445
Remember folks, SCOTUS has already ruled that WHATEVER THE FUCK HE DOES IS ABSOLUTELY LEGAL.
There is no court, not law, no constitution, no one and nothing to protect us. This will be the last election if he wins.
It's not hyperbole, Trump literally said that he will end democracy.
Take that quote and add the one about sending the military after people who are a problem to them, that's absolutely the end of anything resembling our country.
Take that an consider he freaked out about 60k "to burry a fucking mexican" when speaking of an american soldier of mexican descent raped and murdered by another solider. If he can say that about an american citizen sacrificing everything for their country, he can decide who is american or not in an instant.
This one probably would have been accepted, anyway. Security clearances and classification derive from the power of the Executive in the first place. If the President wants to unilaterally hand security clearances to anyone, there was never anything to stop that besides the fact that it's a horrible idea.
Far too much power is invested in the Executive, and that was already a problem decades before Trump was around.
Fucking traitor
this is just fucking terrifying
The issue is no one believes it. Inertia makes the world go round. Inertia isn’t just physics, it’s psychology.
They’re so inured in “you can’t do that here” that they’ll believe it right up to when he does it.
Then cognitive dissonance takes the helm.
The fuel from being skeeved out by trans people and a black President got that momentum. Now, everyone’s miserable not being able to afford life, so that will continue that push.
I think he’s winning. I don’t live in the echo chamber. I think he’s horrible. But I think he’s winning.
It is really scary how close the race is and how far he is in the lead with a lot of polls.
People out here talking about sitting this one out or throwing a protest vote out for a third party. I'm just shaking my head.
These people seem to think if they don't vote, the Democrats will face some kind of reckoning because the voters are not "endorsing" them. I'm not sure how that's supposed to work or what anyone is then supposed to do about it under a fascist dictatorship. In fact, it's so obviously nonsense that you have to wonder whether these people have other motives that they're not stating.
It’s be the end all be all “leopards ate my face” moment.
What if I told you it benefits the media companies (mostly run by Republican supporters) if it always looks like it's neck and neck. It doesn't actually get the right voters out.
Fuck what the media says the count is, just vote ppl
It really depends which state they vote from, and which side they vote for.
If you're a democrat in idaho.......why even bother? The electoral college at that point insures that if you vote for a democrat, your vote doesn't matter.
However, if you vote 3rd party it sends the message that you KNOW your vote doesn't matter, and the system is broken.
Now, if you're in a swing state, or even a state that could be a swing state, then you're just an asshole if you vote 3rd party.
As we've recently found out in the last few years, conservative bastions are not as solidly red as we believe. If you're a Democrat in Idaho, fucking vote Democratic. It matters.
Absolutely, I'm in Texas, which is considered a slam dunk for the GOP. I still voted for Allred and for Harris. If there's a chance to get rid of Ted Cruz, I'm not going to risk it.
And of course, flipping Texas Blue in the presidential election would be a major coup. It's unlikely, but not impossible, if the voter turnout is high enough.
Honestly, if you guys could manage to kick Ted Cruz out, that alone would be a major win.
I honestly don't understand how he's so popular even among Republicans. He's a coward and the worst kind of political opportunist who is more concerned with his own image than helping Texans.
I'm doing everything that I can to get out the vote in Texas and encouraging people to vote early. With the gerrymandered districts here it's tough to make a real change, but when it comes to the Senate every vote counts.
I have relatives. They don’t believe Jan 6 was an insurrection. They’re saying Kamala is only there because she sucked her way to the top. They’re constantly talking about trans. And that litter boxes in schools thing. They think any defense if Hamas or anyone associated with them is deranged, that Israel wants to be left alone and no one will leave them alone and that’s why they’re doing what they’re doing. That we should spend the Ukraine money domestically, stop finding them. That gas prices and food prices and house prices and health care prices are Biden’s fault. And that liberals talk down to them and should thus get punched. Replacement theory. Oh, and guns.
That prices will somehow go down to pre-2020 if trump is back. No, really. Return of trump means return to pricing in the 2016-2020 zone. I’m not joking, these guys really believe that. I can define inflation all day and it doesn’t matter, no sway on that one. So that, in part, is what they’re voting for, a return of pre 2020 pricing.
Local matters right now, big time. Getting in those reps in the legislature and possibly the senate.
Florida was damn close in 2016. So don’t count yourself out for both, there. I think part of the problem there might be snowbirds, but will they even be going this year?
None of us know. So just vote.
didn't he already do this before for his son-in-law (jared kushner)... after the feds rejected him?
yea, the same jared kushner that scored $2 billion from the saudis as an 'investment'.
Fuck. This. Fucker.
Gee, why would that be necessary? I'm sure no one he would tap would have recently been involved in any insurrections or under the employ of a foreign government.
he gave them to people that the fbi said shouldn't have them. scotus said he could do anything officially he wants. so why would he bother with a screening process? he's going to give them to whoever he wants to anyway.
Which is one of many reasons it's important to not elect him.
Because by having a private company "screen" people there's added corruption.
He gets to simply sell clearances to private companies.
I assume the POTUS, who is the source of all classification, could have always just given clearance to whomever they wanted. I doubt the scotus ruling has anything to do with this.
He’s such a moron that you could just give him a piece of construction paper that says, “FBI, CIA, Delta Force Security Clearance” written in orange crayon and he would be satisfied.
This is yet another example of our system fundamentally being incapable of dealing with someone like Trump willing to deviate from all established norms.
Legally, POTUS is the classifying authority. They can give clearance to whomever they want.
That's worked mostly fine since the classification system was established in the early 1950s because the assumption has always been that POTUS isn't wildly compromised and completely surrounded by compromised individuals.
Oops.
Republicans in 2003: we must do everything in our power to make Americans safe. If we have to give up essential liberties and invade other countries because they might have WMDs, so be it.
Republicans in 2024: it's fine to hand out security clearances after a Heritage Foundation signoff.
And now, thanks to the supreme court, he, and any other fucked up president, can.
He did that last time… despite FBI vetting.
Blasphemy, using Mr. Rodgers like that!
he gave them to people that the fbi said shouldn't have them. scotus said he could do anything officially he wants. so why would he bother with a screening process? he's going to give them to whoever he wants to anyway.
The New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)
Information for The New York Times:
Wiki: reliable - There is consensus that The New York Times is generally reliable. WP:RSOPINION should be used to evaluate opinion columns, while WP:NEWSBLOG should be used for the blogs on The New York Times's website. The 2018 RfC cites WP:MEDPOP to establish that popular press sources such as The New York Times should generally not be used to support medical claims.
MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Media Bias Fact Check | bot supportSearch topics on Ground.News
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/27/us/politics/trump-security-clearances-fbi.html?unlocked_article_code=1.VU4.Fs3b.zE89AY4g-3Nz&smid=url-share
this post was submitted on 27 Oct 2024
445 points (99.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3039 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS