19 hours ago, Grouse said:

What?

Branson heads the Virgin group...

Saudis have a thing for 72 virgins...

Branson says no deal...

Saudis have to look elsewhere for virgins...

Ah, forget it.

On 10/14/2018 at 11:23 PM, farcanell said:

I’m sorry... but I have to.

 

branson does operate at a different level... a more fiscally responsible level, apparently

 

if Branson loses a trillion dollars, his shareholders will have his nuts... trumps loses a trillion, and his investors ( voter fan base) applaud him and think he should be in line for a Nobel peace prize.

 

someone in this equation is stupid.... yes, maybe it’s me, but let’s be honest, with thousands of proven lies under his belt, where is his (trumps) credibility?

 

if Branson had thousands of demonstrable lies underpinning his “empire”, would he still have shareholder confidence? I think not... ergo, as he can be deposed on a shareholder vote (per Elon muskrat?) , his ( Branson) level of transparency and honesty is higher than trumps.... it should not be... that’s crazy talk... but that seems to be 2018’s reality.

 

branson cannot get away with unilateral actions, unlike the potus, who has his left leaning senators nuts, in his right paw.

 

consequently.... an understandable decision to suspend investment negotiations with a dictatorial sovereign is appropriate... It’s perhaps short term, whilst culpability and reaction is established.... but short term, it’s responsible and appropriate and pina coladas are great... bugger maga.

 

Note that there wasn't much of a suggestion about Trump's conduct, policies and reactions being a good example of national leader's (or a government's) decision making process or minimizing conflict of interests.

 

But that said, even Trump, faulty as he is, ultimately needs to consider a wider scope of elements involved in decision making than people like Branson do. That Trump seems to fail the test over and over again actually serves to highlight the point. Much of the outrage related to his performance stems from his failure to live up to such standards or his disregard of them.

 

Branson doesn't need to concern himself with how his moves will effect regional or global geopolitics, doesn't command an army and doesn't have the same level of access to information a national leader would.

 

There wasn't a suggestion Branson's decision is inappropriate. It was pointed out, though, that if he had much moral compunctions about Saudi Arabia's civil/human rights record, doubtful he would have "gotten into bed" with them to begin with. The recent incident could be painted as some "last straw", but I doubt it would have resulted in a similar reaction with lesser optics and publicity.

Here's hoping he fixes his awful trains instead. The man can't even run a decent rail service, so shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a space ship.

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Note that there wasn't much of a suggestion about Trump's conduct, policies and reactions being a good example of national leader's (or a government's) decision making process or minimizing conflict of interests.

 

But that said, even Trump, faulty as he is, ultimately needs to consider a wider scope of elements involved in decision making than people like Branson do. That Trump seems to fail the test over and over again actually serves to highlight the point. Much of the outrage related to his performance stems from his failure to live up to such standards or his disregard of them.

 

Branson doesn't need to concern himself with how his moves will effect regional or global geopolitics, doesn't command an army and doesn't have the same level of access to information a national leader would.

 

There wasn't a suggestion Branson's decision is inappropriate. It was pointed out, though, that if he had much moral compunctions about Saudi Arabia's civil/human rights record, doubtful he would have "gotten into bed" with them to begin with. The recent incident could be painted as some "last straw", but I doubt it would have resulted in a similar reaction with lesser optics and publicity.

The topic is nothing to do with Trump. Unfortunately, some posters just have to bring him into every thread.

On 10/16/2018 at 11:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The topic is nothing to do with Trump. Unfortunately, some posters just have to bring him into every thread.

????????????

some posters, hey? The nerve!

 

mind you, on this here topic, I think you need to direct your ire at webfact admin, as trump was brought up in the OP, by webfact (or the lifted Reuter’s article)... but I guess you missed that.

 

ammendment 28 needs to be added to the constitution post haste.

A28.... thou shalt not fact check!

On 10/16/2018 at 11:21 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

The topic is nothing to do with Trump. Unfortunately, some posters just have to bring him into every thread.

 

You mean other than Trump being mentioned in the OP and Branson's move being a rather obvious counterpoint to Trump's reaction?