FBI Director Kash Patel wrote that the drinking incidents — including an arrest for public urination — were not his usual behavior.

  • JackDark@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    205
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 day ago

    This was over 20 years ago. Let’s focus on his modern fuck-ups instead when he was barely of drinking age.

    • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      7 hours ago

      It demonstrates a lifetime pattern of irresponsible drinking, which is relevant to the discussion. This isn’t a new thing, something that happened from the pressures of his new job, etc. This is a lifelong problem that has been ignored, and is now a National Security Threat.

    • fodor@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      15 hours ago

      Oh, we are absolutely focused on his current f***-ups. And we also look to the past to see if it’s been happening for a long time, which it has.

      I mean look, if you’ve been an alcoholic for decades and now you try to lie to people and say that you don’t have a problem with booze, people are going to go to your old drunken Facebook posts, point them out, and laugh at your lying ass. That’s just common sense my friend.

      • D_C@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        You are allowed to swear here on the internet, but if you truly don’t want to say fuck-ups then just don’t say it. Or change it to from fuck-ups to foul-ups, mess ups, or something.

        See, I’m petty, so self censoring just makes me not want to agree with you.
        However, fucks sake, I do agree with you…but begrudgingly. FUCK UPS.

        Your one self censorship had led to me writing fuck-ups four times.

        • chaitae3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 hours ago

          I use f***up instead of the alternatives when I want to say fuckup, but I don’t like reading the word and I don’t want to force it on others. It has nothing to do with censorship. Everyone knows what I’m referring to. Some people just don’t like swear words, they’re often from academic backgrounds.

          • Waraugh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 hour ago

            This is confusing to me, which I understand is a me problem not a you problem, I just don’t understand why you wouldn’t use a different word when you say you don’t like reading the word. Saying he’s incompetent, careless, reckless, irresponsible; I don’t know what word would make the most sense but I feel like using a curse word is generally a crutch anyway. I still use them but if I didn’t like reading them I wouldn’t use the crutch. I expect academics have a preference against it because they have a more broad range of conversational words they choose from more so than finding it offensive. I have a really hard time believing an educated adult finds the word fuck offensive. I would believe people find it lazy or juvenile and would make them less likely to engage and biases their opinion of who they are speaking with, even if unintentionally, but self censoring does nothing to change that.

      • Marty_TF@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        100
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 day ago

        agree with jack, the headline is massively misleading.

        headline should have made it obvious that this is something from the past, showing that his current drunkenness is a fundamental problem of his, as it is rooted in a pattern

        • homes@piefed.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          23
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 day ago

          agree with jack, the headline is massively misleading.

          I don’t disagree that the title is misleading, but that wasn’t Jack’s complaint. And I didn’t change the article’s original title, particularly because I crossposted this to several comms, some of which have rules against this.

          • Scirocco@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 day ago

            All y’all saying the right things

            This is old. Who hasn’t peed in a bush once, or thrice, etc

            But most of us aren’t foolish enough to do so in a visible/observable way, and most of us aren’t currently part of the Drunkard’s Parade that’s fuckin up the country with great enthusiasm and effect.

            • homes@piefed.worldOP
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              12
              ·
              1 day ago

              Who hasn’t peed in a bush once, or thrice, etc

              not someone who should be running the FBI

              • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                19 hours ago

                This is the kind of shit which makes it hard to take liberal news sources seriously.

                Genuinely, if you have a problem with some one who caught a ticket for public urination in their, honestly whenever, I don’t want to be politically aligned with you.

                It’s a stupid form of puritanical politics I want nothing to do with. The guy is a piece of shit now, that is what matters.

                • homes@piefed.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  19 hours ago

                  It’s pretty ridiculous that anyone would defend this guy, or especially that you would call it “Puritanical politics“

                  That’s what makes it so hard to take you seriously

                  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    18 hours ago

                    The fuck else would you call what you are catching mass down votes for?

                    If you would you consistently apply this standard to all candidates, I would want NOTHING to do with your political project.

                    I want people who’ve both pissed in public and gotten caught. I want people who have had real human lives not those secured by the guardrails of class or capital. This guy’s a cunt but not because he caught a minor infraction 20 years ago and focusing on that is distracting from the real price of shit that he is.

              • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                7
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                24 hours ago

                Imma be real with you. If you find a candidate for that role who claims not to have had such minor indiscretions in their past: that person is lying. Whether that makes them a good or bad candidate for the FBI is left as an exercise for the reader.

                • homes@piefed.worldOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  24 hours ago

                  Defending Kash Patel with some hypothetical isn’t a strong argument, especially, because, ya know, Kash Patel, who would make a good or bad candidate is, in fact, up to congress.

                  • Starski@lemmy.zip
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    4 hours ago

                    No one here is defending Kash Patel, they’re saying that pissing in a bush isn’t a big deal, especially compared to many other things he’s responsible for. You’re just making yourself look like an idiot for not understanding this, you can agree that this isn’t a good look for him and does show relevance to today while also agreeing that pissing in a bush isn’t a big deal. Unless you do think it’s a big deal, in which case you need to touch grass.

              • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                24 hours ago

                The problem isn’t that he ever did this, the problem is that it was entirely believable that he would do it today (because he’s a careless idiot, not a college student who would later stop such shenanigans). But I agree with the person saying it’s old news and not really worth bringing up right now especially given the misleading title.

      • Peppycito@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        1 day ago

        In my youth I have also been to the Government Hotel for public urination. And it does indeed correlate to my present behavior of peeing outside.

    • TheAlbatross@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      18
      ·
      1 day ago

      It doesn’t matter. None of it actually matters. It’s all just theater, distraction and misinformation hiding political power which is utterly detached from legality, morality or decency.