Biden / Harris Focused Discussion

[Nurasu]

You wanna point to something or just saying "oh my gosh you're kidding right"

The poster has a history of attacking leftists as well as trump supporters and lumping them into one group. Hell Felya right after claimed there's some big sentiment permiating through the left that ignores trump leaving peace treaties and the iran issues...

Are you brand new?

- - - Updated - - -



Separation of church and state and are you eqating civil rights of gays to smokign marijuana?

I'm saying it's not up to them to determine what laws are something as arbitrary as "good", it's up to them to follow the damn law. It's not that complicated to me.

[Themius]

I'm saying it's not up to them to determine what laws are something as arbitrary as "good", it's up to them to follow the damn law. It's not that complicated to me.

You really are utterly failing here.

A state cannot pass laws that violate rights protected in the constitution. Gay marriage pass in the USA under the argument that the 14th amendment applies.

This is in no way similar to talking about something like drug laws. They followed the "damn law" in their state. This argument is as stupid as yelling at a person in a state where you can turn right on red because they moved to a state you can't turn right on red unless a sign says you can.

Also weed is legalised in DC...this appeal to "law" is just a folly... "but the law but the law well not that law ignroe that law"

[Machismo]

Yet they can choose whether or not to enforce it right?

For instance... they stepped in and blocked Betsey Devos from having to go to a deposition calling it ridiculous for a previous cabinet member to be expected to do such thing. As if she's above us part of some fucking aristocracy group.

They can step in protect and deflect in the name of "norms" They could step in here as well.

The investigation into security clearance is largely handled by low-level bureaucrats. And, until Trump, the White House was very hands-off with the process. the last administration caught hell for pushing Kushner's clearance through, even though the investigators found issues.

So, would you like Biden to step in and do the same thing people were criticizing Trump for doing?

If they give special consideration for the White House personnel, that means they are ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other people with security clearances. Double standards are frowned upon.

So, yes... the goal should be to legalize it, and not make it a deal breaker. But, make it even across the board. Until then, everyone should play by the same rules.

[Shadowferal]

I'm not going to google things for you. Pick one of the articles and read it.

Nah... Machismo and OJ presented valid reasons. No need to go further.

[Benggaul]

To a certain extent yes, but let's not pretend that we don't have 80 years of stigma surrounding "reefer madness".

I've seen guys get excused for alcohol related offenses when they clearly should have lost clearances and been kicked out of the navy.

Heck, I know this one fucking lush who made it all the way to the Supreme Court...

[AntiFascistVoter]

Putin just saw Justice League, demands that Zack Snyder debate him.



This is why I mock "Debate Me" bros.

The Russian president said he wishes Biden "good health".

[Themius]

The investigation into security clearance is largely handled by low-level bureaucrats. And, until Trump, the White House was very hands-off with the process. the last administration caught hell for pushing Kushner's clearance through, even though the investigators found issues.

So, would you like Biden to step in and do the same thing people were criticizing Trump for doing?

If they give special consideration for the White House personnel, that means they are ignoring the hundreds of thousands of other people with security clearances. Double standards are frowned upon.

So, yes... the goal should be to legalize it, and not make it a deal breaker. But, make it even across the board. Until then, everyone should play by the same rules.

Guess what buddy... if the administration comes out and notes the issue there would be pressure to not subject everyone to it.. especially when it is publically known since that would lead to a clear double standard.

Also save the bullshit, don't equate the two.

But trump did xyz isn't a fucking argument.

"But Trump stepped in to get someone with close ties to Oligarchs and tax evasion clearance, that's the same as Biden stepping it to say 'our administration is trying to decriminalise marijuana maybe don't punish people for having used it, especially if they used it in the past' "

[Machismo]

You really are utterly failing here.

A state cannot pass laws that violate rights protected in the constitution. Gay marriage pass in the USA under the argument that the 14th amendment applies.

This is in no way similar to talking about something like drug laws. They followed the "damn law" in their state. This argument is as stupid as yelling at a person in a state where you can turn right on red because they moved to a state you can't turn right on red unless a sign says you can.

Also weed is legalised in DC...this appeal to "law" is just a folly... "but the law but the law well not that law ignroe that law"

Alcohol is also legal in DC, and you can be denied a clearance due to alcohol use, as well

[Themius]

Alcohol is also legal in DC, and you can be denied a clearance due to alcohol use, as well

Any alcohol use or alcohol use that is at the levels of alcoholism?

[Machismo]

Guess what buddy... if the administration comes out and notes the issue there would be pressure to not subject everyone to it.. especially when it is publically known since that would lead to a clear double standard.

Also save the bullshit, don't equate the two.

But trump did xyz isn't a fucking argument.

"But Trump stepped in to get someone with close ties to Oligarchs and tax evasion clearance, that's the same as Biden stepping it to say 'our administration is trying to decriminalise marijuana maybe don't punish people for having used it, especially if they used it in the past' "

I am equating the two, because they are both things that can cause someone to be denied a clearance. You are asking that Biden step in to help just these people...

Now, I would LOVE for them to legalize weed, and not have it be an issue. Even then, the federal government would still be free to deny potheads a security clearance. They deny alcoholics a security clearance.

At the end of the day, the solution is to first legalize it.

- - - Updated - - -

Any alcohol use or alcohol use that is at the levels of alcoholism?

I guess that would be up to the investigators. Of course, the issue is that it's not legal at the federal level, and the White House is federal property, and they are perspective federal employees.

[Themius]

I am equating the two, because they are both things that can cause someone to be denied a clearance. You are asking that Biden step in to help just these people...

Now, I would LOVE for them to legalize weed, and not have it be an issue. Even then, the federal government would still be free to deny potheads a security clearance. They deny alcoholics a security clearance.

At the end of the day, the solution is to first legalize it.

- - - Updated - - -



I guess that would be up to the investigators. Of course, the issue is that it's not legal at the federal level, and the White House is federal property, and they are perspective federal employees.

Poor argument.

For instance... if I do something in NJ that is illegal in NY should I be barred from going to NY or should I be welcomed, provided I wait till I get back to NJ to turn right on red?

Also "help just these people"

Did you just fucking ignore:

Guess what buddy... if the administration comes out and notes the issue there would be pressure to not subject everyone to it.. especially when it is publically known since that would lead to a clear double standard.

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...White House defends marijuana policy after report of staffers targeted for past use In an effort to ensure that more people have an opportunity to serve the public, we worked in coordination with the security service to ensure that more people have the opportunity to serve than would not have in the past with the same level of recent drug use. While we will not get into individual cases, there were additional factors at play in many instances for the small number of individuals who were terminated," Psaki said in a statement to The Daily Beast.

----

Indifferent. They have more important things to worry over.

[PhaelixWW]

Per CNN:

Several White House staffers were asked to resign, were suspended or are working remotely after revealing past marijuana use during their background checks, sources familiar with the situation tell CNN.

Five people are no longer employed at the White House, while additional staffers are working remotely. In many of the cases involving staffers who are no longer employed, additional security factors were in play, including for some hard drug use, the official said.

While marijuana use is legal in many states, it is still illegal on the federal level, which can present a hurdle in the federal security clearance process.

The White House underscored on Friday that it has eased some restrictions in its security clearance policy to be more lenient about employing individuals with a history of drug use.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki tweeted on Friday that the White House "worked with the security service to update the policies to ensure that past marijuana use wouldn't automatically disqualify staff from serving in the White House."

"As a result, more people will serve who would not have in the past with the same level of recent drug use," she added. "The bottom line is this: of the hundreds of people hired, only five people who had started working at the White House are no longer employed as a result of this policy."

In a statement to CNN, Psaki said: "While we will not get into individual cases, there were additional factors at play in many instances for the small number of individuals who were terminated."

The White House is granting waivers on a limited basis on the requirement that employees of the Executive Office of the President qualify for Top Secret clearance in order to employed at the White House, a White House official said.

In order to be granted an exception, staffers must agree to stop using of marijuana, agree to a pledge to not use marijuana during government service, and undergo random drug tests. These employees will work remotely until their past usage meets the standards set by the Personal Security Division.

I don't think this is as unilateral as some people are claiming.

[Bodakane]

People are whining that those guys were somehow betrayed, but that's just not the case.

They kinda were though if you paid actual attention to the gripe being made.

It was an open secret. Before Biden, it was purposely overlooked. Now, even with it being legal in many states, it is all of a sudden not overlooked. You can pretend social contracts like that aren't made, but they are. And even the post you referred to, they weren't outraged.

[Themius]

You guys have half your world of politics outright cheering on probably your biggest international enemy against your President, and you're all here going on about people smoking weed when they probably shouldn't have been? Interesting.

As long as they're not showing up to work, where they help run the country, high as kites, I don't see much issue with a little recreational use. If they are showing up to work like that, then yeah, that's an issue.

The Putin thing is not important in my opinion... we are talking about a group of people that think Trump should be president and a large percentage that supported the insurrection so them rallying behind a Putin Biden debate is expected?

In the end, though it's just noise? who cares about that? What more is there to say beyond a mention "hey those guys cheering on insurrectionist and using an anti-asian hate hearing to make jokes about lynching and blaming china totally are behind Putin destroying Biden in a debate."

The talk about marijuana probably is more substantive than talking about Russia.

[AntiFascistVoter]

You guys have half your world of politics outright cheering on probably your biggest international enemy against your President, and you're all here going on about people smoking weed when they probably shouldn't have been? Interesting.

As long as they're not showing up to work, where they help run the country, high as kites, I don't see much issue with a little recreational use. If they are showing up to work like that, then yeah, that's an issue.

Problem is, one political movement has defined itself over the past five year by heightening the contradictions.

Basically, they're so adverse to consensus and coalition building, they cant stop doing it.

[Shadowferal]

Per CNN: I don't think this is as unilateral as some people are claiming.

A non issue really.

[Thelxi]

Not to get too serious here, but clearly not everyone understands how drug use relates to security clearance. The intent is not to regulate people's consumption out of fear that someone might get high or drunk and fuck a Chinese spy. As with most things security clearance, the main concern is blackmail/leverage, as in someone finds out about your drug use and threatens to expose you to the government which would CLEARLY NOW cause you to lose your job.

Hopefully you don't need Rachel Maddow to explain to you that this is not only regressive politically, but actually counterproductive to the very concept of national security as now Biden staffers are unusually susceptible to exactly such blackmail, over weed..

[Machismo]

Poor argument.

For instance... if I do something in NJ that is illegal in NY should I be barred from going to NY or should I be welcomed, provided I wait till I get back to NJ to turn right on red?

Also "help just these people"

Did you just fucking ignore:

You are the one who argued that it's legal in DC, so to say it's a poor argument, is to say that your argument is poor...

Very well.

If someone does something that is legal somewhere else, but not legal for the federal government, then the federal government would act based on their own rules...

That's not sto say I support the banning of marijuana, but to imply that it doesn't fall under their jurisdiction or concern... that's a terrible argument.

[Shadowferal]

Not to get too serious here, but clearly not everyone understands how drug use relates to security clearance. The intent is not to regulate people's consumption out of fear that someone might get high or drunk and fuck a Chinese spy. As with most things security clearance, the main concern is blackmail/leverage, as in someone finds out about your drug use and threatens to expose you to the government which would CLEARLY NOW cause you to lose your job. Hopefully you don't need Rachel Maddow to explain to you that this is not only regressive politically, but actually counterproductive to the very concept of national security as now Biden staffers are unusually susceptible to exactly such blackmail, over weed..

That explains the previous admin...