Skip to content
  • Categories
  • Recent
  • Tags
  • Popular
  • Users
  • Groups
Skins
  • Light
  • Cerulean
  • Cosmo
  • Flatly
  • Journal
  • Litera
  • Lumen
  • Lux
  • Materia
  • Minty
  • Morph
  • Pulse
  • Sandstone
  • Simplex
  • Sketchy
  • Spacelab
  • United
  • Yeti
  • Zephyr
  • Dark
  • Cyborg
  • Darkly
  • Quartz
  • Slate
  • Solar
  • Superhero
  • Vapor

  • Default (No Skin)
  • No Skin
Collapse

The New Coffee Room

  1. TNCR
  2. General Discussion
  3. We'll let POTUS know later

We'll let POTUS know later

Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved General Discussion
104 Posts 10 Posters 778 Views
  • Oldest to Newest
  • Newest to Oldest
  • Most Votes
Reply
  • Reply as topic
Log in to reply
This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
  • X xenon

    It’s not right - the office of POTUS should be notified first.

    But Trump personally doesn’t deserve it.

    Remember, this is the guy that fires senior government officials through the media and Twitter.

    George KG Offline
    George KG Offline
    George K
    wrote on last edited by
    #39

    @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

    It’s not right - the office of POTUS should be notified first.
    But Trump personally doesn’t deserve it.
    Remember, this is the guy that fires senior government officials through the media and Twitter.

    There, right there, is the problem with Trump.

    People ignore the fact that he's the President of The United States, and focus on the fact that he's occasionally impolite.

    I've said, many times, that Trump is a loathsome boor. But, he IS The President. and by virtue of that fact, he, more than anyone know what the status is of the crisis, the pandemic, that is ravaging our nation. He should be notified first, and not through a media report, particularly when his political opponent was notified at least 12 hours earlier.

    His behavior regarding senior government officials through the media and Twitter is irrelevant. You're conflating personality with policy.

    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

    X 1 Reply Last reply
    • George KG George K

      @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

      It’s not right - the office of POTUS should be notified first.
      But Trump personally doesn’t deserve it.
      Remember, this is the guy that fires senior government officials through the media and Twitter.

      There, right there, is the problem with Trump.

      People ignore the fact that he's the President of The United States, and focus on the fact that he's occasionally impolite.

      I've said, many times, that Trump is a loathsome boor. But, he IS The President. and by virtue of that fact, he, more than anyone know what the status is of the crisis, the pandemic, that is ravaging our nation. He should be notified first, and not through a media report, particularly when his political opponent was notified at least 12 hours earlier.

      His behavior regarding senior government officials through the media and Twitter is irrelevant. You're conflating personality with policy.

      X Offline
      X Offline
      xenon
      wrote on last edited by
      #40

      @George-K

      My point wasn’t that he shouldn’t have been notified first (he should have).

      But it’s also a two way street.

      The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

      He treated them like personal servants though.

      But, my point was that Trump doesn’t separate the two either.

      George KG 1 Reply Last reply
      • JollyJ Jolly

        @Axtremus said in We'll let POTUS know later:

        Don’t know if or when Pfizer called the Biden campaign to inform them of its vaccine news. Even if Pfizer did, it’s their own information to share with whomever and whenever it sees fit. So, yeah, even if Pfizer did call the Biden campaign first, it is perfectly alright. Heck, it is still perfectly alright even if Pfizer also called Kanye first.

        Uh, no. It's not.

        It's not illegal, but it's damn sure not all right.

        AxtremusA Away
        AxtremusA Away
        Axtremus
        wrote on last edited by
        #41

        @Jolly said in We'll let POTUS know later:

        @Axtremus said in We'll let POTUS know later:

        Don’t know if or when Pfizer called the Biden campaign to inform them of its vaccine news. Even if Pfizer did, it’s their own information to share with whomever and whenever it sees fit. So, yeah, even if Pfizer did call the Biden campaign first, it is perfectly alright. Heck, it is still perfectly alright even if Pfizer also called Kanye first.

        Uh, no. It's not.

        It's not illegal, but it's damn sure not all right.

        Now you're a "big government" guy?
        Private companies have to notify the federal government first on whatever they do?

        Within legal bounds, it is perfectly alright for private enterprises to choose with whom and when they share their proprietary information.

        JollyJ 1 Reply Last reply
        • AxtremusA Axtremus

          @Jolly said in We'll let POTUS know later:

          @Axtremus said in We'll let POTUS know later:

          Don’t know if or when Pfizer called the Biden campaign to inform them of its vaccine news. Even if Pfizer did, it’s their own information to share with whomever and whenever it sees fit. So, yeah, even if Pfizer did call the Biden campaign first, it is perfectly alright. Heck, it is still perfectly alright even if Pfizer also called Kanye first.

          Uh, no. It's not.

          It's not illegal, but it's damn sure not all right.

          Now you're a "big government" guy?
          Private companies have to notify the federal government first on whatever they do?

          Within legal bounds, it is perfectly alright for private enterprises to choose with whom and when they share their proprietary information.

          JollyJ Offline
          JollyJ Offline
          Jolly
          wrote on last edited by
          #42

          @Axtremus said in We'll let POTUS know later:

          @Jolly said in We'll let POTUS know later:

          @Axtremus said in We'll let POTUS know later:

          Don’t know if or when Pfizer called the Biden campaign to inform them of its vaccine news. Even if Pfizer did, it’s their own information to share with whomever and whenever it sees fit. So, yeah, even if Pfizer did call the Biden campaign first, it is perfectly alright. Heck, it is still perfectly alright even if Pfizer also called Kanye first.

          Uh, no. It's not.

          It's not illegal, but it's damn sure not all right.

          Now you're a "big government" guy?
          Private companies have to notify the federal government first on whatever they do?

          Within legal bounds, it is perfectly alright for private enterprises to choose with whom and when they share their proprietary information.

          Did you read what I wrote?

          “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

          Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

          1 Reply Last reply
          • X xenon

            @George-K

            My point wasn’t that he shouldn’t have been notified first (he should have).

            But it’s also a two way street.

            The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

            He treated them like personal servants though.

            But, my point was that Trump doesn’t separate the two either.

            George KG Offline
            George KG Offline
            George K
            wrote on last edited by George K
            #43

            @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

            The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

            Um....

            Who is the "Chief Executive" again?

            They serve, or at least should, serve the President.

            Because "The Deep State" doesn't exist, amirite?

            ETA:

            officers in the executive branch serve the office

            Who is the director of that branch?

            "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

            The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

            X 1 Reply Last reply
            • George KG George K

              @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

              The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

              Um....

              Who is the "Chief Executive" again?

              They serve, or at least should, serve the President.

              Because "The Deep State" doesn't exist, amirite?

              ETA:

              officers in the executive branch serve the office

              Who is the director of that branch?

              X Offline
              X Offline
              xenon
              wrote on last edited by xenon
              #44

              @George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:

              @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

              The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

              Um....

              Who is the "Chief Executive" again?

              They serve, or at least should, serve the President.

              Because "The Deep State" doesn't exist, amirite?

              They don’t serve Donald Trump - they serve the office of President.

              There’s nothing legally wrong with Pfizer informing Joe Sunday night and announcing first thing Monday morning though the media. There’s also no practical difference to the administration’s ability to address coronavirus with that.

              This issue is about respect of the office of POTUS.

              The office can be disrespected by the holder of it as well.

              George KG 1 Reply Last reply
              • kluursK Online
                kluursK Online
                kluurs
                wrote on last edited by
                #45

                President Trump's use of social media is such that given the information in advance, he might very well announce the breakthrough ahead of the official release via Twitter. The executives might have considered that others they informed have demonstrated more ability for self-restraint.

                Having the announcement made by the President, he could also take credit for the development of the virus - as did - something they might have wanted for themselves.

                A tough call because while I sympathize with controlling the annoucement, It is a bit of an FU to Trump.

                George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                • X xenon

                  @George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                  @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                  The officers in the executive branch serve the office, not Trump.

                  Um....

                  Who is the "Chief Executive" again?

                  They serve, or at least should, serve the President.

                  Because "The Deep State" doesn't exist, amirite?

                  They don’t serve Donald Trump - they serve the office of President.

                  There’s nothing legally wrong with Pfizer informing Joe Sunday night and announcing first thing Monday morning though the media. There’s also no practical difference to the administration’s ability to address coronavirus with that.

                  This issue is about respect of the office of POTUS.

                  The office can be disrespected by the holder of it as well.

                  George KG Offline
                  George KG Offline
                  George K
                  wrote on last edited by
                  #46

                  @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                  They don’t serve Donald Trump - they serve the office of President.

                  There is no "office of President. There is the President of the United States. And as much as you loathe him, Trump is that person. Get used to it for the next 10 weeks. He's in charge, and he should have been notified regardless of his personality.

                  There’s nothing legally wrong with Pfizer informing Joe Sunday night and announcing first thing Monday morning though the media. There’s also no practical difference to the administration’s ability to address coronavirus with that.

                  I never claimed illegality. I implied bias. That's obvious.

                  This issue is about respect of the office of POTUS.

                  Exactly. And Pfizer showed no respect for that office.

                  The office can be disrespected by the holder of it as well.

                  And that is irrelevant to the point of this thread. Again, you're objecting to personality, not policy.

                  "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                  The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                  X 1 Reply Last reply
                  • kluursK kluurs

                    President Trump's use of social media is such that given the information in advance, he might very well announce the breakthrough ahead of the official release via Twitter. The executives might have considered that others they informed have demonstrated more ability for self-restraint.

                    Having the announcement made by the President, he could also take credit for the development of the virus - as did - something they might have wanted for themselves.

                    A tough call because while I sympathize with controlling the annoucement, It is a bit of an FU to Trump.

                    George KG Offline
                    George KG Offline
                    George K
                    wrote on last edited by
                    #47

                    @kluurs said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                    I sympathize with controlling the annoucement, It is a bit of an FU to Trump.

                    Exactly. And the fact that Pfizer did that is outrageous.

                    Almost as outrageous at POTUS' behaviors.

                    "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                    The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                    1 Reply Last reply
                    • jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nycJ Online
                      jon-nyc
                      wrote on last edited by
                      #48

                      There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

                      Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.

                      Only non-witches get due process.

                      • Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
                      George KG JollyJ 2 Replies Last reply
                      • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                        There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

                        Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.

                        George KG Offline
                        George KG Offline
                        George K
                        wrote on last edited by
                        #49

                        @jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                        There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

                        What's that, if I may ask.

                        What's the material health benefit of letting candidate Biden know ahead of time?

                        "Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08

                        The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.

                        jon-nycJ 1 Reply Last reply
                        • jon-nycJ jon-nyc

                          There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

                          Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.

                          JollyJ Offline
                          JollyJ Offline
                          Jolly
                          wrote on last edited by
                          #50

                          @jon-nyc said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                          There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.

                          Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.

                          Equivocation.

                          Does not really address the point.

                          “Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”

                          Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton

                          1 Reply Last reply
                          • LarryL Offline
                            LarryL Offline
                            Larry
                            wrote on last edited by
                            #51

                            This thread is a perfect example of one of the big problems we face today. You cannot reason with a lot of people. Their derangement is set in concrete. They talk about things and turn right around in the next sentence and make it clear they don't even understand the truth they had just said. Example - "it not about the person in office, it's about the office" -. A truth. Then they turn right around and say "but Trump is an asshole who doesn't deserve the respect of his office". All while firmly believing in their own mind that they are intelligent and what they said made sense. It doesnt. It's downright dumb.

                            There was a time not that long ago when, regardless of how you felt about the man in office, you showed respect for that office. That means Pfizer would have notified the White House FIRST. Period. It also means that rubberneckers like us wouldn't see a reason to question it, and if Pfizer did what they actually did, we rubberneckers would uniformly just agree that it was disrespectful. Instead, we get dumb commentary like xenon gave us.

                            There is no respect for our nation any more. There is no respect for the Constitution, no respect for the Bill of Rights, hell, a lot of people don't even know what they mean any more.

                            While you TDS sufferers are busy showing your ignorance over Pfizer utter disrespect for the office of the President, we are 2 votes away in Georgia from handing the Senate over to Chuck Schumer. Democrat big money donors are flooding Georgia democrat candidates with cash. Democrats - including Andrew Yang for example- are admitting there is a plot afoot to "move" to Georgia and declare themselves residents so they can vote in the runoffs.

                            Your country is being taken over. And you're busy finding new ways to bash Trump. "Nah, we will be ok because... 'divided government-...." WAKE. THE. HELL. UP. You TDS sufferers, democrats... You are PISSING YOUR NATION AWAY.

                            1 Reply Last reply
                            • George KG George K

                              @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                              They don’t serve Donald Trump - they serve the office of President.

                              There is no "office of President. There is the President of the United States. And as much as you loathe him, Trump is that person. Get used to it for the next 10 weeks. He's in charge, and he should have been notified regardless of his personality.

                              There’s nothing legally wrong with Pfizer informing Joe Sunday night and announcing first thing Monday morning though the media. There’s also no practical difference to the administration’s ability to address coronavirus with that.

                              I never claimed illegality. I implied bias. That's obvious.

                              This issue is about respect of the office of POTUS.

                              Exactly. And Pfizer showed no respect for that office.

                              The office can be disrespected by the holder of it as well.

                              And that is irrelevant to the point of this thread. Again, you're objecting to personality, not policy.

                              X Offline
                              X Offline
                              xenon
                              wrote on last edited by
                              #52

                              @George-K here’s a practical example.

                              Trump recently fired his secretary of defense over Twitter. He fired many people through media without telling them. I think Comey was famously giving a speech somewhere when it showed up on the news.

                              My point is - isn’t that disrespectful to the Presidency? Cheapens the authority given to the holder of the office.

                              George KG 1 Reply Last reply
                              • LarryL Offline
                                LarryL Offline
                                Larry
                                wrote on last edited by
                                #53

                                You just insist on staying stuck on stupid.

                                Jesus.

                                1 Reply Last reply
                                • LarryL Offline
                                  LarryL Offline
                                  Larry
                                  wrote on last edited by
                                  #54

                                  Bill Clinto was sticking his dick down a girl's throat in the oval office, did that disrespect the office? Then why in HELL did we continue to show respect for the office and the man in it?

                                  X 1 Reply Last reply
                                  • LarryL Larry

                                    Bill Clinto was sticking his dick down a girl's throat in the oval office, did that disrespect the office? Then why in HELL did we continue to show respect for the office and the man in it?

                                    X Offline
                                    X Offline
                                    xenon
                                    wrote on last edited by
                                    #55

                                    @Larry yes that obviously disrespected the office. What sort of stupid question is that?

                                    1 Reply Last reply
                                    • LarryL Offline
                                      LarryL Offline
                                      Larry
                                      wrote on last edited by Larry
                                      #56

                                      You and everyone who thinks like you are pissing this country away. WAKE the fuck up, fool.

                                      X 1 Reply Last reply
                                      • LarryL Larry

                                        You and everyone who thinks like you are pissing this country away. WAKE the fuck up, fool.

                                        X Offline
                                        X Offline
                                        xenon
                                        wrote on last edited by xenon
                                        #57

                                        @Larry I have no idea what you’re talking about.

                                        So you think cabinet members should be fired through the media going forward?

                                        Cool. I don’t.

                                        I already said they should have told Trump first. That was the first thing I said.

                                        My point was that there’s a lot of one sided outrage on this.

                                        LarryL 1 Reply Last reply
                                        • X xenon

                                          @Larry I have no idea what you’re talking about.

                                          So you think cabinet members should be fired through the media going forward?

                                          Cool. I don’t.

                                          I already said they should have told Trump first. That was the first thing I said.

                                          My point was that there’s a lot of one sided outrage on this.

                                          LarryL Offline
                                          LarryL Offline
                                          Larry
                                          wrote on last edited by
                                          #58

                                          @xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:

                                          @Larry I have no idea what you’re talking about.

                                          So you think cabinet members should be fired through the media going forward?

                                          Cool. I don’t.

                                          I already said they should have told Trump first. That was the first thing I said.

                                          I am already aware that you have no idea what I'm talking about.

                                          None whatsoever.

                                          X 1 Reply Last reply
                                          Reply
                                          • Reply as topic
                                          Log in to reply
                                          • Oldest to Newest
                                          • Newest to Oldest
                                          • Most Votes


                                          • Login

                                          • Don't have an account? Register

                                          • Login or register to search.
                                          • First post
                                            Last post
                                          0
                                          • Categories
                                          • Recent
                                          • Tags
                                          • Popular
                                          • Users
                                          • Groups