4 ms·

Telling the Post to not endorse a candidate is a step in the trustworthy direction.

by anthony_d 2y ago

christhecaribou 2y ago
Not the week before an election
- EasyMark 2y ago
  And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. And an editor that says that resigned out of frustration who said as much.
  - skissane 2y ago
    > And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet? Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
    - christhecaribou 2y ago
      Jesus, are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
      - skissane 2y ago
        > are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally? I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did. But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.
chiefalchemist 2y ago
My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust. These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing. Trust that is not earned, is not trust at all.

Telling the Post to not endorse a candidate is a step in the trustworthy direction.

christhecaribou 2y ago

Not the week before an election

EasyMark 2y ago
And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. And an editor that says that resigned out of frustration who said as much.
- skissane 2y ago
  > And meeting with Trump people about Blue Origin. Blue Origin executives briefly met with Trump on the same day the non-endorsement was announced. But was that some kind of quid pro quo or was it just a coincidence? Did they or Trump know about WaPo’s non-endorsement at the time they arranged the meeting? Did it factor into either side’s decision to meet? Blue Origin and WaPo are completely separate businesses with a common owner. I wouldn’t expect them to coordinate with each other, with rare exceptions-the most likely exception would be logistical issues with their common owner’s schedule/transportation/security/etc. I doubt Blue executives knew about the WaPo announcement beforehand, and if they’d already planned to meet with Trump that day, why would they have thought it a reason to change their plans? They’ve probably met with Harris too, or at least would like to if she is willing. It is in their best interest to hedge their bets to maximise the odds of a positive relationship with the White House no matter who wins.
  - christhecaribou 2y ago
    Jesus, are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally?
    - skissane 2y ago
      > are people really this naive to think Bezos didn’t orchestrate all of this intentionally? I think it is completely within the bounds of the reasonably possible that he did. But I don’t think anyone has hard evidence he did, just suspicions. Sometimes, the devious answer is the correct one; other times, the real situation is more innocent and it just looks devious. Given the paucity of evidence, I think agnosticism is the most rational position.

chiefalchemist 2y ago

My point is that admiring someone, someone being financially successful, etc. is not grounds for real trust. Having a high public profile and an excess of media impressions doesn't mean they've actually earned trust. These might all be general signals for someone who is trustworthy, but proxies are not the real thing. Trust that is not earned, is not trust at all.