6 ms·
I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a fe
by a123b456c 2y ago
I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier.
- dmix 2y agoMaybe but Bezos is not lacking money. That contract was $1B/yr contract over ten years. They make $600B+ a year. Not exactly going to tip the scales of his stock options. These billionaires usually buy money losing newspapers, or social networks, for personal reasons. If I was going to bet on it I’d very much lean on a personal motive beyond money.
- DiscourseFan 2y agoIts a general posture. Amazon is an industrial powerhouse and Trump has signaled that he can and will attack his political opponents no matter how rich they are. If he wants to, Trump may actually nationalize Amazon; the alternative is presumably becoming his toady.
- cryptonector 2y agoSee "the steel cases". The POTUS cannot unilaterally nationalize any businesses.
- dragonwriter 2y agoSee Dobbs and Loper Bright, past precedent previously viewed as solid and well-established is no guarantee of future outcomes with this Court.
- cryptonector 2y agoOr Brown vs. Board of Education. The courts can change their minds once in a while. There are no indicia that this court wants to overturn the steel cases.
- Gooblebrai 2y agoMore context? A search on Google doesn't bring anything useful to me.
- kalleboo 2y agoMy googling turned up this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._...
- kalleboo 2y agoThe current Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there is no such thing as settled case law anymore
- cryptonector 2y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952951 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41952951
- 0x457 2y ago> The current Supreme Court has been pretty clear that there is no such thing as settled case law anymore It's always been the case. That's how Supreme Court works.
- lenkite 2y agoWhen did Trump threaten to nationalize any business ? His argument has always been for the opposite.
- dymk 2y agoHis behavior has been he’ll do whatever he wants; he has almost no consistent political positions.
- dragonwriter 2y agoAFAICT, while he has threatened extreme and unconstitutional retaliation against businesses (e.g., pulling broadcast licenses and jailing journalists for unfavorable coverage) [0] if he wins, he has not specifically threatened nationalization. [0] https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5161480/trump-media-threats-abc-cbs-60-minutes-journalists https://www.npr.org/2024/10/22/nx-s1-5161480/trump-media-thr...
- DiscourseFan 2y agoFair enough. Though I wouldn't put it past him.
- anonzzzies 2y agoTrump has signaled he will get the military involved against his opponents. And people are still going to vote for him.
- valval 2y ago[flagged]
- dragonwriter 2y ago> And by the looks of it, the majority of people. Where are you getting this? He is down against Harris in most polls, and neither candidate is clearing a majority. There are projections that he has a narrow edge in winning the Presidency due to the electoral college, but that's not the same as being most likely to win a majority (or even plurality) of the votes (e.g., 538 gives Trump currently a 53% chance to win the electoral college, while Harris has a 65% chance to win the popular vote.)
- valval 2y agoBetting odds.
- dllthomas 2y agoBetting on winner, or on popular vote? Because even assuming the betters have the odds right, those are not the same thing.
- valval 2y agoTo me the popular vote is irrelevant and in my original post I meant the winner, despite saying the majority which you interpreted to mean “more than 50% of the population of the US”. We have a system in place to counterbalance the fact that large numbers of likeminded people concentrated in one area could otherwise rule over everyone else through tyranny of the majority. To me the majority therefore just means “most of the US”. If you think betters do not have the odds right, you should start betting right now.
- alvah 2y ago"Trump has signaled that he can and will attack his political opponents" You write this, apparently sincerely, as if the other side of politics do not and will not attack their political opponents.
- dragonwriter 2y ago> They make $600B+ a year. Are you confusing revenue with profit? Yeah, a lot of money pumps in one end of Amazon retail and out the other, but there is very little margin: the $550+ billion in revenue on the retail side, as I understand, brings in significantly less net than the $90 billion in revenue on the cloud side. And government contracts, where one might expect support or opposition from a potential cheif executige who has made overt promises of purges and other uses of office to punish enemies and reward friends to make a big difference, are an important part of that (not just that one $1B contract.)
- chgs 2y agoI say I make $100k year. That’s my salary, it’s my revenue. To do that I have to do things like paying taxes, rent, electric costs etc.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- dmix 2y agoThe $1B/yr is revenue too ...probably at a way lower profit range than most corporate contracts given how demanding gov deals are.
- worik 2y ago> a lot of money pumps in one end of Amazon retail and out the other, but there is very little margin Citation needed I thought they had fabulous margins Am I wrong
- DonHopkins 2y agoNot lacking money does NOT imply not so obsessed with making more money that he will do absolutely anything.
- fuzzfactor 2y agoA very easy decision for some, depending on their own strength of conviction. Anybody knows that Harris is not running to retaliate against those who do not agree with every policy that her people can get her party to support, but Trump is and he makes it very clear that if elected he intends to do harm that Harris will not do. Bigly. So without consideration for upside[0], one of the most emotionless decisions a top executive can make is when there is no downside versus when there is. [0] After all, further upside is not necessary if you already have experienced enough to where the needle can not move any further.
- chipdart 2y ago> I think the implicit argument is that he wants to avoid more canceled contracts, along with other forms of retribution like personal attacks he experienced a few years earlier. That makes no sense at all. If the primary concern was avoiding canceled contracts, it would be in his best interests to ensure that the guy who is threatening to cancel contracts out of spite would not be elected. Pressuring the Washington Post to not endorse the candidate who does not pose that threat goes exactly against that. It's something else.
- FrojoS 2y agoIt sure makes sense. The endorsement is extremely unlikely to decide the election. On the contrary, the chance that the endorsement will lead to retribution after a lost election is arguably much higher. They think it happened last time around. You can say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense.
- heresie-dabord 2y ago> say it's cowardly to act like this. But it does make sense. So cowardice has been the greater virtue all along? Has it come to this, that political cowardice makes sense? That it makes sense when Democracy itself is at risk? That it makes sense in Journalism? That it makes sense at the newspaper of Bob Woodward [1] , now run by a billionaire with no guts to stand for Democracy itself? That other oligarchs are tilting the election towards the obvious insanity of a leader who, in word and deed, will dismantle Democracy to indulge himself and his cronies? We have sanewashed madness and the end of Democracy. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Dies_in_Darkness
- llamaimperative 2y agoYes this is the problem of oligarchies