoint healthy young people, not the most qualified people.
load more comments
(1 replies)
The title is basically a blatant lie, easily shown to be deceptive simply by reading the article.
Yet look at this comments section and how many people have bought the deception hook, line, and sinker.
We shit on Republuicans for being idiots who support Trump, which is true, but it's almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.
it's almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.
Well I wouldn't go that far lol
every accusation is a confession
Every accusation is a 40-minute impromptu concert to cover a dementia-addled man's sudden confusion by what all these people are doing in his house
Lol .... at this point they should just put him in a room full of about a hundred of his supporters and tell their leader that he is emperor of the United States. Then just feed them all AI generated CNN news broadcasts of his nation doing everything he wants. Let them all live like this until they die ..... none of them would probably notice the difference.
In the meantime, the rest of could go about our lives trying to save humanity on this planet.
I've seen this be called, "heavenbanning" — you are shadowbanned from a platform, but instead of just shouting into the void, the void caresses your ego with AI slop.
If you used them as batteries, this would be the beginnings of The Matrix. I wanna be Tank so I can die off-screen between storylines.
Yeah, I was also here for the Matrix with extra steps comment.
The guy is so fucking delusional it isn't funny. He was always a dumbass even back in the 80s.
I used to see him on Entertainment Tonight and think "this guy is an idiot. How is he so rich?"
Inherited 400M invested in real estate and went bankrupt every time he really crapped out to avoid paying everyone. He still ended up worse off than an index fund until he became a reality TV star.
I'd come to learn it was mommy and daddy's money later. You should have seen my face when I learned that rich people just give their kids money whenever. I thought that the parents made them work for it in order to build character or some such other nonsense
Considering the previous two elections, Trump just called the majority of the country idiots.
Even Trump can occasionally be right!
A broken clock is right twice a day; however, a broken cuckoo clock is still cuckoo all times of the day.
Biden wasn't that bad a choice. I would have preferred someone to the left of him, by a lot, but I can acknowledge that he's done an objectively good gob, all things considered.
That infrastructure bill is already righting the economy. I think it could go further, but these things take time. Even so, we're in a much better position today than 4 years ago. We could be better, but where we are isn't horrible for where we came from.
So yes, Biden has enacted policy competently. Overall a C+. Maybe even a B- but there are things I'm unhappy with.
Like his DoJ slow walking the Jan 6th prosecutions, and not being aggressive about them. I mean, it was an open conspiracy to overthrow the US government. That had the wife of a Supreme Court Justice involved, along with about a dozen former and current Republican lawmakers.
The sentencing hearings for all of them should have been held last year, and yet most of them haven't even been charged.
Then there are the genocides.... I can understand the ones where the US is not involved at all (beyond them being organized on Facebook, we should be doing something about that after all...) but the genocide in motion that the US is actively enabling... that shit needs to stop for Biden to get that coveted A.
Still miles better than Trump... And due to First Past the Post, that's the options we have. Come November 10th (for incumbents that win, Jan 10th for the newly elected) I'll be sending letters to my congressmen, and anyone else who's address I can find, talking about voting reform. Real voting reform, not the flawed RCV bullshit. But things like Approval and STAR.
Harris seems like the sort of person who will at least focus on the DoJ, so carrying on the Biden policies, and maybe a few tweaks of her own, she'd be in solid B- range. Maybe up to a B+ if she enacts some actual social policy. But no A until the Genocides stop, or at least is US stops enabling them.
Harris seems like the sort of person
That quote and the fact that she isn't Biden or Trump is her 90% of her campaign as of this moment. Feel free to link me her official platform otherwise.
Thank you for your grading scale breakdown. My own scale is quite different. "No A until the genocides stop" is an interesting viewpoint.
Also, this whole post kind of came out of left field. Perhaps, you meant to reply to my other post from yesterday?
Mostly it started as a Biden was old, and was a fairly good choice to follow Trump.
So Age need not be a disqualifier on its own...
After that, I started rambling a bit.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
"But you're a 78 year old person running for president"
"Let's watch me stand on stage and listen to music for 45 minutes"
He forgot he's not 40.
He was talking about his supreme court appointees and how long they would last since it's a lifetime appointment and he put them in young. Merit and seniority never crossed his mind, only opportunistic gaming. He probably wouldn't be bragging about it if supreme court appointees were only four year appointments.
Any limit would be an improvement, even 10 or 20 years.
only thing hes ever said with any truth to it
False. One time he said the economy does better under democrats.
when was that?
Long before he ran for president, presumably
He’s both the joke and the punchline.
That was a loaded headline, since he was referring only to Supreme Court judges who get to stay in for as many decades as they'd like.
load more comments
(1 replies)
He's not wrong.
What an absolutely fucking ridiculous comparison...
I hate defending Trump, but this is the difference between LIFETIME appointments vs maybe 4 years, 8 tops for president...
BE BETTER MEDIA ASSHATS.
:/
I hate defending Trump, but
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.
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.
load more comments
(1 replies)
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.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
view more: next ›