4 ms·

> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?

by alt227 11mo ago

westmeal 11mo ago
So what?
- rtkwe 11mo ago
  There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.
  - shadowgovt 11mo ago
    And, of course, since businesses are fundamentally in competition, that puts them in an interesting position: even if it's a net negative for the entire industry to capitulate to the bullying tactics of the executive branch, you can get a leg up on your competition by having one fewer giant complicated court case to worry about (even if the case is guaranteed to lose, it still costs money to defend it).
    - rtkwe 11mo ago
      Yes, there's a lot of pressure to stay on his good side, even if the charges are bogus and eventually beaten or just ends in a pay-off like many cases the process is still damaging/costly and there's large incentives to pre-comply. Look at Apple's little gift plaque for an example of that, not really a bribe unless more laws are broken but a nice little ego stroke none the less.
- hagbard_c 11mo ago
  So "democracy" [1], that term which is bandied about so much by those who seem to consistently fail at it. [1] Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. You [2] voted for it, now you [2] get to keep it. [2] you as in "We, the People".
ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago
[flagged]
- alt227 11mo ago
  The OP was questioning why these companies are doing what this man is asking them to. I feel the reason is because this man is the president. The fact is relevant to the statement, which is why I wrote it.
  - ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago
    The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show. It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no presidents have ever acted this way before. The difference here is that this president is also a power-tripping glorified reality show egomaniac. Thus, the operant term is the latter, not the former.
    - alt227 11mo ago
      Again, that said someone is the President of the United States. If he wasnt the president, these companies probably wouldnt be doing this. I still feel thats pretty relevant.
      - acdha 11mo ago
        The part which is relevant is that he’s willing to break the law in unprecedented ways and has the full support of the Republican Party in doing so. Americans used to pride ourselves on the government not controlling businesses.
        alt227 11mo ago
        If he wasnt the President, he wouldnt be able to do those things. Therefore the fact he is President is pretty relevant.
neogodless 11mo ago
I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States. While I don't think "corporations should be in charge", I also don't think a President should be dictating corporate culture or policy short of going through the proper channels of using Congress to write legislation that keeps corporations in check and doesn't allow their power and influence to grow too large. But... uh... yeah that isn't happening either. Instead, those in power are helping each other out, at the expense of common citizens of the U.S. (and likely at the expense of people outside the U.S. too.)
- terminalshort 11mo ago
  But the president absolutely can enforce civil rights laws which clearly ban racial discrimination in hiring and promotions.
- alt227 11mo ago
  > I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States. If you dont, you could suddenly find that the thing you sell has a ridiculous tariff imposed on it. Then that might mean you sell a lot less. He has done much more for much less in the past.
  - AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
    If you make that thing in the US, good luck having the US government slap a tariff on it. I mean, yes, Microsoft is international, and the president could probably find an angle to put a tariff on some part of their business. Not most of it, though.
rsynnott 11mo ago
For three more years, and at significant risk of being basically neutered in a year (the polls aren't exactly going _great_ for him). Like, it's unclear how much accommodation one should be making to his delicate feelings.

> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?

by alt227 11mo ago

> a glorified reality show egomaniac He is also.... the president of the United States?

westmeal 11mo ago

So what?

rtkwe 11mo ago
There's a hell of a lot of power vested in the executive branch especially in the DOJ to really mess with companies and the real protection against it's misuse was the agreement that the President didn't directly instruct and control who the DOJ actually indicted. It used to be a notable event when a president even appeared to hint that he was encouraging investigations (not even indictments) into specific companies now we've got a president explicitly demanding the DOJ indict specific people and find any reason to do so, see Comey and Letitia James's recent indictments.
- shadowgovt 11mo ago
  And, of course, since businesses are fundamentally in competition, that puts them in an interesting position: even if it's a net negative for the entire industry to capitulate to the bullying tactics of the executive branch, you can get a leg up on your competition by having one fewer giant complicated court case to worry about (even if the case is guaranteed to lose, it still costs money to defend it).
  - rtkwe 11mo ago
    Yes, there's a lot of pressure to stay on his good side, even if the charges are bogus and eventually beaten or just ends in a pay-off like many cases the process is still damaging/costly and there's large incentives to pre-comply. Look at Apple's little gift plaque for an example of that, not really a bribe unless more laws are broken but a nice little ego stroke none the less.
hagbard_c 11mo ago
So "democracy" [1], that term which is bandied about so much by those who seem to consistently fail at it. [1] Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. You [2] voted for it, now you [2] get to keep it. [2] you as in "We, the People".

ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago

[flagged]

alt227 11mo ago
The OP was questioning why these companies are doing what this man is asking them to. I feel the reason is because this man is the president. The fact is relevant to the statement, which is why I wrote it.
- ImPostingOnHN 11mo ago
  The OP was actually not questioning that at all. It was lamenting that they are bending the knee to someone unworthy of it, in furtherance of a culture war spearheaded by said someone. In particular, a glorified reality show egomaniac who treats their current job as a glorified reality show. It certainly isn't useless information that the person is currently president, but that alone doesn't say much, because no presidents have ever acted this way before. The difference here is that this president is also a power-tripping glorified reality show egomaniac. Thus, the operant term is the latter, not the former.
  - alt227 11mo ago
    Again, that said someone is the President of the United States. If he wasnt the president, these companies probably wouldnt be doing this. I still feel thats pretty relevant.
    - acdha 11mo ago
      The part which is relevant is that he’s willing to break the law in unprecedented ways and has the full support of the Republican Party in doing so. Americans used to pride ourselves on the government not controlling businesses.
      - alt227 11mo ago
        If he wasnt the President, he wouldnt be able to do those things. Therefore the fact he is President is pretty relevant.

neogodless 11mo ago

I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States. While I don't think "corporations should be in charge", I also don't think a President should be dictating corporate culture or policy short of going through the proper channels of using Congress to write legislation that keeps corporations in check and doesn't allow their power and influence to grow too large. But... uh... yeah that isn't happening either. Instead, those in power are helping each other out, at the expense of common citizens of the U.S. (and likely at the expense of people outside the U.S. too.)

terminalshort 11mo ago
But the president absolutely can enforce civil rights laws which clearly ban racial discrimination in hiring and promotions.
alt227 11mo ago
> I'm continually blown away that the modern titans of industry readily bow down to the president of the United States. If you dont, you could suddenly find that the thing you sell has a ridiculous tariff imposed on it. Then that might mean you sell a lot less. He has done much more for much less in the past.
- AnimalMuppet 11mo ago
  If you make that thing in the US, good luck having the US government slap a tariff on it. I mean, yes, Microsoft is international, and the president could probably find an angle to put a tariff on some part of their business. Not most of it, though.

rsynnott 11mo ago

For three more years, and at significant risk of being basically neutered in a year (the polls aren't exactly going _great_ for him). Like, it's unclear how much accommodation one should be making to his delicate feelings.