243
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
243 points (98.4% liked)
politics
26844 readers
1976 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
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.