728
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 21 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

I didn't say for not being Trump. I said he deserves credit for what his administration has chosen to do. Regardless of who's idea it is, his administration chose to listen to them, if it wasn't from them. They deserve credit for that.

You aren't even setting the bar too high. You're not even setting it, and then saying they came in short. You're saying they don't deserve credit for something they literally did. How dumb is that?

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 2 points 3 weeks ago

I didn't say for not being Trump

No, but given the context, it was a fair assumption that you were implying it.

I said he deserves credit for what his administration has chosen to do

He doesn't. Not his choices, not his credit.

Regardless of who's idea it is, his administration chose to listen to them, if it wasn't from them. They deserve credit for that.

You're conflating Biden with thousands of other people.

Yes, the people in his administration deserve credit for the good thing they do.

No, the administration as a whole doesn't get credit for the work of the FTC. Because the rest of the administration didn't do it.

You aren't even setting the bar too high. You're not even setting it, and then saying they came in short

That's not true. I've consistently said that Lina Khan and the FTC are doing great work AKA rising above the bar.

Not giving Biden and the rest of the administration credit for work they didn't do isn't even criticism. It's a "lack" of undeserved credit, which is neutral rather than negative.

You're saying they don't deserve credit for something they literally did

Other than Lina Khan and the FTC, who I AM giving credit, they literally didn't.

How dumb is that?

Your interpretation of what I'm saying is very dumb indeed.

What I'm ACTUALLY saying isn't the least bit dumb, though. It's just proper assigning of credit based on merit rather than just association.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 3 points 3 weeks ago

The president doesn't do much of anything themselves ever. Their job is to pick people who will handle their jobs well. A good leader is one who is capable of picking good advisors. In what way does he not deserve credit? Sure, she does also. It doesn't take anything away from her. You just literally cannot admit that you appreciate something Biden has done for some reason.

[-] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

You just literally cannot admit that you appreciate something Biden has done

Nope. You guys just literally can't countenance that hiring someone doesn't mean that you get to take credit for work of theirs that you didn't otherwise contribute to.

The president doesn't do much of anything themselves ever

Sounds like a reason to eliminate the position.

Not a reason to heap praise on an old white conservative man politically stuck in the 90s (at the latest) for the hard work and success of a brilliant young progressive woman of color and her agency.

[-] Cethin@lemmy.zip 2 points 3 weeks ago

OK, I'm don't arguing with you. If your job is to select people who do a particular job well, and then they do that job well, then your job was done well also. If you somehow don't agree then I don't know what's wrong with you.

this post was submitted on 23 Sep 2024
728 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19047 readers
3457 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