As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Should the president and cabinet be required to qualify for their security clearances?

2

Posts

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    Most of this is more appropriately the job of journalists.

    You're not wrong, but our news media is hopelessly broken right now. Just like everything else.

    Thinking that getting the FBI involved in electoral politicking will make things better is an astoundingly ahistorical take.

    A background investigation is not electoral politicking. I'm genuinely not sure what you think could be done to achieve such a result.

    It is when its done on the highest profile candidates in our democracy and then the results are made public knowledge.

    You aren't really providing any reason to think it would.

    Are you also against proposals for the IRS to release the tax returns of candidates?

    Tax returns are evaluations of fitness. They're not findings, they're just a financial record.

    So are background checks. They ask a series of questions that are then verify them against available data. That's it. They can't be altered any more than someone at the IRS could alter a tax return.

    What do we think would turn up that journalists can't find?

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    Most of this is more appropriately the job of journalists.

    You're not wrong, but our news media is hopelessly broken right now. Just like everything else.

    Thinking that getting the FBI involved in electoral politicking will make things better is an astoundingly ahistorical take.

    A background investigation is not electoral politicking. I'm genuinely not sure what you think could be done to achieve such a result.

    It is when its done on the highest profile candidates in our democracy and then the results are made public knowledge.

    You aren't really providing any reason to think it would.

    Are you also against proposals for the IRS to release the tax returns of candidates?

    Tax returns are evaluations of fitness. They're not findings, they're just a financial record.

    So are background checks. They ask a series of questions that are then verify them against available data. That's it. They can't be altered any more than someone at the IRS could alter a tax return.

    What do we think would turn up that journalists can't find?

    I’d think that investigators performing a clearance investigation would have access to and authority to request some substantial PII that journalists don’t? Maybe I’m wrong.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Calica wrote: »
    Most of this is more appropriately the job of journalists.

    You're not wrong, but our news media is hopelessly broken right now. Just like everything else.

    Thinking that getting the FBI involved in electoral politicking will make things better is an astoundingly ahistorical take.

    A background investigation is not electoral politicking. I'm genuinely not sure what you think could be done to achieve such a result.

    It is when its done on the highest profile candidates in our democracy and then the results are made public knowledge.

    You aren't really providing any reason to think it would.

    Are you also against proposals for the IRS to release the tax returns of candidates?

    Tax returns are evaluations of fitness. They're not findings, they're just a financial record.

    So are background checks. They ask a series of questions that are then verify them against available data. That's it. They can't be altered any more than someone at the IRS could alter a tax return.

    What do we think would turn up that journalists can't find?

    Confidential information collected by federal and local government not normally publicly available unless a journalist has a source willing to provide it. Not unlike people's tax returns.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    We're at an impasse here since I don't think there's much of a way to argue that the FBI should be trusted in its involvement in domestic politics.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    We're at an impasse here since I don't think there's much of a way to argue that the FBI should be trusted in its involvement in domestic politics.

    We're at an impasse here since you're conflating a background check with domestic politics. By your logic no candidate should ever be investigated by any agency for any reason ever lest it be politically motivated.

    Quid on
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Adjustments have to be made given the nature of the world now that there is an internet, but yes, they should.

    A lot of American government was structured to rely on acting in good faith. This administration has shown us that was a terrible mistake.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    We're at an impasse here since I don't think there's much of a way to argue that the FBI should be trusted in its involvement in domestic politics.

    We're at an impasse here since you're conflating a background check with domestic politics. By your logic no candidate should ever be investigated for any reason ever lest it be politically motivated.

    You're arguing for the FBI to release data with the express purpose of the public using it to evaluate the candidate's fitness for office.

    That's politics man.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    We're at an impasse here since I don't think there's much of a way to argue that the FBI should be trusted in its involvement in domestic politics.

    We're at an impasse here since you're conflating a background check with domestic politics. By your logic no candidate should ever be investigated for any reason ever lest it be politically motivated.

    You're arguing for the FBI to release data with the express purpose of the public using it to evaluate the candidate's fitness for office.

    That's politics man.

    First off, I specified it's generally OPM. Second, again, what makes it different from the IRS releasing a candidate's tax returns? That would be politics as well.

    Furthermore, what would be valid reasons to investigate them that couldn't just as easily be abused by your logic?

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    I think Styrofoam is maybe trying to say the FBI is capable of bias?

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Henroid wrote: »
    I think Styrofoam is maybe trying to say the FBI is capable of bias?

    I am certain they are. I'm certain the IRS is as well. And journalists. And everyone ever.

    Which makes me believe that non binding background checks being off limits but everything else on the table to be a bit ridiculous.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    We're at an impasse here since I don't think there's much of a way to argue that the FBI should be trusted in its involvement in domestic politics.

    We're at an impasse here since you're conflating a background check with domestic politics. By your logic no candidate should ever be investigated for any reason ever lest it be politically motivated.

    You're arguing for the FBI to release data with the express purpose of the public using it to evaluate the candidate's fitness for office.

    That's politics man.

    First off, I specified it's generally OPM. Second, again, what makes it different from the IRS releasing a candidate's tax returns? That would be politics as well.

    Furthermore, what would be valid reasons to investigate them that couldn't just as easily be abused by your logic?

    I don't support laws requiring the IRS divulge tax information. I'm willing to listen to on proposals that require candidates to release their own from their own records. I don't think either law would do much and the last cycle proved it imo.

    I'm fine with investigating candidates and politicians so long as the process and results are only public when they lead to charges. Its not really comparable to what's being proposed.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I think Styrofoam is maybe trying to say the FBI is capable of bias?

    I am certain they are. I'm certain the IRS is as well. And journalists. And everyone ever.

    Which makes me believe that non binding background checks being off limits but everything else on the table to be a bit ridiculous.

    I think this "well everyone can be biased" overlooks how deeply, deeply shitty an organization the FBI is.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Ohmygod the FBI aren't the ones that do clearance investigations please stop talking about the FBI

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I think Styrofoam is maybe trying to say the FBI is capable of bias?

    I am certain they are. I'm certain the IRS is as well. And journalists. And everyone ever.

    Which makes me believe that non binding background checks being off limits but everything else on the table to be a bit ridiculous.

    I think this "well everyone can be biased" overlooks how deeply, deeply shitty an organization the FBI is.

    I suppose if you trust private entities over the government then yeah there's not going to be any agreement.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    We demand IRS info on candidates because we need to see how corruptible (or corrupted) they are. Where influence is likely to come from, who they 'work for' in unofficial terms, etc.

    A background check can give similar sort of insight.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Henroid wrote: »
    I think Styrofoam is maybe trying to say the FBI is capable of bias?

    I am certain they are. I'm certain the IRS is as well. And journalists. And everyone ever.

    Which makes me believe that non binding background checks being off limits but everything else on the table to be a bit ridiculous.

    I think this "well everyone can be biased" overlooks how deeply, deeply shitty an organization the FBI is.

    I suppose if you trust private entities over the government then yeah there's not going to be any agreement.

    I mean I'm not saying I'd trust the data a candidate would put out about their tax returns out of hand either.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    ANYWAYS

    I think something else of importance is that a lot of things we take as indicators of fitness for office (tax returns, etc.) are norms that people comply with, not laws.

    I also don't think providing information about candidates after they've been voted into office is politicking. The purpose is to put it out there for people to keep in mind when the POTUS says or does. Similar to the medical tests that POTUS undergoes and information about which is given to the public quite often.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Maybe a lot of what we call norms are things we're told we're supposed to care about and are finding out the electorate doesn't give a shit.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".
    Yeah as I said in my first post in this thread, a lot of the government has relied on good-faith acting and we're seeing that's not happening. So now we have to take the time to mechanize all these accountability & enforcement problems.

  • OghulkOghulk Tinychat Janitor TinychatRegistered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Maybe a lot of what we call norms are things we're told we're supposed to care about and are finding out the electorate doesn't give a shit.

    I think this is absolutely a fair point. By way of example, does anyone actually care about Trump's mental health that would vote for him? Those that seem to care mostly are those that already wouldn't vote for him.

  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

  • CalicaCalica Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Maybe a lot of what we call norms are things we're told we're supposed to care about and are finding out the electorate doesn't give a shit.

    Our government has been hijacked by an organized group of people opposed to government as a concept, and 30% of our population has been brainwashed to believe whatever Fox News tells them. Both are enormous problems with no easy solutions, and neither is in the scope of this thread.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

    I think jumping back and forth between requirements of candidates and requirements of elected officials isn't doing the conversation favors so we should be more clear.

    I just don't see much in our history to say that its accurate information that's relevant to our choices.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

    I think jumping back and forth between requirements of candidates and requirements of elected officials isn't doing the conversation favors so we should be more clear.

    I just don't see much in our history to say that its accurate information that's relevant to our choices.

    The source of information matters just as much as the accuracy.

  • HenroidHenroid Mexican kicked from Immigration Thread Centrism is Racism :3Registered User regular
    Having more information on the people in our government who have a direct impact on our lives and the lives of people in other nations (when it comes to aid efforts or conflict) is never a bad thing.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

    I think jumping back and forth between requirements of candidates and requirements of elected officials isn't doing the conversation favors so we should be more clear.

    I just don't see much in our history to say that its accurate information that's relevant to our choices.

    The source of information matters just as much as the accuracy.

    Does it? Were any Trump supporters convinced when it was proven in a court of law that he was running a scam?

    I think there's an assumption here that deference to authority will carry weight against political belief and the myriad other forces that drive electoral decisions.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

    I think jumping back and forth between requirements of candidates and requirements of elected officials isn't doing the conversation favors so we should be more clear.

    I just don't see much in our history to say that its accurate information that's relevant to our choices.

    The source of information matters just as much as the accuracy.

    Does it? Were any Trump supporters convinced when it was proven in a court of law that he was running a scam?

    I think there's an assumption here that deference to authority will carry weight against political belief and the myriad other forces that drive electoral decisions.

    Yes, it does. Trump voters are not the only voters that exist. Trump is also not the only candidate to ever exist. There will be future elections.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To elaborate on an earlier point I'm kind of skeptical this would do anything. We just went through a cycle where every norm was broken and basically the only people who seemed to care were the people who were already opposed to the man in question.

    It was already a matter of public factual record that he was a fraud with deep foreign financial ties. It had all the force of a cream pie pitched underhand.

    The point is to move away from norms and make them required laws. Things quite simply haven't been as transparent with the current administration's candidate as they could have been, to include McConnell threatening hell if Trump's ties to Russia were exposed "for politics".

    But if the violation of the norms went over like a fart on the wind as far as the electorate is concerned what would making it law do to improve elections? Would Republicans stop voting Republican if the OPM told them that yes Trump U was a scam? Would Democrats have stopped voting for Clinton if they found out exactly how much she was paid for speeches? I don't think so.

    Potentially? I'm not interested in debating what might have maybe happened. I believe codifying transparency in to law would result in increased transparency. Something I value in my government.

    Does this mean it would stop the electorate from electing Putin himself if they really wanted to? No. But I'm all for pushing towards more accurate information in order to achieve more desirable outcomes.

    I think jumping back and forth between requirements of candidates and requirements of elected officials isn't doing the conversation favors so we should be more clear.

    I just don't see much in our history to say that its accurate information that's relevant to our choices.

    The source of information matters just as much as the accuracy.

    Does it? Were any Trump supporters convinced when it was proven in a court of law that he was running a scam?

    I think there's an assumption here that deference to authority will carry weight against political belief and the myriad other forces that drive electoral decisions.

    Yes, it does. Trump voters are not the only voters that exist. Trump is also not the only candidate to ever exist. There will be future elections.

    He's the convenient example to hand and recent memory but the electoral dynamic is the same as ever. I think, in general, making reliable information more available to the public is a noble idea, I just don't think the lack of it is what ails us.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Which brings us back to: No candidate can ever be investigated lest it be politically motivated. You inherently distrust the government to do any work involving candidates in any respect. I do not.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Which brings us back to: No candidate can ever be investigated lest it be politically motivated. You inherently distrust the government to do any work involving candidates in any respect. I do not.

    We pretty explicitly have rules about the president directing or overseeing investigations into candidates and even then its consistently a problem. At the very least here we're talking about creating a new government office.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • QuidQuid Definitely not a banana Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Which brings us back to: No candidate can ever be investigated lest it be politically motivated. You inherently distrust the government to do any work involving candidates in any respect. I do not.

    We pretty explicitly have rules about the president directing or overseeing investigations into candidates and even then its consistently a problem. At the very least here we're talking about creating a new government office.

    I would like you to explain what it is exactly you think could be nefariously achieved by the OPM doing a background check on every candidate.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    edited January 2019
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Which brings us back to: No candidate can ever be investigated lest it be politically motivated. You inherently distrust the government to do any work involving candidates in any respect. I do not.

    We pretty explicitly have rules about the president directing or overseeing investigations into candidates and even then its consistently a problem. At the very least here we're talking about creating a new government office.

    I would like you to explain what it is exactly you think could be nefariously achieved by the OPM doing a background check on every candidate.

    Its a government agency run by a presidential appointee. So basically I think its capable of acting in a corrupt manner like all other agencies are when they release information to the public. Selective editing, leaving out context, straight up lying etc etc.

    Given that I see minimal gain to be had by moving what should be a function of the 4th Estate into the duties of the Executive...

    It seems like you're arguing that the OPM can't be corrupted or act in a corrupt manner.

    Styrofoam Sammich on
    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    To put it another way, if Obama were a 2020 candidate I would not want an administration run by a birther doing his background check.

    Quid, I'm having a hard time square this post from last page with the rest of your argument.

    Because it was in reference to requiring an elected official pass a background check for a TS clearance. Giving the executive the power to say someone they’re competing with for leadership of the executive is legally blocked is far different than providing people the information to decide for themselves.

    It’s the same difference between relying on norms versus laws.

    If there's a concern that the OPM or whoever would be pressured by the administration into failing a background check under a required-for-office model why does that concern evaporate when the background test is just publicly available knowledge? The relationship between the president and the entity doing the background check hasn't changed.

    The results of what can be done has.

    “This is the information obtained from the background check.”

    “This is the information obtained from the background check. I’ve determined my opponent can’t replace me.”

    These are two very different results.

    I mean sure, but you've still created a system where one candidate has legal grounds to instruct his appointed officials and the mechanisms of government under his authority to gather and release information on his opponent. If there's a risk of political tampering under the former scenario you haven't mitigated it, only the damage it would do, which is a minimal comfort here.

    Id argue that it’s more than merely reducing the damage to the opponent; it also causes potential damage to the current official and his party.

    If the clearance is legally disqualifying (something we’ve moved past arguing for, but for argument sake) then the current administration has the power to choose their opponent or the opponent of their party’s chosen successor. That’s clearly a problematic level of power.

    If the information released is merely advisory, then “rigging” the investigation carries risk. Because regardless of outcome, they still get to run. But if you deliver a biased investigation, that becomes something they can use as a campaign point. They can claim you are abusing the power of your position. They can try to provide a counter narrative. It likely harms their campaign, no doubt. But if can cause damage to the party/administration in power as well.

    I don’t think the incentive to rig such a background check is as clear or as great as you’re making it out to be. But I may be off.

Sign In or Register to comment.