312
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Dec 2025
312 points (100.0% liked)
news
284 readers
1116 users here now
A lightweight news hub to help decentralize the fediverse load: mirror and discuss headlines here so the giant instance communities aren’t a single choke-point.
Rules:
- Recent news articles only (past 30 days)
- Title must match the headline or neutrally describe the content
- Avoid duplicates & spam (search before posting; batch minor updates).
- Be civil; no hate or personal attacks.
- No link shorteners
- No entire article in the post body
founded 3 months ago
MODERATORS
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.
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
Isn't that was the senate approval is supposed to be?
What's the difference between appointing somebody and hiring somebody? Isn't it virtually the same thing?
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.
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?