4 ms·

At leas the pentagon deal was government related. Why the hell is the government putting it's nose up private deals like this and also asking for a cut?

outside1234 6y ago
I think your answer is right there at the end. They want a cut.
- hooande 6y ago
  The federal budget is hundreds of tiktoks. and where would the money even go?
  - DoctorOW 6y ago
    I love the cynicism of believing that the presidency is interfering in the deals, but the optimism of believing that it must then go towards Federal budgets and not certain people's pockets. :)
    - gbear605 6y ago
      It’s not cynicism that he’s interfering when it’s obvious - literally Trump making statements on his Twitter. As for the money into his pocket; no need, the reasoning for Trump is that it makes his voters like him (since they dislike China), which gets him reelected.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Trump wants the cut , he is not asking for one to actually fund the federal budget. He wants one to score with the voters. Given the unusual nature of the ask , it could be a donation to the project of his choicing like the wall
Barrin92 6y ago
because the government is run like a shady real estate company from the 80s, the president's term for the cut was quite literally, 'key money'
newacct583 6y ago
Because in this case the executive branch effectively forced the sale to happen by threatening to ban the platform. TikTok on its own wasn't looking to sell. Now, they have to sell to an American company in order to make Trump happy. So what else do they have to do to make Trump happy?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  Well it's borderline acceptable to indirectly forcing them to sell by threatening a ban, but to actively oversee the sale and micromanage it is far beyond the line.
  - newacct583 6y ago
    > it's borderline acceptable to indirectly forcing them to sell It really is not. One of the biggest horrors of the Trump years is the extent to which this kind of capricious executive action has been normalized. A ban is a ban. If you genuinely think an app poses a security risk, then you use one of the executive tools available to shut it down. There was no "ban" enacted here. It was a bargaining chip used to muck with the markets in an outrageously explicit way. We don't do that in this country. Or we never did before. The closest equivalent to this in terms of effect would have been the trust busting of the early 20th century. And that involved all three branches of government working over years. This happened because One Guy decided he didn't like TikTok.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
grey-area 6y ago
Why the hell is the government putting it's nose up private deals like this and also asking for a cut? This is the correct question to ask, but the answer is quite simple - because Donald Trump is corrupt and thinks he can get away with it. You had a republic, can you keep it?

outside1234 6y ago

I think your answer is right there at the end. They want a cut.

hooande 6y ago
The federal budget is hundreds of tiktoks. and where would the money even go?
- DoctorOW 6y ago
  I love the cynicism of believing that the presidency is interfering in the deals, but the optimism of believing that it must then go towards Federal budgets and not certain people's pockets. :)
  - gbear605 6y ago
    It’s not cynicism that he’s interfering when it’s obvious - literally Trump making statements on his Twitter. As for the money into his pocket; no need, the reasoning for Trump is that it makes his voters like him (since they dislike China), which gets him reelected.
- manquer 6y ago
  Trump wants the cut , he is not asking for one to actually fund the federal budget. He wants one to score with the voters. Given the unusual nature of the ask , it could be a donation to the project of his choicing like the wall

Barrin92 6y ago

because the government is run like a shady real estate company from the 80s, the president's term for the cut was quite literally, 'key money'

newacct583 6y ago

Because in this case the executive branch effectively forced the sale to happen by threatening to ban the platform. TikTok on its own wasn't looking to sell. Now, they have to sell to an American company in order to make Trump happy. So what else do they have to do to make Trump happy?

ehsankia 6y ago
Well it's borderline acceptable to indirectly forcing them to sell by threatening a ban, but to actively oversee the sale and micromanage it is far beyond the line.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > it's borderline acceptable to indirectly forcing them to sell It really is not. One of the biggest horrors of the Trump years is the extent to which this kind of capricious executive action has been normalized. A ban is a ban. If you genuinely think an app poses a security risk, then you use one of the executive tools available to shut it down. There was no "ban" enacted here. It was a bargaining chip used to muck with the markets in an outrageously explicit way. We don't do that in this country. Or we never did before. The closest equivalent to this in terms of effect would have been the trust busting of the early 20th century. And that involved all three branches of government working over years. This happened because One Guy decided he didn't like TikTok.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

grey-area 6y ago

Why the hell is the government putting it's nose up private deals like this and also asking for a cut? This is the correct question to ask, but the answer is quite simple - because Donald Trump is corrupt and thinks he can get away with it. You had a republic, can you keep it?