4 ms·

Don't do drugs (including marijuana), don't get blackout drunk, don't talk about your work, don't need psychiatric help... For the last sentence...Trump had all

Don't do drugs (including marijuana), don't get blackout drunk, don't talk about your work, don't need psychiatric help... For the last sentence...Trump had all sorts of clearance when he clearly should not have. But he was in an important position.

garmaine 5y ago
> don't need psychiatric help Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?
- frickinLasers 5y ago
  I don't know. I haven't worked in that system for many years. That said, it was more received wisdom than a written rule, and I was aware of exceptions who were prescribed more than ADHD meds.
  - garmaine 5y ago
    We’ll I mean the ADHD meds I’m prescribed happens to also be a popular street drug, so I wouldn’t trust them to differentiate.
- skoskie 5y ago
  No it does not.
vxNsr 5y ago
Putting aside the politics of it for a second, all clearence stems from the executive branch which stems from the president. Saying the president shouldn't have clearance doesn't make a lot of sense, he's the one who authorized it. He's the one who decides who gets it. Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.
- frickinLasers 5y ago
  That statement wasn't about politics at all. Let me put it another way: Had he been trying to get clearance for a normal position, he would probably not have received it. I also never said he had access to everything. Nobody has access to everything. Not arguing for a shadow government--it's already a fact. It happened when classification rules went from "what would harm national security" to "what would cause problems if American citizens found out we were doing this."
  - garmaine 5y ago
    In principle the president has access to EVERYTHING. There is literally nothing he shouldn't have access to, at least within the executive branch which includes nearly all military/defense/intel secrets. The only thing he does not have unrestricted access to is Justice department stuff (e.g. FBI), although there'd better be a damn good reason to deny it to POTUS if he asks, and legislative branch secrets which really infrequently comes into play. That's due to the whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing. But security clearances for everything in the executive branch stem FROM the president. If he wants to reveal some state secret, he can just tweet it with no consequences, or blurt it out while on the phone with foreign states. As Trump did on multiple occasions. That said, of course there is a significant deep state bureaucracy which attempts at times to keep certain things hidden, even from the current president. But if the president were to ask about it, they have to tell him.
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy. Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them. That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)
hacker_newz 5y ago
How is this a constructive response?

garmaine 5y ago

> don't need psychiatric help Does that include regular old things like ADHD meds?

frickinLasers 5y ago
I don't know. I haven't worked in that system for many years. That said, it was more received wisdom than a written rule, and I was aware of exceptions who were prescribed more than ADHD meds.
- garmaine 5y ago
  We’ll I mean the ADHD meds I’m prescribed happens to also be a popular street drug, so I wouldn’t trust them to differentiate.
skoskie 5y ago
No it does not.

vxNsr 5y ago

Putting aside the politics of it for a second, all clearence stems from the executive branch which stems from the president. Saying the president shouldn't have clearance doesn't make a lot of sense, he's the one who authorized it. He's the one who decides who gets it. Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy.

frickinLasers 5y ago
That statement wasn't about politics at all. Let me put it another way: Had he been trying to get clearance for a normal position, he would probably not have received it. I also never said he had access to everything. Nobody has access to everything. Not arguing for a shadow government--it's already a fact. It happened when classification rules went from "what would harm national security" to "what would cause problems if American citizens found out we were doing this."
- garmaine 5y ago
  In principle the president has access to EVERYTHING. There is literally nothing he shouldn't have access to, at least within the executive branch which includes nearly all military/defense/intel secrets. The only thing he does not have unrestricted access to is Justice department stuff (e.g. FBI), although there'd better be a damn good reason to deny it to POTUS if he asks, and legislative branch secrets which really infrequently comes into play. That's due to the whole separation-of-powers, checks-and-balances thing. But security clearances for everything in the executive branch stem FROM the president. If he wants to reveal some state secret, he can just tweet it with no consequences, or blurt it out while on the phone with foreign states. As Trump did on multiple occasions. That said, of course there is a significant deep state bureaucracy which attempts at times to keep certain things hidden, even from the current president. But if the president were to ask about it, they have to tell him.
DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
> Anyone who thinks differently is arguing for a shadow gov, i.e. unelected bureaucrats who answer to no one and can make decisions unilaterally without consequence... not exactly democracy. Lots of countries have an establishment "civil service" comprised of those "unelected bureaucrats" that you mention, and it actually works out quite well for them. That said, they aren't unaccountable: they answer to departmental heads, MPs, committees, etc. A big advantage of the system is to prevent mad-swings in policy just because the head-of-government changed. For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Service_(United_Kingdom)

hacker_newz 5y ago

How is this a constructive response?