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

    • Marty_TF@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      24 hours 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
        21
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        24 hours 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
          ·
          21 hours 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
            10
            ·
            21 hours 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
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              15 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
                ·
                edit-2
                14 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
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  14 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.

                  • homes@piefed.worldOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    13 hours ago

                    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.

            • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              20 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
                ·
                19 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.

            • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              20 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
      ·
      23 hours 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.