249
Trump promotes attorney and part-time salon owner to oversee visas for people coming to the US
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 26 Dec 2025
249 points (98.4% liked)
politics
26844 readers
1722 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
So, you consider an author of Project 2025, a lawyer, former diplomatic consul, and owner of a salon chain to be incompetent? The whole salon chain thing is brought in as she isn't serious, when she's running a business as well as being a fully employed lawyer. This is just as disingenuous as referring to AOC as a former bartender.
I don't question her competence, just like I don't question her malice.
Writing project 2025 isn't a credential. Neither is being a lawyer Trump likes. Look at the candidates. Rudy, Alinaz etc.
Passing the bar doesn't mean you aren't incompetent. The AOC comparison doesn't work here.
I didn't make strong opinions one way or another, except over the quality of the journalism. Yes, the comparison with AOC is apt, because both references to their work history are to the least important part.
I'm not going over all the other points, I've covered them elsewhere in more detail than this article has. That's my main point. They are being far too dismissive of someone, and focusing on irrelevances rather than legitimate concerns. If you want to do that as well, don't be surprised if she's far more effective at her job, which probably isn't in the best interests of America, than you or they expected her to be.
Damn. You Republicans sound less sane every day.
What makes you think being a good salon owner will translate into being good in this role? That's why it's brought up. That's what she has experience in. Even the best basketball player of all time sucked ass at baseball, and those are both sports even!
I didn't say she was a good choice, I said she was generally competent. And her being a salon owner has no bearing one way or another, just like AOC having been a bartender has no bearing on her qualifications to be in Congress. AOC's degree in international relations and economics is what gives her credibility in her role. Likewise, Namdar's law degree, having practiced law, and having been acting Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs are what gives her credibility in this role.
If you want to bring up whether she will have enough time on her day to perform her government role well while running a business, that's a great argument. But if that was the argument being made, they wouldn't have diminished her role. She isn't merely a part-time salon owner. She is a full-time government employee who is also the owner of a chain of salons. One makes her look unsuited to the role, the other makes her look like she may have too much on her plate. So, do you think it was an accident they cast her in the light they did? And even if they did try to portray her as too busy to do the job justice, how is that any different from Elon and DOGE, or the President?
Again, if you're questioning her competence, you are being led by the nose down what is likely a false path. This doesn't diminish what she can accomplish given her likely malice, seeing as how she has decided to, once again, work for Trump in this role.
So you’re arguing that she’s generally competent. But you’re also hedging that she might not be competent in this job. So, your issue is with the article characterizing her as a salon owner to score cheap political points? Are you living in 2025 with the rest of us?
Feasibly it’s different from the president because he should’ve divested himself from all other activities as per the law and why the president normally has a massive staff to keep him informed since they can’t be all places at once.
As for Elon and DOGE, we’ve all seen how that level of “Competence” went.
So, I can’t tell if this is a troll post or someone just being inherently pedantic.
Being a competent farmer doesn’t make you a competent astronaut.
Ah, reading comprehension is hard I guess.
I need to preface this because you people seem to like to argue from a place of ignorance. She was acting in this role before, under Trump, in 2020. We don't need to question how well she can do in this role, she's already done it before, we can just check her record.
Yes, I'm saying the lawyer who has worked for the government before, in this very role, is probably competent. I'm saying her additional business has no bearing on her competence, but may impact her ability to give the appropriate time to this role, which is not a matter of competence but prioritization. The difference between can and will, if you like.
If you, or the authors of this article wanted to question her credibility to handle this role, they could have looked at her history of how she handled this job previously. Or, they could, you know, talk about her owning a salon chain with phrasing like "part-time salon owner".
I also didn't say that either Trump or Elon are competent, what I said is they both had businesses while doing jobs that are at least as significant, so waving that point alone as a red flag is ridiculous. Of course, they didn't, they tried to diminish her competence by describing her as a part-time salon owner, which is incredibly disingenuous.
You may think the cheap shots are fun, and sure the other guys are doing it, but what's the point of that? Are you going to convince the MAGA crowd to turn on her with that? Do you think providing that ammo is going to help their opponents when talking to anyone else when it's so skewed as to be immediately adjacent to outright lies?
I also find it incredibly amusing how you keep acting like I'm defending her. I think I've ascribed malice to her in every comment in this chain, but I've also said she's probably competent given her past accomplishments, but since I don't live in a fantasy world and can recognize the positive attributes of people I don't like or agree with, I must be a troll, rather than as a warning to take this lady seriously because she's far more capable if finding a path to her goals than her boss is.
tldr; the subject is likely competent, she will likely do terrible things as part of her job competently and with malice, the journalist is certainly biased and incompetent, opponents of Trump should expect better from their information sources, and people need to learn that just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they're incompetent or vice versa.
I like how you argue that I’m putting words in your mouth and then you proceed to put words in mine.
So yes, the Argument was pedantic.Fantastic. Thank you for the confirmation. Have a wonderful day.
Please provide a quote where I put words in your mouth. Just one.
I will decline. Thank you for your time. I learned a long time ago this will lead nowhere. I hope you have a nice rest of your day.