If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well. I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
It's a good thing you're not a CEO then. Ignoring the expertise within the company, and preventing employees from doing their job (which in her case was to try Trumps order), would be quite foolish.
I'm going to suggest that you consider how the Volkswagen diesel scandal came about. Which is most likely:
* That lawyers and compliance managers stood up and did their job?
or
* That top brass made a decision, overruling legitimate opposition?
> I think you should be more worried about insert extremely generic anti-trump comment regarding perceived intelligence, narcissism, small hands, refusal to listen to experts, climate denial or other such comment
The comment or validity thereof?
Both may get you fired; morally one is correct and the other isn't.
great chat.
This isn't behavior that should be encouraged, neither in you nor in Trump, and your original sentiment that we shouldn't worry about it isn't something I'd subscribe to.
At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that.
You are inferring that I am because of your pro-trump bias and because i responded to the parent with insert generic content, which could be construed as being neutral/pro-trump. For the record, I think the mess Americans have created for themselves serves them right; is a sign of a broken democracy, an ignorant and uninformed populace where only extremism will get people to the polls. Unfortunately Australia is part of a world where the actions of a bigoted maniac will affect us; and I can hardly say that our political leadership is any better (although our democracy is significantly stronger with compulsory voting and preferential voting)
> At no point have I said I take a view that is often taken in HN, that is, if you can play the game and win, it doesn't matter how you do it. I actually don't think that.
But you literally wrote this in your original post:
> If I was President/General/CEO and someone doesn't do the thing I have ordered, i'm going to fire them as well.
How else are we meant to interpret that?
On the last part I only have this to say: I don't have pro-trump bias. I am very anti-trump, but not as a premise, but rather as an end result of my rationality.
>how else are we meant to interpret that
You are assuming malevolence in my theorised intentions and actions without having any basis for it. I think the best way to interpret that would be that I have a not unreasonable expectation of loyalty. Remember here that the parent comment specifically said
>The major worry for me is Trump's seeking to punish anyone who shows disloyalty.
Where we are in fact talking about loyalty and not the potential criminality or morality of the executive orders of a man who is has the best chance in a long while of taking us all into a world war
The only basis I have to possibly assume things from is what you write.
You made the comparison from someone disobeying an order based on a professional assessment that the order was unconstitutional - to an employee disobeying an order.
The only comparison in that case that would be apt would be an employee that is more knowledgable in their field than the CEO issuing the order.
If this is not what you meant, then you shouldn't have written it. It's not based on any bias from my side.
> Where we are in fact talking about loyalty and not the potential criminality or morality of the executive orders of a man who is has the best chance in a long while of taking us all into a world war
If this is from Trumps perspective, I might be inclined to agree, but if so, your original comparison makes even less sense. Dictators rely on loyalty, leaders listen to council, regardless of business or politics.
There's a difference between disobeying an order out of pettiness and out of your professional assessment.
You said you mis-typed, which is fair, I'm just not sure what you meant to say.
And on bias:
bias
noun
inclination or prejudice for or against one person or group, especially in a way considered to be unfair.
No, I do not have a bias. I judge anyone only on what they say and do.
Great, we would probably enjoy each other's company.
The only basis I have to possibly assume things from is what you write. You made the comparison from someone disobeying an order based on a professional assessment that the order was unconstitutional - to an employee disobeying an order.
Well I think we are interpreting the parent paragraph and my reply in totally different lights. As I point out elsewhere, I think there is a difference between a sackable offence through disloyalty, and not following an order because you don't agree with the validity of it, expert or not. I am not making any claim regarding the actual substance of the executive order; or whether trump's use of disloyal is 'correct' (I personally think it's a beatup) ; only that disloyalty is undermining and is a fireable offence..
>Dictators rely on loyalty, leaders listen to council, regardless of business or politics.
Mate, the whole fucking world revolves around loyalty; also known as friendship or cordial business relations to change spheres again. It holds democracies together just as much as dicktatorships. Doesn't make disloyalty any less of a fireable offence.
there's too much strong systemiser here on both sides. Anyway, not my country, and probably won't be one for much longer, which is going to have some pretty profound implications. Enjoy the fireworks and stay safe.
It doesn't suggest that their respective CEOs disregard the counsel's input. If it's still relevant to pursue their corporate interest in very fresh legislative ground afterwards, that's another thing.
While I might be persuaded in general that amendments should be made and the constitution not be static, immigration isn't a new frontier. And in that area, it's not in need of revision.