We'll let POTUS know later
-
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.
@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?
-
@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?
@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.
-
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-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.
@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.
-
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.
-
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
-
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.
@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.
-
There’s a material public health benefit to not having Trump announce it.
Although not nearly as much as there was before the election.
-
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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
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?
-
@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.
-
@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.
@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.
-
@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.
@Larry said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@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.
That’s because you don’t know what you’re talking about.
-
@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.
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
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.All of those points are irrelevant (even if true).
Should the manufacturer of a potentially life-saving vaccine have notified the President of the United States that they had a treatment that might work?
Should the same manufacturer have notified the President's political opponent before the President?
Again, you're confusing policy with personality. Your use of the word "cheapen" proves my point. There's no such thing as "cheapen" when it comes to this.
-
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
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.All of those points are irrelevant (even if true).
Should the manufacturer of a potentially life-saving vaccine have notified the President of the United States that they had a treatment that might work?
Should the same manufacturer have notified the President's political opponent before the President?
Again, you're confusing policy with personality. Your use of the word "cheapen" proves my point. There's no such thing as "cheapen" when it comes to this.
@George-K said in We'll let POTUS know later:
@xenon said in We'll let POTUS know later:
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.All of those points are irrelevant (even if true).
Should the manufacturer of a potentially life-saving vaccine have notified the President of the United States that they had a treatment that might work?
Should the same manufacturer have notified the President's political opponent before the President?
Again, you're confusing policy with personality. Your use of the word "cheapen" proves my point. There's no such thing as "cheapen" when it comes to this.
On a practical level - if they told Joe (and others) Sunday night and announced first thing Monday morning what difference does that make to the Corona response?
This is purely a matter of respect.
