this post was submitted on 21 Oct 2024
554 points (98.8% liked)

politics

19091 readers
3395 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Internet pranksters are trolling presidential-hopeful Donald Trump by leaving bad reviews for the McDonald's he briefly worked at during a photo opportunity on Sunday.

The Republican candidate put in a short shift on the fries station and in the drive-thru window at restaurant in Feasterville-Trevose, Pennsylvania. But the move seems to have riled some online jokers, who have since targeted the venue with reviews mocking Trump's performance.

One reviewer, Karen S, gave a one-star review, writing: "Customer service was a joke. Senile old man got bronzer on my fries, didn't wear gloves."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

I've heard it was more closer to 10 years for a TS/SCI, though it could possibly be more if the investigation finds a blip or for a high level position like a DA.

The presidency however is exempt from needing to go through the process as they were elected into it. As bad as it sounds, with the way the democracy was built and is run, everything would come to a screeching halt if all of the presidents/elected officials needed to go through a lengthy (1yr +) investigation just to have the possibility of starting their job. Instead, they are actively judged of their in/actions during their tenure and impeached (or worse) if needed.

But as you said, the investigators do not release any info and only provide an approval/denial to whomever sponsored (paid) the clearance check. Their only job is to create a profile so they can determine if the person can be trusted with privileged information and not be coerced to release it.

[–] Zorsith@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

^

10 years makes sense, I don't believe i even had 10 years of job experience at the time so that explains why I'm a bit off on it.

Number 45 is making me think we should be doing clearance investigations for presidential candidates, not like they aren't campaigning far enough in advance for it at this point.

[–] EtherWhack@lemmy.world 4 points 3 weeks ago

I definitely agree. There really should be some sort of vetting processes in place. (An in depth psych eval would do wonders)

The biggest issue is that constitution would need to be amended to add the investigation process to the other three requirements, which could take years upon years to ever get approved. Also, going by the current trend of our political system, being denied could be seen as (or may even be) political subterfuge or gatekeeping by whichever side.

Our system, while it is working for the moment, it really does need improvements. This past eight years being the glowing proof of it.

[–] adespoton@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 weeks ago

I had to do the thorough federal check once and they only went back 10 years. My summers cutting lawns didn’t have to go on the form.