3 ms·

So why is it that this is about money and Amazon contracts? Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsemen

by m101 2y ago

So why is it that this is about money and Amazon contracts? Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsement. I think that's way more likely. I am not surprised however that the liberal media will look for any problem over admitting it's their own candidate that's the problem. Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred million over many years. He doesn't care!

edanm 2y ago
> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred million over many years. He doesn't care! The rest of your comment aside, I think this sentence proves too much. You can use it to prove that Bezos doesn't care about almost anything in Amazon, or that most billionaires don't care much about what happens in their companies, because it only impacts a small part of their already vast fortune. It's pretty clear that this is not true for many billionaires.
- m101 2y ago
  My point was that the media is looking for whatever reason it can make up which correlates, rather than asking whether the problem lies with their own "team". It doesn't care about the legitimacy of the reason.
latexr 2y ago
> Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsement. Bad for whom? Bezos is a multibillionaire, his problems are not our problems. It’s detached from reality to think a guy that made his fortune exploiting workers and other businesses in any way understands or cares for society’s struggles.
- m101 2y ago
  I fundamentally disagree with your comment on "exploiting workers." That's what Marx thought, and it's precisely where he went wrong.
  - latexr 2y ago
    > I fundamentally disagree with your comment on "exploiting workers." The workers themselves and Amnesty International call it exploitation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/delivery-drivers-sue-amazon-for-being-forced-to-pee-in-bottles/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/saudi-arabia-migrants-workers-who-toiled-in-amazon-warehouses-were-deceived-and-exploited/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/saudi-arabia-... Either way, that’s not what matters despite you deciding to focus on it. The main point is that “Bezos is a multibillionaire, his problems are not our problems”. > That's what Marx thought, and it's precisely where he went wrong. This too, is nonsensical and irrelevant. Marx had exactly zero commentary on Amazon practices, because he died in the nineteenth century.

by m101 2y ago

edanm 2y ago

> Bezos owns 9% of Amazon. His personal share of any 10bn contract might be a few hundred million over many years. He doesn't care! The rest of your comment aside, I think this sentence proves too much. You can use it to prove that Bezos doesn't care about almost anything in Amazon, or that most billionaires don't care much about what happens in their companies, because it only impacts a small part of their already vast fortune. It's pretty clear that this is not true for many billionaires.

m101 2y ago
My point was that the media is looking for whatever reason it can make up which correlates, rather than asking whether the problem lies with their own "team". It doesn't care about the legitimacy of the reason.

latexr 2y ago

> Why isn't it about Kamala just being so bad, in Bezos's eyes, that she doesn't deserve an endorsement. Bad for whom? Bezos is a multibillionaire, his problems are not our problems. It’s detached from reality to think a guy that made his fortune exploiting workers and other businesses in any way understands or cares for society’s struggles.

m101 2y ago
I fundamentally disagree with your comment on "exploiting workers." That's what Marx thought, and it's precisely where he went wrong.
- latexr 2y ago
  > I fundamentally disagree with your comment on "exploiting workers." The workers themselves and Amnesty International call it exploitation. https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/delivery-drivers-sue-amazon-for-being-forced-to-pee-in-bottles/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/katherinehamilton/2023/05/24/de... https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/saudi-arabia-migrants-workers-who-toiled-in-amazon-warehouses-were-deceived-and-exploited/ https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2023/10/saudi-arabia-... Either way, that’s not what matters despite you deciding to focus on it. The main point is that “Bezos is a multibillionaire, his problems are not our problems”. > That's what Marx thought, and it's precisely where he went wrong. This too, is nonsensical and irrelevant. Marx had exactly zero commentary on Amazon practices, because he died in the nineteenth century.