Trump, 78, says ‘only stupid people put old’ people in top federal roles

Well shit, we knew that

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.
  
  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.
- 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.

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.

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?
  
  Yeah I wasn’t happy about Biden, I held my nose and voted for him and was kinda shocked. I’m pissed about Palestine and suspect he’s going to be remembered as a soft hand in an era in need of major change. But the infrastructure bill is huge. Our infrastructure was in catastrophic straits and while it likely won’t be remembered for what it did, that’s a failing of humans not of the bill. The best trait vital infrastructure can have is boring, and according to the experts our infrastructure was on the verge of being downright exciting.
  
  I basically agree 100% and am voting for Harris with no hesitation… however saying that the difference between a B+ and an A is a genocide or two is kind of an odd way to put it.

"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?

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

He’s both the joke and the punchline.

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.
  
  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.
  
  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.
  
  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?
  
  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.
- Nothing ever good starts with
  I hate defending trump

What's his beef with The Onion? Why is he trying to run them out of business?

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

- stop ban evading