• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

White House security clearances, are they necessary?

White House security clearances, are they necessary?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I have no idea.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I don't care.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    27
Fishking said:
Secondly, Obama was a huge pot smoker, that's a 100% documented fact. He was such a huge pot smoker that he was in a pot smoking club.
Click to expand...

Smoking pot in the past is not, in and of itself, a disqualifier for a security clearance. Indeed, I know of people with security clearances...HIGH security clearances...that had engaged in it in the past. There is a time period between your last usage and the point in which you get your clearance that has to pass for it to no longer count.

Where people screw up as it relates to pot and clearances is when they lie about it.

I.E. if you tell the investigators, or the polygraph administrator, that "yes, about 8 years ago during college I smoked pot regularly" and everything else about you checks out, you're probably going to get your clearance. However, if you go "Nope, I've never used pot" and then they find out that 10 years ago you were a regular pot smoker, your ass is getting shot down for the clearance. Not because of the pot, but because of your lying about it.
 
Kreton said:
Yes it should be 100% required. Unfortunately right now it's just kind of nice but if you don't pass and the president likes you then your probably ok.
Click to expand...

The only thing required by 45 is loyalty and most likely a NDA. Which oath will these people put first? Loyalty to 45 or the oath they took when they were hired?
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Oh I totally get what you're on about.
I grew up in a DoD family.
Air Force One (and all military and civilian mission-critical infrastructure installations) is protected from EMP thanks to the research my father developed.
You're welcome.

You're attempting to create a whirlwind about a hypothetical situation where, say perhaps, Hillz or Obama (or Dubya) are all in an alternate universe, attempting to apply for a hypothetical position which requires a hypothetical security clearance, which you say that they would be unable to get.

It is bull****, not because you were wrong about them getting clearance only as an entitlement to their position (you were correct - As the elected president, even Trump is not required to possess one to have access to the nation’s most closely held information) but because your entire premise is bull****.

It's nothing more than simple character assassination masquerading as conservative quasi-hysteria about some deep state conspiracy starring rogue elements who are plotting to destroy the country. You probably could have gleaned some more points if you'd have made direct reference to Hillary's child prostitution ring operating out of the basement of that pizzeria, or hinted at Obama's fraudulently obtained birth certificate.

But by tip-toeing around those right wing bon mots, you believe you've made a thought provoking witticism.

PRO TIP: Stop tip-toeing around. The knee-jerk reactionary element at DP prefers their red meat served raw and cold.
Click to expand...

Lol...so you admit I'm correct w/regard to the topic of the OP. I don't need to bother continuing after that, despite all your crying about supposed "character assassination", as if I was making some kind of partisan statement, even though I said none of them would have a clearance via normal processes.

Anyways, thanks for supporting my point, and tell your pops thanks as well.
 
Fishking said:
Lol...so you admit I'm correct w/regard to the topic of the OP. I don't need to bother continuing after that, despite all your crying about supposed "character assassination", as if I was making some kind of partisan statement, even though I said none of them would have a clearance via normal processes.

Anyways, thanks for supporting my point, and tell your pops thanks as well.
Click to expand...

You were making partisan fluff, it's what you do.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You were making partisan fluff, it's what you do.
Click to expand...

It was so partisan that I criticized both sides. I'm amazing like that. And I make partisan comments with people who I don't take seriously because they are either willfully ignorant, or dishonest, but my original comment wasn't partisan and you still read it as being such. Guess what category you're going to fall into now?
 
The thread is titled "White House Security Clearances, Are They Necessary?"
If you want to make a thread titled "Checkerboard Strangler Is A Jerk" why not go to the Basement and do so?

You can have the last word on this if you like ;)
 
24 to zip so far, where does this rank as the dumbest question ever asked?
 
Hell yeah, I've been through a few of those clearances for State Dept. They go over your life with a fine toothed comb, for good reason.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom