3 ms·

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
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        I was asking in good faith, so not sure what to tell you. My agenda was to understand why public versus privately calling for a CEO's removal is better than the other since they have the same goal, but I can understand why someone would prefer one over the other.
        rco8786 1y ago
        I mean I answered that above. Not sure what else you want.
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        That reply was to lovich.
        rco8786 1y ago
        Did you ask a question? I’m not seeing one. If the government has more info that’s even more reason to make this a matter of governance, and not twitter, IMO. Genuine question, what do you think was the purpose of trump making that a public grievance instead of working on it directly with Tan?
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.

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
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        I was asking in good faith, so not sure what to tell you. My agenda was to understand why public versus privately calling for a CEO's removal is better than the other since they have the same goal, but I can understand why someone would prefer one over the other.
        rco8786 1y ago
        I mean I answered that above. Not sure what else you want.
        magicmicah85 1y ago
        That reply was to lovich.
      - rco8786 1y ago
        Did you ask a question? I’m not seeing one. If the government has more info that’s even more reason to make this a matter of governance, and not twitter, IMO. Genuine question, what do you think was the purpose of trump making that a public grievance instead of working on it directly with Tan?

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.