• Asafum@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      ·
      2 months 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.

      • Wytch@lemmy.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

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

        • Asafum@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          2 months 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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 months 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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 months 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.

      • Asafum@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        2 months 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
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months 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.

      • Orbituary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months 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.

        • Optional@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months 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.

      • jj4211@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • Clent@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          The even bigger problem is holding ourselves to a higher standard than they do and setting the expectation that we will always do this while they’ve long ago lowered their standards that they never will.

          This results in us wasting time and effort and leads to infighting for messaging that will never reach their side because they already dismissed the article, it is click bait for us not them.

          So while we’re over here pearl clutching over a random click bait article, they’ve already moved the conversation forward.