[Lord Dave]

First off, let's get it out of the way: These people HAD the job.  You speak as though it's some random person off the street.
Secondly, I seem to have found an answer that satisfied my confusion.https://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-retains-state-dept-security-clearance/
See, I had an issue with why they still have clerance when, you'd think, the president would revoke it when they got fired.  Right?  I mean, if it's standard procedure, it should have happened to all of them yet even Susan Rice still has it.  So... what gives?  It can't just be a "Oh, one or two people I like kept it" because that doesn't explain the rather lengthly list that crosses presidencies.  In essence, my issue with your claim is "They still have it even after they quit/were fired and their boss got replaced".  Which is odd.

Yes, they had the job. And now they don't. I'm not sure what part of the "now they don't" part is having trouble finding its way to your brain, but I figure that if I keep my posts relatively short, you'll have an easier time reading them. And once again, you attempt to claim it's normal. Normalized corruption is still corruption. Yet another thing I have to repeat for you.

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?


And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

[Rushy]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?

Do you really think the president is personally making the decision on whether they keep clearance or not? It's quite doubtful anyone asked.

And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources.

"Yes of course I understand and read your argument completely Rushy, also by the way I didn't read it lmao"

[Lord Dave]

Yeah, I get what you're saying.  I never misunderstood.  My issue, and I have no idea why you keep ignoring it, is WHY IS IT CROSS PRESIDENT?!  Why the hell would president X go "Well, I fired that asshole but I'm not gonna revoke his clearance and keep him as a consultant because that's what I was told to do...."?

Do you really think the president is personally making the decision on whether they keep clearance or not? It's quite doubtful anyone asked.

Yes, actually, I do.  Either that or the next head of whatever department.  I mean, he obviously knows NOW....

And if they ARE kept as consultants, how is that corruption?  Its all legal then, yes?

The corruption is that someone who isn't in a government position or contracted by the government is able to access government resources.

"Yes of course I understand and read your argument completely Rushy, also by the way I didn't read it lmao"

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

[Rushy]

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

If people wanted Hillary Clinton to have access to US government resources then they would have voted to make her president. Need I remind you, that didn't happen, and so therefore if she has no government position and she has no government contract, she shouldn't be doing jackshit within the government. Unfortunately, our government is needlessly corrupt, and allows all sorts of people to do things that shouldn't be doing them.

[Lord Dave]

And you fail to answer my question.Your entire argument seems to be (to give an example) Hillary Clinton isn't Secreatry of state so thus she shouldn't have cleareance but she does!  But she IS a "researcher" and that should make it ok but it seems you call that corruption anyway.  So where the hell is the line?  Is it "Anyone who once had a job in goverment but lost it/quit/retired should never have their clearance again for any reasons."?  Or is it "Those consultant/researcher jobs are fake and how the corruption works."?

If people wanted Hillary Clinton to have access to US government resources then they would have voted to make her president. Need I remind you, that didn't happen, and so therefore if she has no government position and she has no government contract, she shouldn't be doing jackshit within the government. Unfortunately, our government is needlessly corrupt, and allows all sorts of people to do things that shouldn't be doing them.

Most people DID want her to have access to US government resources.  They just didn't win most of the counties in America.  But in fairness, no one voted for her to be Secretary of State so the will of the people is kinda irrelevant.
Second: We don't know what Hillary does as a "researcher" or Comey as a "Consultant".  What we can reasonably infur is that Trump believes it's worth keeping them as such either because he determined it or because someone convinced him.  Either way, he'd have cut their jobs in an instant as a play for his base.
"Just found out Crooked Hillary was still sucking money at fake job given by Obama.  Hillary: You're Fired!"  would have made a spectacular tweet.
We don't know what these people do.  Maybe nothing.  Maybe they're just "experts on call".  Maybe they give the current job holder a 20 page report every day.
But I will agree that if they do nothing of value, then they have no need for the clearance.  If they have a job given only because they're freinds (nepotism) then I will call that corruption.  But until then, I'm just gonna give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Snupes]

I would be willing to 'shut down' government if the Democrats do not give us the votes for Border Security, which includes the Wall!

Mmm.

[Dr David Thork]

Just build the best damned wall the world has ever seen ... and the tourists will come.

[Snupes]

Including illegal Mexican tourists that climb over it with primitive technology or go around.

[Dr David Thork]

Issue hunting licenses to the legal tourists. The Mexicans would be a problem that went away very quickly.

I'll bet there are wealthy people out there that would pay a small fortune to slaughter a Mexican. Would pay for the wall.

[Lord Dave]

Issue hunting licenses to the legal tourists. The Mexicans would be a problem that went away very quickly.

I'll bet there are wealthy people out there that would pay a small fortune to slaughter a Mexican. Would pay for the wall.

And drug cartels too.  Bet they'd just camp on the border checks and just pick off random people cause why not?

[Lord Dave]

In case no one heard...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2018/07/30/11000-wikileaks-twitter-messages-released-to-the-public/#5ed945c130a0

long story short: Wiki-leaks wanted to help Trump.

[honk]

No shit WikiLeaks favored Trump. That's not news in the slightest.

Also, remember that time Rushy thought the wall would be built, ample proof of Trump winning the popular vote would have surfaced, and Hillary would have been convicted of treason by this time in Trump's presidency? I'm not going to waste any time providing the relevant quotes or anything, because he'd just deny or downplay them, but we all know that it's true. What a dumbass, am I right?

[Rushy]

No shit WikiLeaks favored Trump. That's not news in the slightest.

Also, remember that time Rushy thought the wall would be built, ample proof of Trump winning the popular vote would have surfaced, and Hillary would have been convicted of treason by this time in Trump's presidency? I'm not going to waste any time providing the relevant quotes or anything, because he'd just deny or downplay them, but we all know that it's true. What a dumbass, am I right?

The wall is being built, Trump did win the popular vote, and Hillary is already a prisoner of Trump's America. No need for denial, I'm not tired of winning yet.

https://www.cbsnews.com/video/construction-for-new-texas-border-wall-begins/

http://thehill.com/latino/390380-construction-begins-on-san-diego-border-wall-with-anti-climbing-plate

BUILD WALL.

[honk]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2018/07/31/trump-administration-must-seek-consent-before-giving-drugs-to-migrant-children-judge-rules/

Nice.

[Rushy]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

"All black people are monkeys that belong in the jungle"

wtf you racist piece of shit

"Oh sorry, I meant all white people are goblins that belong underground"

Oh haha cool, hey you want a job at NYT?

[Rama Set]

She claims she was “counter-trolling”.

Check out this idiotic defense of Sarah Jeong, specifically the quoted tweets:

https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2018/08/02/backfire-new-yorker-food-writer-serves-up-rotten-defense-of-sarah-jeong-and-burns-the-left-in-the-process/

[honk]

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

[Rama Set]

I had no idea that strong, manly conservatives were such fragile snowflakes. Maybe they need a safe space, and a soothing lotion for their butts.

Sorry, so we should be ok with hypocritical positions? All that I want is for the people who don’t support anything that even has a hint of racism, not to support anything that has a hint of racism. If your position is that free speech is paramount, then fine, but if you think that racial sensitivity is a sacred cow, but not for white people, then you are terrible.

[Rushy]

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that the NYT recently published an article stating that the US northeast is too white.

If the NYT is keeping this woman, it's fairly assured that her attitude is not an uncommon one at the company, and that they are now publishing articles that contain direct or indirect anti-white rhetoric.

[Lord Dave]

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2018/08/02/new-york-times-stands-by-new-tech-writer-sarah-jeong-after-racist-tweets-surface.html

"All black people are monkeys that belong in the jungle"

wtf you racist piece of shit

"Oh sorry, I meant all white people are goblins that belong underground"

Oh haha cool, hey you want a job at NYT?

I find if annoying fox posted images and not actual links.
So now I have to find the time to find these posts to verify them and get context.


Also: Irony of Fox being upset by someone's insulting twitter posts.