482
submitted 10 hours ago by PortoPeople@lemm.ee to c/politics@lemmy.world
all 34 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 1 points 5 minutes ago

He forgot he's not 40.

[-] Phoenicianpirate@lemm.ee 8 points 3 hours ago

The guy is so fucking delusional it isn't funny. He was always a dumbass even back in the 80s.

[-] Zachariah@lemmy.world 39 points 7 hours ago

every accusation is a confession

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 20 points 6 hours ago

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

[-] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 5 points 5 hours ago

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.

[-] martyfmelb@lemmy.world 2 points 17 minutes ago

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.

[-] thefartographer@lemm.ee 4 points 4 hours ago

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.

[-] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Yeah, I was also here for the Matrix with extra steps comment.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 111 points 10 hours ago

Well shit, we knew that

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 84 points 10 hours ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 3 points 3 hours ago

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.

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 hours ago

it's almost like we are trying to out-stupid them.

Well I wouldn't go that far lol

[-] RestrictedAccount@lemmy.world 33 points 9 hours ago

Ok, imagine Joe Biden said it.

Imagine the histrionics.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 11 points 8 hours ago

It would still be a dumb article.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 19 points 10 hours ago

It applies and should apply no less to the most powerful office and single person in the world

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 hours ago

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.

[-] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 7 points 8 hours ago

Especially since that person would probably love to remove the term limit so he can stay in power

[-] JohnnyCanuck@lemmy.ca 3 points 8 hours ago

Yeah I'm not arguing that. But the point is different... He's talking about longevity, not acumen.

[-] ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de 11 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

"loaded"? Lol. It's a blatant lie.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 3 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago)

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... He's absolutely correct, you're an idiot if you choose an old person to be a judge for SCOTUS since you open up the possibility of them being replaced sooner...

In a world that isn't completely corrupted by partisan hacks we shouldn't care who ends up on the court, but because of billionaires we don't get to have that world...

BE BETTER MEDIA ASSHATS.

:/

[-] Clent@lemmy.world 14 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 0 points 3 hours ago

Then don’t. You aren’t obligated to defend him.

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.

[-] Wytch@lemmy.cafe 4 points 7 hours ago

This is like that "sanewashing" thing. "What he means is this..." no. No need to do him any favors.

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 5 points 7 hours ago

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.

[-] aStonedSanta@lemm.ee 2 points 5 hours ago

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.

[-] EatATaco@lemm.ee 1 points 3 hours ago

I’m just happy to see users calling out these bullshit articles taking shit outta context.

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.

[-] Orbituary@lemmy.world -1 points 8 hours ago

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.

[-] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 2 points 7 hours ago

"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.

[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 0 points 4 hours ago

Nothing ever good starts with

I hate defending trump

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 10 hours ago

The Independent - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)Information for The Independent:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: Medium - Factual Reporting: Mixed - United Kingdom
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.Newshttps://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-supreme-court-old-age-mental-fitness-b2629928.html
Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 16 Oct 2024
482 points (96.0% liked)

politics

19043 readers
4012 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS