> 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?
> 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?
Publicly or privately, why is one fine and the other not?
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.
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.
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?
I think Trump wants Tan out. Publicly calling him out puts pressure on him more than a private behind the scenes process that will take weeks/months versus a few days. Tan might be able to supplicate Trump by presenting a golden egg, though.
The public pressure puts Tan on defense which gives Trump leverage in negotiating with him. Not sure what Tan/Intel will need to give up to address any potential conflicts but remains to be seen what happens.
Right so publicly bully him into defense mode and either force him to resign or publicly bend the knee to trump.
If you genuinely don't see the problem here, I don't know what to say.
When President Obama privately asked Rick Wagoner to resign from GM, do you think that spared him from embarrassment or feeling bullied? There was absolutely no need for Rick Wagoner to have to resign, but the Obama administration needed a blood sacrifice to sell a bailout. A 30 year career at GM ended in disgrace because the government couldn’t trust him to turn around GM, even though he was a popular CEO.
But you’re right, the Obama administration didn’t publicly bully him, just privately did so. I don’t see one method as better than the other, there’s a use for either but they both have the same goals.
Fortunate for Tan, a lot of people don’t like Trump and he’ll probably gain more public support and potentially stay on as CEO. This is certainly where this backfires on Trump as his method of publicly shooting from the hip doesn’t always work. Tan becomes the target of the day, forgotten about a week later. This is where Trump diplomacy could work better through private methods, but we also don’t know if that’s been tried. Quite honestly, I think he just had somebody whispering in his ear and he just decided to tweet it.
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
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.
I mean I answered that above. Not sure what else you want.
That reply was to lovich.
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.