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.

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.

Sure, Republican. We'll, at least I know you weren't reading my history, or this comment thread, before you spouted that nonsense.

The whole point of everything I've said in this post is, people you disagree with can still be competent, and denying such is only going to make you less prepared when they exercise that competence in ways you disagree with.