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

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -8 points 6 months ago (19 children)

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

not someone who should be running the FBI

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 months ago (11 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] [S] -2 points 6 months ago* (9 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -3 points 6 months ago* (4 children)

    I’m not responsible for everyone else’s poor standards. Stop blaming me for your terrible choices, lol.

    And your defense of Kash Patel is what’s distracting from what a real piece of shit he is. Rationalizations don’t change that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    Not defending Kash Patel, I'm dismissing your puritanism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -5 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    By defending Kash Patel. It’s pretty pathetic how your rationalizing it too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 6 months ago (2 children)

    Its not defending the guy when you're painting with such a broad brush.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] [S] 1 point 6 months ago (1 child)

    I can’t believe that you’re trying to define what you’re singing by what I’m saying. That beyond ridiculous into the absurd.

    At this point, you’re obviously just trolling. I’m just gonna block you now.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 3 points 6 months 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 6 months ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] [S] -4 points 6 months ago (4 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 6 months ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] [S] -1 points 6 months ago (2 children)

    that's exactly what's going on. its absurd to even deny it.

    dude's been a drunk his whole life, and here you all are trying to defend him. it's pathetic

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments