this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
509 points (95.4% liked)

politics

19148 readers
3948 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. 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.
  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
 

Scott Pelley recapped the Cabinet picks of President-elect Donald Trump in the “60 Minutes” opening Sunday, enraging MAGA supporters despite the segment’s recitation of facts. (Watch the video below.)

The summary “is exactly why no one respects the legacy media anymore,” one person complained on X, formerly Twitter.

“Pure Democratic propaganda,” griped another.

Pelley, a correspondent, began by noting “some nominees appear to have no compelling qualifications other than loyalty to Trump.”

He pointed out defense secretary nominee Pete Hegseth’s lack of government experience and recent gig as a Fox News morning host; the investigation into attorney general nominee Matt Gaetz’s alleged sex with a minor; and the vaccine skepticism of health and human services nominee Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“It’s up to the new Republican majority in the Senate to decide whether these nominees are equipped to represent the American people,” Pelley concluded.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Deep Cut whataboutism

The same people attacking Trump’s picks had no issue with Obama letting Citibank pick all of his people for him.

Really, you know that? Down to the last person? Pretty impressive.

Also - can you remind me when Obama was last in office?

Because it seems to me the time to complain about Obamas picks was when Obama was in office.

How about folks who weren't even voting age then? Do they also need to STFU about Trump confirming what everyone already knew by making garbage choices for his cabinet based primarily on their likelihood to support his fascist goals? How does the 8 year old Obama whataboutism come into play in that scenario?