Trump Implicitly Suggests That His DOJ Would Take Down Amazon For Antitrust
from the oh-boy dept
There was a fair bit of coverage on Monday of the news that the Donald Trump campaign had removed the press credentials from the Washington Post because the campaign was upset with the Washington Post's coverage of the campaign. While it got a lot of attention, it was quickly pointed out that Trump has revoked or barred at least six other news outlets from receiving press passes, including Politico, the Huffington Post, the National Review, Buzzfeed and the Daily Beast. This issue is being discussed in lots of media circles. But what interested me much more was buried deeper in the full two paragraph statement that the Trump campaign later released. It included a weird and basically confused attack on Jeff Bezos, that again raises some serious questions about how Trump may use the Presidency to "settle scores."The Washington Post unfortunately covers Mr. Trump very inaccurately. Today's headline, "Donald Trump Suggests President Obama Was Involved With Orlando Shooting" is a perfect example. We no longer feel compelled to work with a publication which has put its need for "clicks" above journalistic integrity.There are all sorts of issues with that statement, beyond the simple fact that there appears to be basically zero evidence to support it. Yes, Jeff Bezos runs Amazon and also owns the Washington Post. But I've seen basically no evidence that the Washington Post has done any stories that are somehow lobbying for Amazon's interests (for what it's worth, Amazon tends to stay far, far away from all sorts of policy fights). Perhaps I've missed it, but I don't recall any WaPo editorials advocating for letting Amazon avoid taxes.
They have no journalistic integrity and write falsely about Mr. Trump. Mr. Trump does not mind a bad story, but it has to be honest. The fact is, The Washington Post is being used by the owners of Amazon as their political lobbyist so that they don't have to pay taxes and don't get sued for monopolistic tendencies that have led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry.
But it's really the end of that last paragraph that's the most concerning. Claiming that Amazon has "monopolistic tendencies" and the ridiculous claim that it's "led to the destruction of department stores and the retail industry," is somewhat concerning. This is not the first time Trump has attacked Bezos. In fact, his original infamous statements about how he was going to "open up libel laws" were actually directed at Bezos. He first went on a tirade about Bezos owning the Washington Post, followed by:
If I become President, oh, are they going to have problems. They're going to have such problems.Lots of people pointed out that Trump perhaps couldn't do too much to libel laws (the Supreme Court and the First Amendment has that covered), but he absolutely could have the DOJ or even the FTC go after Amazon for claimed anti-trust or anti-consumer behavior. And it seems pretty clear that he would gleefully do so. And not because of any actual evidence of problems, but because he doesn't like the coverage in the Washington Post which just happens to be owned by Bezos. Settling personal scores with the press by attacking a service that many in the public find extremely useful and convenient doesn't seem particularly presidential, does it?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: antitrust, donald trump, monopoly, press credentials, retail
Companies: amazon, washington post
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Yep...
This is why regulation is bad and Anti-Monoploy/Anti-Trust laws are superior as protectors against the negatives of Capitalism and Free Market.
Regulation is Oligarchy supported by the clueless socialists that can be easily taken advantage of with mere table scraps and lip service.
There should be a law stating that a single individual should only be able to ever own/control 1 business. NEVER a second! Allowing a single person to gain so much wealth and power that they can forcibly alter the economic landscape is never good!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yep...
You imply that anti trust laws are not regulation. Why?
You look confused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
Government telling a business they can only sell 16 oz. soda is a regulation, but is NOT anti-trust.
Government telling a business that they cannot sign a contract with Coca-Cola to exclusively sell their 16 oz. soda is {true} a regulation but specifically Anti-Trust.
You are actually the first person to intelligently engage this conversation. There is a very important distinction between just regulation and Anti-Trust/Anti-Monopoly law. The devil is in the details, cars, planes, boats, and trucks are all vehicles. I am just saying I do not want any vehicle, I want specific vehicles! Regulation just says give us anything even if it is the wrong one without discrimination. Asking someone to only give you a truck specifically precludes all other forms of vehicles right?
Which is why I say no to regulation because that just allows businesses to BUY THE MARKET, there is no real control which is the very thing that the others calling me a troll 'claim' to wish to prevent, but still agree too all at the same time.
I say yes to Anti-Trust law, because it is refined in such a way to limit governments corrupt and makes it more difficult for businesses to BUY THE MARKET. It really is very easy for businesses to buy regulations that stifle competition and allow monopolies. As proven by the FCC and its vast history of doing just that! It is difficult for businesses to buy anti-trust regulation to benefit them in any way!
The people here still holding on to the idea that the FCC is not corrupt, are not students of history and will only repeat its failures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yep...
An oligarchic organisation like FCC will easily be corruptable.
On the other hands anti-trust has to rely on clear laws and you know how laws work? They erode and are circumvented...
So corruption and inconsistency or erosion and circumvention. Pick your poison...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
The FCC was an Oligarchy before Wheeler got in. The new rules sadly make it possible for it become an even worse one now.
The FCC needs to be sunset. Yes the telco's might go insane from it and do their worst but it will also create a new backlash that might bring them back under heel. Doubt it but we already know that the FCC path is going to be nothing but corruption proven by its history.
In fact all regulatory agencies should be sunset from time to time if for nothing else than to force a return and complete rewrite of the laws. Right now we have so many laws on the books that it is nearly impossible NOT be a criminal. Hell a of them contradict each other!
https://cei.org/blog/contradictory-financial-regulations-cause-problems
Here is a good example.
Seriously, a changing of the filthy as diaper that is congress AND the regulatory agencies is a necessity!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yep...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act
So, yes ... it is regulation by a government entity.
I do not recall anyone here posting the claim to which you refer - namely that the FCC is not corrupt. Perhaps I just missed that post. The sad truth is that most all human activity is subject to the pressures of corruption, politics more so than most others. It would be a surprise to find any governing body to free of corruption, simply getting rid of regulation will not address this - at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
No one is asking for Anti-Trust regulation. There may be a lot of peeps about about, but NEVER what comes out of committee.
Additionally no one is trying to prevent other regulations that are NOT anti-trust. In fact business are wanting regulation so they can use them to stifle competition instead.
So what do you get when when the people call for regulation? Regulation that only results in an outcome worse than no regulation? America in 2016, the FCC, AMA, the FTC... all of these agencies are wearing the emperors new cloths!!!
People need to start saying no to Regulation because the term allows ALL the corruption, but to instead say yes to Anti-Trust, and tie each agencies budget to successful anti-trust investigations. Once a lot of it all has been wiped out, we can look at the economy, and sunset the agency that has served us. Yes, the corruption will come back, but that is just the circle of life! So we resurrect the agency again and go to town.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
So you're fine with getting rid of all the safety and environmental regulations, and let the corporations do whatever they want to anybody, as long as they're not colluding? No thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
He's the kind of person whose reaction to Nixon creating the EPA in order stop companies literally polluting so much that rivers were on fire, is to whine that the regulation getting in the way of capitalism. Somehow anything done in advancement of profit OK as long as the consumer has the illusion of choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
Since we allow any kind of regulation then yes, Trump might be able to do just that! And even though any attempt he made might be noticeable, there is likely going to be little challenge from the Trump supports when he does corrupt shit, because the supporters of Obama let him do corrupt shit as well. Sadly a lot of people are going to behave that way in spite or just take it as a leftist attack on Trump. When it comes to party politics you cannot find enough sane people to have proper discourse. They side can just do no wrong!
If we only allowed Anti-Trust/Anti-Monopoly laws then it would be very difficult for Trump to do this.
This is the reason that if there is going to be regulation, it must ONLY be Anti-Monopoly or Anti-Trust. A free market cannot survive any more regulation than that. So yes, America is effectively no longer a free market. It is an Oligarchy fomented by socialists in pure ignorance and delusional love of any and all regulation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Yep...
Insider trading? No prob Congress Critter, you are allowed to do that.
Conflict of Interest? Do not worry Congress, you are covered.
Hand out bribery checks on the Congressional floor just prior to taking a vote? Not a problem - nothing wrong with that.
Beware peasants ... you are not allowed to do any of the above because it is illegal for you, now get back to work you worthless wage slave.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
A lot of people LIKE their own congress critters but they hate all of the other ones. Why do they like their own but hate all of the others? Because their own guys corruption gets them stuff!
Congress is like the final proof that Regulation is bad and only Anti-Trust or Anti-Monopoly law will work to any degree.
And yes, you do bring up an excellent point, businesses are allowed to do a lot of things that would be illegal for a citizen to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
I see this a lot, and have not yet seen any evidence in support of the claim. It looks and smells of bullshit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Yep...
How so?
"A lot of people LIKE their own congress critters but they hate all of the other ones. Why do they like their own but hate all of the others? Because their own guys corruption gets them stuff!"
Only slightly more like than dislike, and that gap is closing according to gallup. Some, including Gallup, indicate the difference could be simply because the people know who their Representative is in their own states, but have no idea who the rest of congress is. According to Gallop, that simple name recognition could be skewing the results. I couldn't find any references to indicate free stuff = more favorable view.. not to say that's not the case.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspx
"Congress is like the final proof that Regulation is bad and only Anti-Trust or Anti-Monopoly law will work to any degree."
But are they not the same thing? Antitrust laws are a form of regulation by definition.
https://www.google.com/#q=regulation
https://www.google.com/#q=is+anti+trust+regulation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yep...
That's what mergers are for. Or are we going to need a new law that is totally not a regulation that says all mergers are illegal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yep...
Lets take the merger with TWC and Charter. Can anyone specify how this promote any competition?
How about China buying up American Movie Theaters?
How about Jack Ma buying up French vineyards?
What does any of this benefit the world at large? Nothing that is what. It does give singular individuals the power to make sweeping and destructive changes to entire economies however. Something we should actively prevent from being possible.
That is why we should not even allow the possibility of any large mergers or acquisitions from taking place. They only move more profits up to the super rich and adds to the backs of the poor.
Did you see how much global economic power is residing in the Bilderberg conference? If the World was sane, it would arrest every one of them moment they all gathered as a monolithic corruption! So much power in so few individuals hands only breeds evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SINGLE REGULATION
Just because 1 company is SMARTER then another, does NOT mean a company has an UNFAIR advantage..
Look at the OLD stores..
NOT upgraded,
no longer compete..
MOST are groups of Stores, all owned by 1 company..(macy's to TJ Max)
GET OUT of the high COST areas..move to the Lower cost sections of towns..
DONT sit next to your competition IN THE MALL.
GET OUT of the DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM IN THE USA..GO DIRECT..
(running products threw 2-3 companies BEFORE it gets to a store ONLY ADD's COST)(ask walmart)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: SINGLE REGULATION
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: SINGLE REGULATION
There is still a lot of business handled at these places. I was just at a Farmers market last weekend to avoid giving the Big Retailers money in an effort to support my local economy and not some board member in God knows what country!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: SINGLE REGULATION
Not in this area..
or
TO FAR to drive..
or Food? for the Month??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Opening up libel laws
If congress doesn't like it, he could just dissolve congress because it acts as an inconvenient impediment to his administration's agenda. A mandate which he received when everyone voted for him to be president. After all, everyone just loves Trump. And anyone who doesn't is just a loser. And if some people don't want a Trump administration, then he'll make it longer -- and he'll make them pay for it. His will be the most bestest classiest administration ever. Believe Trump, when he says he knows administrations. Everyone will just love his presidency. And loving it won't just be the right thing to do, it will be the law.
(I hope I did not need a sarcasm tag here.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
All you need is someone who is completely self centered, on a power trip, has no grasp of, nor respect for the law or even what is right for any other person outside of him/her self.
Don't think it couldn't happen here. I don't mean to invoke godwin, but I'm sure people had no idea what was going to happen.
We read right here every day about a world that seems to be going insane.
Every time I come up with what I think is a sarcastic, cynical paranoid raving, reality turns out worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
We laughed and sneered (rightfully) because we believed that it couldn't happen here, believed (perhaps wrongly) that we had grown beyond that kind of ignorant, narrow-minded, self-centred, and harmful, backwardness.
But now Der Trump is the official semi-finalist for the contest over the American presidency, and the only ones laughing are Trump and his supporters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
As for the people worrying about how the President doesn't have the authority to do a lot of the shit that Trump's promising, you might want to read a book and look at just how much Obama expanded the power and reach of the executive. Trump wouldn't even have to sign a single executive order and he'd already have the authority and capability to launch a drone-strike on every registered democrat in the country or indefinitely detain them.
Finally, Jeff Bezos has a deeply vested interest in making sure that Trump stays out of office. Amazon wants to keep the cost of labor as low as possible, and Trump's restrictions on immigration and enforcement of laws against employing illegal immigrants would cause big problems for them - not to mention the issue of tariffs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
07940 569 059
So are you going to tell me with a straight face that before Trump, people here didn't believe that the law was abused for partisan political purposes? ...That it is only with the rise of the evil Trump that they'll start?
I doubt that Saint Donald of Trump will put an end to that. We haven't seen or heard him say so, nor have any statements been released by the Trump campaign to indicate an end to these abuses. Please correct me if I'm wrong with links to where these assertions have been made by Trump himself or by one of his campaign staffers.
As for the people worrying about how the President doesn't have the authority to do a lot of the shit that Trump's promising, you might want to read a book and look at just how much Obama expanded the power and reach of the executive. Trump wouldn't even have to sign a single executive order and he'd already have the authority and capability to launch a drone-strike on every registered democrat in the country or indefinitely detain them.
He would probably start with Mr. Bezos. Seriously, I hate the idea of that kind of power being vested in any individual. I've got enough problems with them being in the hands of Mr. Witty and Urbane Obama. Looking good and sounding smart doesn't make his administration any less scary.
Finally, Jeff Bezos has a deeply vested interest in making sure that Trump stays out of office. Amazon wants to keep the cost of labor as low as possible, and Trump's restrictions on immigration and enforcement of laws against employing illegal immigrants would cause big problems for them - not to mention the issue of tariffs.
Imagine Trump's consternation when he realises he is restricted in what he can unilaterally do by international obligations, by which I mean NAFTA. If that means he'll pull out of NAFTA, there's a host of union leaders and members, not to mention American businessmen, who will heartily thank him for it. However, I can't see Wall St. being in favour of this, and you may find that many of the members of Congress are in hock to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
As president, Trump could pardon himself. :-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
Couldn't Trump pardon himself for pardoning himself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
Meesa thinks weesa should give the chancellor emergency powers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Opening up libel laws
US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 2. The president appoints judges to the supreme court, with no limit set on the number of judges. Naturally if a president tried to pack a court these days the opposite party would stonewall in the Senate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opening up libel laws
Brawndo's got what plants crave. It's got electrolytes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Opening up libel laws
Democracy is fragile. The holes for getting out of it are there for anyone daring to use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Know what's worrying?
This is released by the Trump campaign rather than being a personal statement by Trump. Obviously, they feel sort of endorsed for this writeup, or got briefed for doing it. And then were able to synch to it.
Which means we are not dealing with a single raving lunatic but rather a cell of them that felt confident converging to a single themed rant.
Now if this does not bring up memories of -- can somebody please show Mr Godwin the door? I find his incessant smirking irritating.
Thank you. Where was I?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
pretty sure that's dictatorial precedent right there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The CIA is limited to international investigations.
War must be declared by Congress, not the POTUS.
The list of such statements goes on and on. The response seems to be "Oh yeah, and which oversight body is going to stop us?"
The truth is, a charismatic leader can do whatever everyone else will let him/her do, either through active support or apathy. Ref: Godwin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
That's why many people is crossing the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
I don't like this guy drop a missile on him. he has done it at least twice now, that we know of.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
A lot. The president runs the DOJ.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: pushing the DOJ and the FTC?
The Executive should be right where they are.
The problem is that Congress is out to lunch or cannot do anything because of partisan politics. This is just another reason why political parties are bad. Everyone, including Obama's own party should be willing to see his arse fry for abusing his power, but that is not going to happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
First Thiel, then Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Thiel, then Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Right to Not be Criticized
I think we have a winner. You, sir, have just discovered a new right!
Now we will need to get all web sites on the planet to enforce our national notion of the right to not be criticized.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: First Thiel, then Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: First Thiel, then Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: First Thiel, then Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Destruction of department stores
Don't just complain like the horse and buggy vs the newfangled, unreliable, noisy, smelly, difficult to start automobile that more and more people are buying.
Adjust your business model.
Is big bad Amazon building a local distribution center making you cry? You could have been ahead of the game on this if you have any vision.
Maybe you should get into the technology game.
Build a big web site that makes it easy to shop online. Integrate the site with your stores' inventory systems. After all, your retail store fronts are also -- ta da! -- local fast delivery warehouses as well! Your site would know exactly what and how many you have in stock, and the nearest location to deliver it from.
You could build a software delivery planning system that offered over night delivery. Or possibly same day delivery if you order before noon.
This item qualifies for low cost same day delivery if you order in the next HH:MM minutes!
Maybe you could find a mutually beneficial arrangement with local delivery companies, such as, oh, say, UPS, FedEx, or even (gasp!) the USPS.
Or, maybe not. Maybe you can get a law passed or something. A past way of doing something is being destroyed! We need a law! Or a president that will abuse power to fix this!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Destruction of department stores
In Canada, the original competition was online book sales: Amazon vs. Chapters/Indigo. Chapters/Indigo also had box stores, and they attempted to leverage this by having Starbucks shops inside the stores and having reading areas. The result? A lot of people were going to a store, pulling a book/magazine off the shelf, reading it, and then leaving without buying anything outside the Starbucks. Amazon did a better job with the software delivery chain, and was unencumbered by tying local delivery into the system -- they used one pipe to process everything, which is significantly more efficient.
Result? Goodbye Chapters/Indigo (stores closing, online presence hanging on by a thread while Amazon.ca grows).
Let's then turn to Sears Canada, which is a slightly different beast than Sears USA. They've been mail order plus storefront for generations. Amazon got into the clothing/perfume/housewares/hardware business and suddenly their model tanked; it was just once again less efficient than the single pipe model. Result? Goodbye Sears Canada (same state as Chapters).
Target had the same situation, although they also had the unfortunate problem of rolling into Canada right when the security breach happened. Target coming in destroyed Zellers, and then Target pulled out, Amazon already having the foothold in their target market.
Who HAS been able to compete?
Home Depot (lots of their stuff is just too big to do via Amazon's format, but they already have a great distribution chain set up, and their website dovetails into that)
Costco Canada (Food gets people in the door, and then they're there for everything else that people might want)
Wal Mart Canada (their predatory supplier practices work just as well in Canada as in the US; they are also to blame for killing off all the smaller suppliers who just couldn't compete).
Due to the fact that there are significantly more people in the US than Canada, this doesn't affect the US markets as much. But it's not as simple as you make it out to be. Amazon outcompetes everyone else on the delivery chain because it got there first. Wal Mart and Costco outcompete everyone on the supply chain because they went to bulk purchasing via preferred suppliers on licked in contracts first. Breaking in to either of those markets is difficult (although Ali Baba is succeeding against Amazon because it gets in further up the supply chain, right from the international manufacturers selling off-label items).
Just like the horse drawn carriage industry, (and radio-> Internet, TV-> Internet newspapers->Facebook etc) there's not much the box stores can do to adapt; they'd have to change their core business, and then they'd be new entries into an already saturated market, where they'd be likely to fail faster than they are in the traditional market they helped define.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Destruction of department stores
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bezos & WaPo: Thiel, with 10x the money?
Of course, those two objectives intersect when Clinton would spend far more on killing than Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trump abuse the legal system?
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/03/donald-trump-admits-he-sues-people-just-harrass-th em
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon < Oracle < Microsoft as far as monopolistic tendencies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I think trump would be the catalyst for that and Hillary will continue the slow boil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Washington Post has changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Washington Post has changed.
Each news outlet has their own credibility to worry about. Or they get branded with their own echo chamber label.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Washington Post has changed.
Apple has pulled the same stunt in the past, and so have many other corporations. We just haven't seen this to the same degree in politics before -- but Trump is corporate first, politician second, so it seems an obvious move.
I don't really see an issue, as the more press groups he blocks, the less publicity he gets. If he revokes every major outlet other than Fox, he'll just be preaching to the choir, which is fine by me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Washington Post has changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Washington Post has changed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Washington Post has changed.
If you mean pointing out all the horrible things he's said and calling them out as being horrible things to say, great. An independent press doesn't mean a press that doesn't take a stand on anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon does need to be investigated and it is likely they will be found guilty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turnabout is fair play?
Maybe when we all decide that neither group should be allowed to target the other for these very reasons this won't happen. As it is, the left excused Obama so the right will probably excuse Trump.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turnabout is fair play?
This has been debunked by many on numerous occasions but it continues to be a go-to talking point for those with little imagination.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Businessman
WalMart emptied out many small and midsize town's mainstreets. Amazon is doing that plus taking away retail sale tax revenue for the States, making it very hard for local stores to compete.
Essentially, Amazon does in many ways gut the local economy, and their use of out of international tax avoidance schemes has deprived the US (and many other countries) of billions of tax revenue. They have perhaps reached a point where they are no longer a positive for the US economy.
(submitted this post on the 14th, probably will get approced around the 16th or so... Techdirt loves censorship!)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Businessman
Right, just see how good this worked out with those bankruptcies of his.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Businessman
Oh, and Bezos:
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/dec/03/jeff-bezos-billions-dollars-failures-amazon
oh, snap!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Or not. Keep trying, though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Businessman
Finances will just be one nightmare among others using Trump's approaches since his approaches don't scale without a larger system to exploit.
There is no way to sustain an elephant-size leech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Businessman
...and drives his businesses into the ground before entering bankruptcy, leaving himself some profit and the taxpayer to deal with the wreckage.
"(submitted this post on the 14th, probably will get approced around the 16th or so... Techdirt loves censorship!)"
Aww did the poor baby get correctly fingered as a troll again? Your ability to predict is as accurate as your "facts", what a surprise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Businessman
"Aww did the poor baby get correctly fingered as a troll again? Your ability to predict is as accurate as your "facts", what a surprise."
Actually, mentioning the date like generally gets them to post it early, because they want to make me look bad. Most of my posts from 6th of june, example, didn't show up until the 10th. Others have had similar delay. However, since Techdirt doesn't change the date when they approve them, there is no simple way to show this.
You know that, but being a twat....
As for "fingered as a troll" I don't think so. It has much more to do with my exit IP, I suspect, as it recently has been changing (beyond my control). Mike's minions have my account on virtual lockdown most of the time, last time they did this it lasted almost a year. They love censorship, and they love being dicks about it. It's pretty funny to watch a bastion of free speech blocking or delaying posts strictly because they don't like the content. Sort of like an anti-gay politician getting caught in a men's only "sauna" with his pants down. Hypocrisy is always most amusing to observe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Right, because clearly it's not the incessant whining, support for farmhouse onomatopoeia you trolls consider insightful discourse, or the changing of your IP to spam the site like you said you would, or any of the other antisocial behavior you've exhibited thus far that make you look like an ass.
A quote from this comment thread bears stating:
The problem in question is Survivorship Bias. You will never see the absolutely terrible things that moderators have removed. You will never see the reports that are sent in. Honestly speaking, things that should be reported far more often aren't and are usually caught with the aid of automated tools or mods finding them incidentally while patrolling a beat. There are plenty of reasons that most abuse goes unreported, but often enough I think it's just the bystander effect. Everyone assumes that something egregious has already been reported so nobody takes responsibility.
Abusers count on the survivorship bias to cover their tracks. They'll say nine things that aren't objectionable and go on the attack on the tenth. Ban them for repeated violations and they'll try to start a campaign to vindicate their behavior. Remove those attempts and they return to claim you're censoring them unfairly.
Your post history speaks for itself, really. Who knows how much junk you really try to fit in. It's like when out_of_the_blue was flooding the site with posts claiming how many attempts it took for him to spam it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Look who's talking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Straight to the sweary little child phase again, but trying to claim to be an adult at the same time. Welcome back, I was getting tired of genuine honest conversation.
"You know that"
No I don't, and neither do you. Do you have any proof of your claims, or are you pulling assumptions out of your arse and pretending it's truth again?
Anyway, what I do know is this - repeated posts from someone who keeps getting flagged as troll will get redirected to a spam filter. That filter is manually checked, and it's not the top priority for anyone here. So, delayed posts will get approved, but may not show up immediately and may take days if you spewed just before the weekend.
The cure for that is, of course, not to be such a lying, disingenuous, abrasive, obnoxious little adolescent troll that every single one of your posts gets flagged and held for moderation. People who are truthful, polite and don't throw toddler tantrums don't have your problem.
But, you did know that one, of course.
"It has much more to do with my exit IP, I suspect, as it recently has been changing (beyond my control)"
I doubt that matters with a logged in account. I certainly don't have problems posting, and I regularly do so from at least 3 different countries in a month. When I first started using this site, I occasionally had a problem if I was posting links and forgot to log in, but that's to be expected. But then, to the best of my knowledge, I've never had a post flagged.
"Mike's minions"
You're being persecuted because you're a tosser, not because there's a conspiracy against you personally directed from on high. The community here simply don't like you. You're the drunk asshole showing up to a party then whining about being attacked because they asked you to stop throwing up on the buffet spread.
"Hypocrisy is always most amusing to observe."
Yes it is. Delayed the posts of a proven troll, but never deleting the posts he made because they still count as genuine speech, is not censorship. There are many sites that would simple delete your comments or even your account, but your moronic rambling as still visible ad nauseum. Someone acting like a sweary little child while still claiming to be an adult, however, does count as hypocrisy.
Now, if only you could write this many words in pursuit of a genuine adult factual discussion rather than this kind of whining, you'd find your situation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Just trying to keep the conversation at a level you generally work at.
"No I don't, and neither do you. Do you have any proof of your claims, or are you pulling assumptions out of your arse and pretending it's truth again?"
I have experience with it. Call my view "observational", a basic step in determining how a system works. Perhaps you can have your (childish) comments locked out for a few months to see how it goes.
"You're being persecuted because you're a tosser, not because there's a conspiracy against you personally directed from on high. "
Back to the childish name calling. Can't help yourself, can you?
"Yes it is. Delayed the posts of a proven troll, but never deleting the posts he made because they still count as genuine speech, is not censorship. "
So you are saying that prior restraint is not censorship? Making it harder for someone's speech to be viewed, or to limit it in a manner that it's no longer part of the discussion isn't censorship in your world?
Wow. You really are a piece of work.
"Now, if only you could write this many words in pursuit of a genuine adult factual discussion rather than this kind of whining, you'd find your situation"
I might find the end of your sentence. Ran out of gas? The only thing not adult here is your endless personal attacks. Get a life, old man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Businessman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Businessman
Oh, "I know you are but what am I"? Really?
"I have experience with it."
So, pulled from your arse. Got it. Your "observations" tend to be rather faulty when compared with reality.
"Back to the childish name calling. Can't help yourself, can you?"
Well, to continue on your kindergarten theme - you started it. If you don't like it, join the adults here rather than calling someone names then whining that you got called one back. Plus, as ever, you spend a lot of time whining about minor points, while never addressing any of the facts and major points raised. Almost as if you're more interested in a silly argument than a true discussion of facts.
"So you are saying that prior restraint is not censorship?"
I'm saying that an automated spam filter isn't the same as the vast conspiracy you whine about. I'm also saying that if it counts as censorship, it's the weakest form of censorship used on this kind of site. There are other forums that would have deleted your comments and banned you long ago for your trolling, but this site leaves your moronic rants for everyone to see if they wish.
"Get a life, old man."
I'd love to find out how old you think I am, because you've attacked many different strawman versions of me. Like most of the things you post here, it's either deliberate lies or delusion with no regard for reality. I just hope that your fantasies about me only extend as far as deliberately making up lies about my professional life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Businessman
How stupid does one need to be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Businessman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Businessman
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see him doing ANYTHING that is even vaguely presidential, unless you REALLY lower that bar, even lower than the last 5 or 6 have already pushed it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I have yet to witness anything presidential about any president during my time alive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
President in office, though... Eisenhower had brains and guts. Sending the army to desegragate the Southern schools: that was taking the Constitution rather serious. And his parting speech, pointing out the danger of the military-industrial complex and its increasing power grab, was also rather compassionate about what the U.S. should be standing for.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Electing Trump would be the worst possible thing that this country could do this election.
Therefore I would be surprised if we did NOT elect Trump.
Yes, really. I'm not voting for him. But it is like watching a slow motion train wreck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
But at what cost, and how long will it take to recover? Burning your house to the ground might seem like a great way to avoid decades of repairs, but what happens when your insurance won't pay out and the debt collectors still come for you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]