Eisenhower had a decorated military history, excellent for commander in chief. As did Grant.
That wasn't the question.
But Michelle Obama has basically no relevant qualifications.
What qualifications should be relevant? And why does close confidant and advisor to a president for 8 years not count in your mind?
Eisenhower would like a word. As would Hoover, Grant and the orange man.
has absolutely zero qualifications
This is completely false.
As some have touched on, this also means that the MAGA crowd will believe that by extension they are also entitled to immunity and will act accordingly.
I have news. This "rapid technological change" thing? It's window dressing. At the end of the day it's how humans relate to and interact with technology that matters, and humans haven't changed. The core principles, that you develop a deeper understanding of with experience, really haven't changed appreciably.
When professions are protected from competition by government, those participating in those professions get lazy.
Congrats! I know it's early but this is definitely the silliest take I've read so far today.
I see orange man knows his Goebbels well.
People have families that also need to eat.
Yes. So why TF are they buying from Burger King? That's not food.
And $30 at any fast food place these days does not feed a family.
You don't disagree with Kling enough to object. This is clearly demonstrated here.
Edit: Let me a little more clear. Kling is the one bringing politics into it. The change was simple (one word!) and technically correct. It would be like if I said "I want our new logo to be red" and you said "don't bring politics into it" when really I just like tomatoes and sunsets.
people can have different views. you might not like them but it’s their views, not yours
Yes, they can. And I can also view their views with disdain... or even horror and choose not to support their efforts, whatever they may be.
What you are really saying here is that you to some degree don't disagree with Kling and so it's this particular view you find acceptable to let pass. If it were something like "people should be fine eating small children" you might react differently.
Can you provide some context?
This Mastodon post discusses it and has links to the PRs: https://ruby.social/@denis/112718132053579597
This one for SerenityOS shows Kling's response to a very minor and neutral change.
It means: “Leftist” Who defends/supports regimes like Russia and China, and their use of Tanks to suppress thier opposition, hence the term.
LOL. Joe-bob over there thinks it means anyone who supports authoritarian & statist leftism but Sue-Ann thinks it means anybody who supports anti-Western states with a socialist history. Bubba and 8627of his friends just use it to mean, practically speaking, "leftists I think I disagree with but don't really know because this is Lemmy and I never bothered to ask".
Edit: or in other words, QED
He’s only unpopular because of bots, trolls, and the likes of fox “news”.
And a years-long campaign by Republicans to tap into people's prejudices against old people. Never mind they'd struggle to name one actual policy position they'd disagree and haven't bothered to learn of all the things they'd wholeheartedly support if they were just aware of them.
If Biden was 15 years younger he would be ahead of Trump.
So IOW people are just ageist.
What do you think you said? Because I took that as questioning their existence as well.
What I didn't say was "there is no such thing as tankies". And what I implied, albeit subtlety, was that people bandy about this term so freely that it can really only be taken as "people I disagree with who might be leftist-ish". The use of the term has morphed so much over many decades that it means essentially nothing.... or, "whatever I say it means".
“There’s no such thing as tankies” is the weirdest doublethink propaganda I’ve seen in a while.
Is that what you think I said? Interesting.