It is.
I believe it's just another job. When he clocks out, or is on a break, it's his time.
He can to a certain degree "clock out" and have "his" time but only in the privacy of his home or among friends in private circumstances. Publishing statements on a global public media forum however changes this into a "public appearance", makes it "work" and makes him POTUS in function. Where he to make these statements at the bar of a private cocktail party, by all means. The difference is the platform being private or public.
It comes with the exceptional job; like royals, prime ministers and presidents (not only POTUS). Whenever you are acting in public, you are acting in function.
Edit:
You used a misleading quote btw: "In my eyes POTUS has no personal life when he acts in public"
Re edit:
Not misleading, just abbreviated.
My point was that even in public I think he should have those same rights. So quoting the rest was unnecessary, not misleading.
The difference is the platform being private or public.
I don't think platform matters because I do not agree that he is supposed to keep anything contained inside his home. I think he still has the right to take the Potus mantle off, and go out in public, as himself.
Platform is mostly irrelevant to that. Treat a private cocktail or private Twitter feed the same.
changes this into a "public appearance", makes it "work" and makes
If he has crossed the line of conducting business on personal time, then that is the issue that should be dealt with. Not stripping him of a personal identity.
It comes with the exceptional job; like royals, prime ministers and presidents
Historically it has been like that. That doesn't mean it's a good thing. There was a time where it was required, but I think that has passed.
I like the idea of the leader being a real person instead of a revered or mythic semi-deity. I like seeing any moves toward openness and transparency.
It feels more honest.
Riddle me this then: So where do official statements from POTUS start and where do they end? Which ones are which?
See the confusion, pressure and legal limbo this brings us in to. Hence all statements in public are in the function of POTUS.
Platform is mostly irrelevant to that. Treat a private cocktail or private Twitter feed the same.
No, as it absolutely isn't the same as one is a statement made in private, during a private meeting in a private setting... the other is a global public statement.... twitter is the same as a press conference, or statement made to a journalist pre-social media.
Not stripping him of a personal identity.
"The loneliness of leadership" It's a burden yes, all powerful men mention it in their memoirs... but Donny can be whatever or whomever he wants to be in function (and be accountable) and if he wants to take it beyond he can in private. POTUS>Donny the function is more important then the man.
Historically it has been like that. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.
There's actually law in place with good reasoning because of this exact issue:
The platform matters as Donny has the extraordinary jobfunction of POTUS. It's has not "been historically arranged like this" it is written in goddamn law because, statements made in public by people holding a powerful/public function automatically carry extra weight. As people see POTUS, the person and the function cannot be seen separate when acting and making statements in public, the function is far to big and overshadows any person. (same goes for royalty and PM's) If this was not the case the person in power could easily abuse his powers and position, pressure situations to personally benefit, not be held accountable for statements "i wasn't in function", while pushing others "but I was in function", deliberately lie or dis-inform without accountability, etcetera etcetera it all basically comes down to grossly abusing his or her powers.
This is basic law for these functions in about the whole civilized world just for these exact reasons. Twitter might be a "new thing" but the laws where made to en-capsule accountability and limit power (abuse). Hence the person is always in function when in public.
That's the heart of our disagreement I think.
I believe it's just another job. When he clocks out, or is on a break, it's his time. I feel that during 'his time' he is free to talk about work, and more or less do as he pleases.
When he's on the clock, he has to take the public, when he's off, I think he's ok to tune them out.