this post was submitted on 18 Nov 2024
465 points (95.9% liked)

politics

19103 readers
3038 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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] maniajack@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

This article is fucked up. No one (likely) here saw the 60 minutes opening, we're all reading about a huffpost article about the response from a bunch of people on Twitter, those might not even be Americans, they might have an IQ of 50, why are they driving the conversation? We're not taking the time to watch the 60 minutes and we're letting huffpost make money off of outrage culture. The content of the 60 minutes is the story and crucially important not the idiots/bots/propaganda responding to it. The shittiest type of journalism is based off Twitter replies and the best journalism is what 60 min is doing

[–] NutWrench@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 hour ago

This is that "liberal news media" that MAGAs keep yammering on about. The one that's owned by six corporations.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 27 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

If facts make those Nazi flowers wither, shower them with facts.

[–] Klear@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago

Pretty sure they are actually completely immune to facts.

[–] Draegur@lemm.ee 34 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

Facts and evidence have a left wing bias don'cha know /s

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 58 minutes ago

They do. Rightly so.

[–] Omegamanthethird@lemmy.world 111 points 19 hours ago (1 children)

It would be nice if journalism was this honest the last 8 FUCKING YEARS.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 27 points 7 hours ago

It's convenient now. The news media isn't so much biased in terms of left vs right, but rather they're biased in favor of an explosive narrative. Trump provides so many explosive narratives just by his mere existence.

So no, they're not suddenly finding honesty. They're starting to feast on the buffet they cooked for themselves.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org 75 points 21 hours ago (2 children)

Did any of these MAGAs tweet a list of qualifications other than loyalty to Trump? Because that's how facts would work.

Unless the facts don't support another conclusion? How weird.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Team sports.

[–] ObstreperousCanadian@lemmy.ca 47 points 21 hours ago

Their feelings don't care about facts.

[–] takeda@lemmy.world 231 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Why are we accepting reporting on tweets as a journalism?

Yeah MAGA reacted to the 60 minutes, but so what? One can find similar reactions on any topic, there's nothing new that we learn by reading this. It just manufacturers outrage on the other side.

[–] enbyecho@lemmy.world 2 points 4 hours ago

Why are we accepting reporting on tweets as a journalism?

Are we? It's on huffpost.com. Since when is that journalism?

[–] sp3tr4l@lemmy.zip 0 points 3 hours ago

Whooo boy, let me introduce you to gaming and popular culture 'journalism', where these 'journalists' do almost nothing other than write op eds about the vibes they're getting from Twitter in the past 48 hrs.

[–] SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

I want to agree, but there is something to be said about the influence of social media on an average person. One reason I was really anxious about the election was whenever I saw shitload of likes on tweets that were straight up lies.

[–] EatATaco@lemm.ee 2 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

The problem with this garbage type of reporting is that you can create any narrative you want. Social media is so big that it's not hard to find a handful of posts, like what is being posted in their story, saying almost anything you need them to. Always going to be some insane person in some corner of the internet saying something completely batshit.

The article is really "we found some people on social media saying these things" and it's being framed as "maga meltdown." It's fucking garbage.

I agree that social media has a large influence, but how does garbage journalism like this do anything other than add more fuel to the fire of "traditional media is now trash"?

[–] SuperSaiyanSwag@lemmy.zip 2 points 5 hours ago

Oooh, i misunderstood you at first. I 100% agree, I have unsubbed from some subreddits before because they kept posting tweets of “haters” as if that’s noteworthy in any way.

[–] Breadhax0r@lemmy.world 43 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Twitter is the official mouthpiece of the trump administration though.

[–] newthrowaway20@lemmy.world 15 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Seems to be the mouthpiece of anyone trying to argue anything nowadays. you can always find a tweet supporting any argument you wanna make.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 17 points 21 hours ago (8 children)

This could very well be one of the first times a large swath of cable tv viewers and MAGA heard about Gaetz allegations of giving hardcore drugs to child prostitutes, so seeing their reaponse is interesting.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[–] NeoToasty@kbin.melroy.org 130 points 1 day ago (7 children)

4 years of crybaby MAGA people who don't know what's what and thinks everything is against them. Which is partially true.

4 years of this, people.

[–] jonne@infosec.pub 24 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Thanks, Merrick Garland. Way to let a guy credibly accused of like 6 different Federal crimes (including a whole ass coup) just walk by slow walking investigations because you didn't want to look political.

[–] AfricanExpansionist@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 hours ago

Don't worry, it's all gonna be fine. Joe Biden shook hands with Trump at White House last week.

[–] adarza@lemmy.ca 41 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

4 more years of this. donvict's bastardization of the slogan dates back to december 2011.

the far right whining about the 'liberal' media goes back a lot earlier than that

[–] MeekerThanBeaker@lemmy.world 26 points 1 day ago

4 years... at least.

[–] Prandom_returns@lemm.ee 5 points 18 hours ago

4 years of "you'll never believe what we've found on twitter" journalism.

[–] sarcasticsunrise@lemmy.world 14 points 23 hours ago

Only 4? God I wish I had your optimism

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] TheReturnOfPEB@reddthat.com 24 points 20 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (1 children)

Trump will adjourn the Senate and the House and get to appoint without confirmation.

The Constitution says the president can adjourn Congress only “in case of disagreement” between the House and the Senate on when the chambers should recess.

That is how Trump is going to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recess_appointment

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 51 minutes ago

The chambers will just not go to recess using pro forma sessions.

[–] PedroMaldonado@lemmy.world 24 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

When you're an asshole, being called out seems like persecution

[–] WrenFeathers@lemmy.world 1 points 1 hour ago

Oooh.. I like this. Well said!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 30 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Wake me up when they actually melt.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world 19 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Well, looks like it is already starting. I fully expected the donvict fans to get even angrier if he won. Just like last time.

I think part of it is that they are now also having conversations in their lives where normal Americans are just fucking done with them. Just because they are enthusiastic about donvict, and gleefully voted for him over the objections of those around them, doesn't mean they are going to just roll with it, and still be friends, lovers, relatives, because "it's just politics". Some people are just getting cut off:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/man-left-speechless-as-wife-files-for-divorce-after-he-voted-for-donald-trump/ar-AA1tX4kp

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

So?

I mean . . . this is nothing. This is just the kind of article you can expect for at least 3.7 years. You wanna dig your teeth into a second turd circus administration, feel free. It won't change a motherfucking thing.

The corporate medai has failed so spectacularly they're just staring up their own asshole at this point asking each other what they think.

load more comments
view more: next ›