Actually your original point was:
>Eh. Without getting anywhere near the merits of this particular fracas, the federal government has gotten deeply involved in critiquing the management of companies like Lockheed and Boeing, both for national security reasons and because of the importance of those companies to the economy. Easy to see Intel fitting into that mold in 2025.
Which was you saying "this Intel thing is NBD and basically the same as a bunch of past things presidents have done."
That's the original false equivalency I called you out on. And which you now disagree with apparently, because now you think the Intel thing is potential malfeasance? I don't think you really know what your position is anymore.
I have no idea if it's no big deal or not, only that it's not unprecedented and of all the companies you'd expect to see something like this happen at in a normal administration, this is the one.
Again, what is the precedent for the president of the united states to publicly call on a CEO to resign, in the absence of a major scandal or company failure that has required the government to intervene to save the public / investors / etc?
You keep saying it's the same old shit but when people point out the differences you change the subject. You're basically a troll.