7 ms·

I don’t recall a sitting President publicly calling for the CEO of either of those companies to resign. Please let’s not sanewash what is happening right now.

bgwalter 1y ago
President Obama: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/gm-ceo-resigns-at-obamas-behest-020625 https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/gm-ceo-resigns-at-oba... Sen. Warren: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/embroiled-scandal-wells-fargo-ceo-resigns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/embroiled-scandal-wells...
- rco8786 1y ago
  These are news reports after the fact. It's not normal for a president to go on twitter and publicly deride someone into resigning.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    The norm that’s been transgressed here is getting more and more specific, isn’t it?
    - rco8786 1y ago
      > a sitting President publicly calling for the CEO of either of those companies to resign. That was my original "norm" I stated. What has gotten more specific about that?
      - magicmicah85 1y ago
        Publicly or privately, why is one fine and the other not?
        scarface_74 1y ago
        The other hopefully happens after the President and his advisors talk behind the scenes. This isn’t a Republican vs Democrat thing. Republican presidents never did this before. And that happened as part of the government bailing GM out.
        rco8786 1y ago
        I'll answer this in earnest, assuming you're asking in good faith. The president commands an enormous amount of power, and has an army of people who will do his bidding and simply adopt his opinions on any number of subjects. Shouting out to millions of his followers to state that the CEO of a private company is "CONFLICTED" and must resign is, by any definition, propaganda. Propaganda that changes the minds of the citizens of the country, riles up the base, and does nothing productive except to stoke anger and fear. Working privately with this CEO, having a professional discussion with him, investigating the facts, determining that the best course of action for national security would be for him to step down, and maybe even putting some political pressure on that person to do so, and then publicly announcing the facts of what happened, is responsible governance. It's genuinely an enormous difference.
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        I am asking in good faith and I understand why there would be a preference towards private versus public. It sounds like Trump does not care to attempt a private conversation as he wants Tan out. The Cadence settlement is likely the only public info we have about Tan's conflicts, the government has more info and they aren't going to spend time working through private channels, though it sounds like Tan is trying that now.
        lovich 1y ago
        I’m struggling to believe you are asking in good faith. He answered your question and your immediate response is to try and defend what the president did in terms of violating norms. It seems like youve had an agenda since before you asked the question
  - bgwalter 1y ago
    The CEO will likely be fine, Trump also announces movements of nuclear submarines on Truth Social. I'd be more concerned about non-public dealings that Trump might have learned from Roy Cohn, but these are probably off limits for discussion here. In general, what is on Truth Social does not matter.
- sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
  The GM CEO had presided over a time when GM got into such bad shape they needed a government bailout, and had to come back asking for even more government money. The Wells Fargo CEO presided over a major scandal involving customers being signed up for services they never agreed to. What has the Intel CEO presided over during his short tenure that measures up to those?
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Vastly increased attention on semiconductor companies as national security assets coupled with fairly extensive business relationships with companies controlled by America's chief geopolitical rival.
    - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
      Oh, so not the same kind of thing at all then...
      - tptacek 1y ago
        You'll notice that none of the examples on this thread are the same things.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Yeah, it seems like a lot of hot air to prop up a false equivalency.
        tptacek 1y ago
        I suggest not asking questions you don't want the answers to.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        I suggest not normalizing Trump's behaviors by creating false equivalencies.
- tzs 1y ago
  I'd hardly call the GM situation comparable. In that case GM was asking the government for $16.6 billion (on top of $9.4 billion they had received under Bush). Asking a company that wants a nearly $17 billion bailout to make some changes is not at all unreasonable or unusual. As far as I know Intel is not asking the government for anything special, so having the government commenting on their internal organization is unusual.
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Presumably all the teeth in the USG demands are about USG contracts.
morkalork 1y ago
Lockheed's CEO Carl Kotchian resigned after political pressure but he brought it on himself.
joules77 1y ago
Look up the Teddy Roosevelt era. Before his election and after he leaves.

bgwalter 1y ago

President Obama: https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/gm-ceo-resigns-at-obamas-behest-020625 https://www.politico.com/story/2009/03/gm-ceo-resigns-at-oba... Sen. Warren: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/embroiled-scandal-wells-fargo-ceo-resigns https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/embroiled-scandal-wells...

rco8786 1y ago
These are news reports after the fact. It's not normal for a president to go on twitter and publicly deride someone into resigning.
- tptacek 1y ago
  The norm that’s been transgressed here is getting more and more specific, isn’t it?
  - rco8786 1y ago
    > a sitting President publicly calling for the CEO of either of those companies to resign. That was my original "norm" I stated. What has gotten more specific about that?
    - magicmicah85 1y ago
      Publicly or privately, why is one fine and the other not?
      - scarface_74 1y ago
        The other hopefully happens after the President and his advisors talk behind the scenes. This isn’t a Republican vs Democrat thing. Republican presidents never did this before. And that happened as part of the government bailing GM out.
      - rco8786 1y ago
        I'll answer this in earnest, assuming you're asking in good faith. The president commands an enormous amount of power, and has an army of people who will do his bidding and simply adopt his opinions on any number of subjects. Shouting out to millions of his followers to state that the CEO of a private company is "CONFLICTED" and must resign is, by any definition, propaganda. Propaganda that changes the minds of the citizens of the country, riles up the base, and does nothing productive except to stoke anger and fear. Working privately with this CEO, having a professional discussion with him, investigating the facts, determining that the best course of action for national security would be for him to step down, and maybe even putting some political pressure on that person to do so, and then publicly announcing the facts of what happened, is responsible governance. It's genuinely an enormous difference.
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        I am asking in good faith and I understand why there would be a preference towards private versus public. It sounds like Trump does not care to attempt a private conversation as he wants Tan out. The Cadence settlement is likely the only public info we have about Tan's conflicts, the government has more info and they aren't going to spend time working through private channels, though it sounds like Tan is trying that now.
        lovich 1y ago
        I’m struggling to believe you are asking in good faith. He answered your question and your immediate response is to try and defend what the president did in terms of violating norms. It seems like youve had an agenda since before you asked the question
- bgwalter 1y ago
  The CEO will likely be fine, Trump also announces movements of nuclear submarines on Truth Social. I'd be more concerned about non-public dealings that Trump might have learned from Roy Cohn, but these are probably off limits for discussion here. In general, what is on Truth Social does not matter.
sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
The GM CEO had presided over a time when GM got into such bad shape they needed a government bailout, and had to come back asking for even more government money. The Wells Fargo CEO presided over a major scandal involving customers being signed up for services they never agreed to. What has the Intel CEO presided over during his short tenure that measures up to those?
- tptacek 1y ago
  Vastly increased attention on semiconductor companies as national security assets coupled with fairly extensive business relationships with companies controlled by America's chief geopolitical rival.
  - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
    Oh, so not the same kind of thing at all then...
    - tptacek 1y ago
      You'll notice that none of the examples on this thread are the same things.
      - sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        Yeah, it seems like a lot of hot air to prop up a false equivalency.
        tptacek 1y ago
        I suggest not asking questions you don't want the answers to.
        sjsdaiuasgdia 1y ago
        I suggest not normalizing Trump's behaviors by creating false equivalencies.
tzs 1y ago
I'd hardly call the GM situation comparable. In that case GM was asking the government for $16.6 billion (on top of $9.4 billion they had received under Bush). Asking a company that wants a nearly $17 billion bailout to make some changes is not at all unreasonable or unusual. As far as I know Intel is not asking the government for anything special, so having the government commenting on their internal organization is unusual.
- tptacek 1y ago
  Presumably all the teeth in the USG demands are about USG contracts.

morkalork 1y ago

Lockheed's CEO Carl Kotchian resigned after political pressure but he brought it on himself.

joules77 1y ago

Look up the Teddy Roosevelt era. Before his election and after he leaves.