12 ms·

If he disagrees with the President, why should he (and why should anyone want him to) stop speaking into the President's ear?

panarky 10y ago
Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. This does far more damage than any marginal benefit from "speaking into the president's ear". I'm sure it's good for Uber to be on Trump's team, but don't pretend you're "standing up for what's right".
- sirclueless 10y ago
  Ahh yes, the advisory board with other fringe right-wingers such as Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sheryl Sandberg. How could he possibly be so two-faced as to throw his hat in with these marginal characters?
  - panarky 10y ago
    You're misinformed. Nobody from Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook are in this group. https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-additional-members-of-presidents-strategic-and-policy-forum-8aa8822eced9 https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...
- hackinthebochs 10y ago
  This sort of thinking is so tragically misguided. If the only sane people who might potentially have Trump's ear turn away from this role, then the only people advising Trump are the extremely dangerous group he currently has! This is the far bigger danger then appearing to "legitimize" him (as if someone who was elected president needs any more legitimacy). The good he could do as an adviser is orders of magnitude greater than what he could do by turning down the role in fear of adding legitimacy.
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    Normally I would agree, because that's true in most cases. But we're past that here. The Germans went with it, and I'm sure some thought at the start that going along would let them do some good. Look how that turned out. No, it's not okay to just do business as usual here and try to nudge things a bit with policy suggestions. It's time for much more active responses.
    - hackinthebochs 10y ago
      Maybe that's true, but not being on an economic advisory board isn't the kind of "active response" you're talking about.
    - hueving 10y ago
      Ah, Godwin's Law. I hope when you reflect back on these times in a year or so you realize how childish it was to compare stopping some Muslims from some unstable countries (not even the big Muslim countries) with literally exterminating Jewish people and blaming them for all of the country's problems.
      - DanBC 10y ago
        > from some unstable countries Like Mo Farrah, an olympic gold medal winning athlete and British citizen?
      - llukas 10y ago
        If you did pay attention at school then you'd know that extermination was final step of pretty long process of de-humanizing Jewish people. Its not like they put them into prison camps overnight. First they couldn't attend university, then they couldn't own a shop later they couldn't get a passport. Propaganda people had much work to do to allow it happen. We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
        hueving 10y ago
        But who is 'they' in this analogy? The immigrants on hold aren't even from the biggest Muslim countries. Temporary immigration restrictions on 6 countries is hardly the same thing as du-humanizing Muslims. >We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear. No it's not. Many other countries have very strict immigration controls dependent on the migrant's origin country and they aren't exactly stuffing people into ovens.
- inverse_pi 10y ago
  So you think by agreeing to be on Trump's advisory board, Uber agrees with the immigration ban? I guess GM, Tesla, Disney, etc are probably pretending to "stand up for what's right" too , right?
  - tiles 10y ago
    We know exactly one thing: Uber (and none of the companies you list) disagree with the ban enough to threaten to drop out of the advisory board.
- madeofpalk 10y ago
  I guess there's two ways you can look at it if you're given the chance to advise a President you disagree with: - Disagree out of principle. Someone else will step up to fill your stop. - Agree and provide your POV of policy. A 'worse person' won't replace you (immediately).
- stefantalpalaru 10y ago
  > Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. So it's just like in the last 8 years, but now it's OK to publicly oppose it? I call that an improvement.
aseipp 10y ago
All Travis has gotta do is just, uhhh, disrupt all of that, uhhh -- disruption going on? The stuff with the judiciary branch, and whatnot. To be clear, I don't mean to be incredibly condescending, but: Do you actually think the POTUS or someone like Steve Bannon actually gives a shit what a nerd who owns an app actually thinks, in light of everything happening right now? I'm being serious. Fundamentally, "nerd who owns app" is all someone like Travis Kalanick is, in this situation. He is not some magical negotiator or politician because he accepted a position with the administration on the Policy Forum. I don't know why to expect him to be anything more than just a soundboard/printed name. Why would I? Because he and Trump are business men? And if he IS anything more than "nerd who owns app" -- why would he want to be associated with what appears to be a completely unhinged administration? People do not look at someone like Condoleezza Rice and think "I bet she tried real hard, talkin 'em down. Good show." This idea "good ol' Travis or Elon" can just talk him down off the wire seems to be nothing but a dream, rooted in some fantasy, as far as I can tell. Maybe all the shit going down is bad for them. But if it isn't - why would they stop it?
jaredklewis 10y ago
I agree that he shouldn't be criticized for staying on, but only if he publicly voices his disagreement in unambiguous terms. If Trump only wants boot lickers, he can fire Kalanick like he did the acting attorney general. Of course, it doesn't look like that is the case. By all appearances Kalanick is mincing words as he tries to balance the affections of the administration and angry users. My guess is that he is just another spineless think-for-himselfer.
rad88 10y ago
Why would Trump listen to what Kalanick has to say about a policy order that is notionally an urgent response to national security threats from Iranian/Syrian/etc. travelers? With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters. The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.

panarky 10y ago

Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. This does far more damage than any marginal benefit from "speaking into the president's ear". I'm sure it's good for Uber to be on Trump's team, but don't pretend you're "standing up for what's right".

sirclueless 10y ago
Ahh yes, the advisory board with other fringe right-wingers such as Elon Musk, Satya Nadella, Larry Page, Eric Schmidt, Tim Cook, Jeff Bezos, and Sheryl Sandberg. How could he possibly be so two-faced as to throw his hat in with these marginal characters?
- panarky 10y ago
  You're misinformed. Nobody from Microsoft, Google, Apple or Facebook are in this group. https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-additional-members-of-presidents-strategic-and-policy-forum-8aa8822eced9 https://greatagain.gov/president-elect-trump-announces-addit...
hackinthebochs 10y ago
This sort of thinking is so tragically misguided. If the only sane people who might potentially have Trump's ear turn away from this role, then the only people advising Trump are the extremely dangerous group he currently has! This is the far bigger danger then appearing to "legitimize" him (as if someone who was elected president needs any more legitimacy). The good he could do as an adviser is orders of magnitude greater than what he could do by turning down the role in fear of adding legitimacy.
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  Normally I would agree, because that's true in most cases. But we're past that here. The Germans went with it, and I'm sure some thought at the start that going along would let them do some good. Look how that turned out. No, it's not okay to just do business as usual here and try to nudge things a bit with policy suggestions. It's time for much more active responses.
  - hackinthebochs 10y ago
    Maybe that's true, but not being on an economic advisory board isn't the kind of "active response" you're talking about.
  - hueving 10y ago
    Ah, Godwin's Law. I hope when you reflect back on these times in a year or so you realize how childish it was to compare stopping some Muslims from some unstable countries (not even the big Muslim countries) with literally exterminating Jewish people and blaming them for all of the country's problems.
    - DanBC 10y ago
      > from some unstable countries Like Mo Farrah, an olympic gold medal winning athlete and British citizen?
    - llukas 10y ago
      If you did pay attention at school then you'd know that extermination was final step of pretty long process of de-humanizing Jewish people. Its not like they put them into prison camps overnight. First they couldn't attend university, then they couldn't own a shop later they couldn't get a passport. Propaganda people had much work to do to allow it happen. We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear.
      - hueving 10y ago
        But who is 'they' in this analogy? The immigrants on hold aren't even from the biggest Muslim countries. Temporary immigration restrictions on 6 countries is hardly the same thing as du-humanizing Muslims. >We do not know if it is first step of many but direction is clear. No it's not. Many other countries have very strict immigration controls dependent on the migrant's origin country and they aren't exactly stuffing people into ovens.
inverse_pi 10y ago
So you think by agreeing to be on Trump's advisory board, Uber agrees with the immigration ban? I guess GM, Tesla, Disney, etc are probably pretending to "stand up for what's right" too , right?
- tiles 10y ago
  We know exactly one thing: Uber (and none of the companies you list) disagree with the ban enough to threaten to drop out of the advisory board.
madeofpalk 10y ago
I guess there's two ways you can look at it if you're given the chance to advise a President you disagree with: - Disagree out of principle. Someone else will step up to fill your stop. - Agree and provide your POV of policy. A 'worse person' won't replace you (immediately).
stefantalpalaru 10y ago
> Collaborating with the administration legitimizes and normalizes their policies of hate. So it's just like in the last 8 years, but now it's OK to publicly oppose it? I call that an improvement.

aseipp 10y ago

All Travis has gotta do is just, uhhh, disrupt all of that, uhhh -- disruption going on? The stuff with the judiciary branch, and whatnot. To be clear, I don't mean to be incredibly condescending, but: Do you actually think the POTUS or someone like Steve Bannon actually gives a shit what a nerd who owns an app actually thinks, in light of everything happening right now? I'm being serious. Fundamentally, "nerd who owns app" is all someone like Travis Kalanick is, in this situation. He is not some magical negotiator or politician because he accepted a position with the administration on the Policy Forum. I don't know why to expect him to be anything more than just a soundboard/printed name. Why would I? Because he and Trump are business men? And if he IS anything more than "nerd who owns app" -- why would he want to be associated with what appears to be a completely unhinged administration? People do not look at someone like Condoleezza Rice and think "I bet she tried real hard, talkin 'em down. Good show." This idea "good ol' Travis or Elon" can just talk him down off the wire seems to be nothing but a dream, rooted in some fantasy, as far as I can tell. Maybe all the shit going down is bad for them. But if it isn't - why would they stop it?

jaredklewis 10y ago

I agree that he shouldn't be criticized for staying on, but only if he publicly voices his disagreement in unambiguous terms. If Trump only wants boot lickers, he can fire Kalanick like he did the acting attorney general. Of course, it doesn't look like that is the case. By all appearances Kalanick is mincing words as he tries to balance the affections of the administration and angry users. My guess is that he is just another spineless think-for-himselfer.

rad88 10y ago

Why would Trump listen to what Kalanick has to say about a policy order that is notionally an urgent response to national security threats from Iranian/Syrian/etc. travelers? With Steve Bannon speaking into the other ear? Bear in mind his strategist is (apparently) deferred to over even Homeland Security officials and DOD commanders when it comes to these matters. The fact is Kalanick is not going to influence Trump on this issue, but by remaining on the advisory team he might secure a sweet (life saving) deal for Uber down the road. The cost? Trump gets to use him as token for proof of legitimacy/economic acumen/America First/etc.