politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
I think it means that Trump is replacing her with someone else, not that he's taking both positions. I was confused at first too.
From the article:
The headline is just really stupidly worded.
It's certainly some light title gore.
It certainly is not, unless you also think "I'm going to make you a pie" is me literally threatening to turn you into a pastry.
OK, fine, it's medium title gore.
If your takeaway from that headline, given what I will afford you are two technically semantically correct options, is that the POTUS, for literally the first time in history, is acting as a member of their own cabinet and not just that they're replacing a member thereof, it's not incumbent on the Associated Press to account for that. I'm consistently baffled at how much people will blame news headlines for their own functional illiteracy and then refuse to even peek into the article for five seconds to check.
To read the title that way at first is a brain fart; to still be confused after stopping and thinking for a second is stupidity. To not check the article afterward is willful ignorance.
To be fair, there are a lot of things Trump has done that were firsts for the office. I initially misread the headline too, simply because I wouldn't be surprised if Trump did something absurd like replacing Noem with himself. Because he does a lot of absurd things that have never been done by a US president before. I understood it correctly after reading more, but if someone's misreading the headline as something bizarre, it's probably because every headline is bizarre nowadays.
I understand what you're saying, and it's at that point any media-literate person (you) thinks: "Hmm, I'll just check the article and clear this up." To even get to that point, you'd not just have to buy Trump would try to do that (I don't, but I see how someone could); much more importantly, you'd have to assume the headline, for some godforsaken reason, isn't taking into account how unusual it is and therefore being crystal clear that Trump is trying to insert himself in the role.
Reading the headline that way is already an enormous leap that basically only makes semantic sense, but refusing to follow up on that interpretation is where I draw the line between someone who didn't understand at first and tried to and someone who actively chose not to understand. The latter I've run out of patience for over the last decade; the former show strong character through how they respond to a mistake.
My point is that it's poorly worded.
It isn't; you just really fucking suck at reading and want to blame that on professional writers. Not just reading as a skill but reading as a casual interest, given you again intentionally didn't even check the article.
Naw dude, the takeaway here is that you're a pendantic prick.
Maybe these "professional writers" could take a cue from the dozens of other writers that wrote less shitty headlines about the exact same thing.
You mean like BBC News: "Live updates: Trump replaces Homeland Security chief Kristi Noem"
It's a basic English sentence that you just couldn't and didn't try to understand and then shamelessly blamed anyone but yourself for. Cry harder.
"Cry harder," says the only person worked up about a humorous comment pointing out ambiguous language.
"Joke's on you; I was only pretending to not be able to read English at a fifth-grade level."
Literally everybody but you got the joke, champ.
The title is accurate, but it is also poorly worded because of that possible interpretation.
You're getting downvotes because people aren't willing to admit their brains picked the the stupidest interpretation of the headline and just went with that instead of actually thinking about the more likely way it was meant, or reading ANY of the article to verify. They're reacting to defend that initial assumption, instead of acknowledging that they made an incorrect off the cuff assumption from the headline and just moving on with their day. They're doing exactly what MAGA does, that they criticize them for constantly, and a source of how we got into this political shitstorm of a system in the first place.