3 ms·
> and yet the absolute frustration is that there is nothing that anyone but the judiciary system can do. Why would there be? The people hired Trump to be the
by lotsofpulp 2y ago
> and yet the absolute frustration is that there is nothing that anyone but the judiciary system can do.
Why would there be? The people hired Trump to be the CEO, the CEO hired Musk (personally, I think it is mostly to serve as a distraction while real personal/political goals are handled elsewhere), but regardless, any government only works when most leaders (and voters) have mostly good intentions.
It is not feasible to have a check and balance on every decision, everything would grind to a halt.
- nemo44x 2y agoIt’s more like Trump is the chairman of the board of directors representing shareholders interest (voters, loyalists, contributors) and Musk is the CEO.
- wrs 2y agoThe United States isn’t supposed to have a “CEO” in the sense that a corporation does. For countries, that job description is called a “monarch”, and the Constitution is specifically designed to make sure we don’t have one.
- lotsofpulp 2y agoA monarch cannot be voted out. A CEO can be voted out. The US president presides over the executive branch of the US government. It’s not a one to one equivalence, but commander-in-chief is pretty close to a chief executive office.
- wrs 2y agoThe difference in job duration isn’t the point I was making. The President is merely the head of three equal branches that are supposed to keep each other in check, and has significant limits on his/her powers. A CEO has essentially limitless powers as long as they have the job. As one obvious example, a CEO controls the company budget. A President can merely suggest a budget to Congress.