politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Ehhh, sort of. Federal jobs (or at least clearance) want everything. Full work experience, any gaps 1 day or longer explained. It's a bit ridiculous. Having estranged family is a PITA too.
It's still nobodies business outside of federal agencies.
Are we talking about a security clearance form?
That's not what Trump's talking about tho.
I've heard it was more closer to 10 years for a TS/SCI, though it could possibly be more if the investigation finds a blip or for a high level position like a DA.
The presidency however is exempt from needing to go through the process as they were elected into it. As bad as it sounds, with the way the democracy was built and is run, everything would come to a screeching halt if all of the presidents/elected officials needed to go through a lengthy (1yr +) investigation just to have the possibility of starting their job. Instead, they are actively judged of their in/actions during their tenure and impeached (or worse) if needed.
But as you said, the investigators do not release any info and only provide an approval/denial to whomever sponsored (paid) the clearance check. Their only job is to create a profile so they can determine if the person can be trusted with privileged information and not be coerced to release it.
^
10 years makes sense, I don't believe i even had 10 years of job experience at the time so that explains why I'm a bit off on it.
Number 45 is making me think we should be doing clearance investigations for presidential candidates, not like they aren't campaigning far enough in advance for it at this point.
I definitely agree. There really should be some sort of vetting processes in place. (An in depth psych eval would do wonders)
The biggest issue is that constitution would need to be amended to add the investigation process to the other three requirements, which could take years upon years to ever get approved. Also, going by the current trend of our political system, being denied could be seen as (or may even be) political subterfuge or gatekeeping by whichever side.
Our system, while it is working for the moment, it really does need improvements. This past eight years being the glowing proof of it.
I had to do the thorough federal check once and they only went back 10 years. My summers cutting lawns didn’t have to go on the form.