• HugeNerd@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    19 hours ago

    Um no, the ship is being ruddered just right by his totally-organic and authentic girlfriend.

  • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    2 days ago

    what do you mean some random podcaster with zero experience cant run one of the worlds largest law enforcement agencies?

    whats next, a business man becoming president and trying to run the government like a business is also a terrible idea?!

    /s

  • Zier@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    2 days ago

    The head of the FBI, or any other Federal intelligence agency, should NEVER be an appointed position. Only qualified candidates should be hired to run these agencies. Politics needs to be reigned in so the trashing of the country can’t occur. 249 years and this has never been fixed. What a bloody joke.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 day ago

      What’s the difference between appointing somebody and hiring somebody? Isn’t it virtually the same thing?

      • Zier@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        18 hours ago

        The president chose who he wanted & it was rubber stamp approved. Having an individual work their way up in the Agency to finally be promoted to the head is different, and they don’t change every 4 years. Whiskey Pete was a fox newz reader, un-qualified for this job.

        • njm1314@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          13 hours ago

          No that wasn’t my question. I understand the difference between a qualified and unqualified candidate. What am I asking is what’s the difference between hiring and appointing? Who’s doing the promoting? And how is that any different than being appointed?

    • breadsmasher@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      I get you, but I can also see it being both?

      THEORY an appointed position but part of the confirmation is actually verifying their credentials

  • fartographer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 day ago

    You mean that the wee little penguin-stance man with the face of a haunted doll and the personality of a Furby owned by a drunk middle schooler wasn’t the best choice?

  • frustrated_phagocytosis@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    I thought his job was to use the FBI to harass political opponents, gather blackmail info for sale to donors, destroy evidence of regime corruption, sell out cooperating witnesses to criminal orgs, and fake evidence for clout. Also waste resources on unofficial activities on the side.

    • UnspecificGravity@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      I mean, that’s all in the wheelhouse of normal FBI operations under any administration, but it seems that this dude is especially bad at managing this regardless of their willingness to be tools or corruption.

  • skisnow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Come on Kash, let’s take a picture to show them you’re doing a great job!’” Leavitt wrote, attaching a photo of the pair smiling and giving a thumbs up.

    The fact that they think a photo of them smiling shows they’re doing a great job, tells you everything you need to know about their competence.

  • crumpted@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    2 days ago

    If we’re going to have Trump toadies anyways, I prefer the incompetent ones.

    Point is, I’m a big fan of Kash Money.