Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

751–760 of 783 posts

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#751

Post by chillwaves »

ineedasername wrote: post #598
mc32 wrote: post #561

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like any politician, the "Mexico would pay for it" was an "argument" to get support. Did supporters care if Mexico itself would pay? No. But it fit their sentiment. It's win-win for him because the only people who would "care" would be people against the wall who politically don't matter. It's like when Dems say they want to abolish ICE. That's what their base want to hear. Do they really think ICE is going to be abo…

It is intellectually dishonest to attribute literal intent to some of his statements, but others made with the same bombastic style only obviously more ridiculous are hand-waved away as "it was the spirit of the thing he meant, not literally". And whether or not his followers care about Mexico paying for the wall, his various statements clearly indicated a literal intent on the topic. And while some on the left may m…

> She appears to be about as dangerously ignorant (and perhaps callous) of facts of situations

Citation needed.

AOC is not eligible to run for president until she is 35. These facts might calm your fears.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#752

Post by chillwaves »

mikeash wrote: post #637
_ei8q wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The example Thiel used in the original "seriously but not literally" argument was the wall. Of course Trump wasn't talking about a literal wall, he said, it was more of a metaphor for, you know, something. This argument was always embarrassingly stupid, but anyone still making it after Trump shut down the government for a month over literal wall construction has forfeited their right to be taken seriously at all.

What’s really hilarious is that the wall was originally intended to be figurative. His staff came up with the idea as a way of keeping Trump’s scattered brain focused on talking about immigration. Except the moron ran with it.

That's President Moron to you.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#753

Post by chillwaves »

creaghpatr wrote: post #610
c3534l wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think politically motivated is in any way the same thing as state-sponsored attack. That's quite a leap.

It's a non-falsifiable claim, unless they actually catch and prove whomever did it. If he can get an intel agency (Amazon customers by the way) to say they are reasonably sure it was [insert hostile government], then it becomes gospel and an excuse to declare war or shake down US politicians retroactively for associating with that entity. We saw it happen with Russia in 2016.

Russia got their day in court and lost so I am not sure the equivalence.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#754

Post by chillwaves »

azeotropic wrote: post #503
preommr wrote: post #477

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea, just look at how well thought out the Khashoggi murder was.

Well Kashoggi is dead and MBS got away with it. Moreover, MBS's enemies know know what he's willing to do, and what he can get away with, and may be frightened into compliance. From MBS's perspective this sounds like a success.

His ability to get away with murder does not at all seem connected to his ability to execute said murder.

The theater was all for nothing, as real world consequences show they could have murdered the jouralist in cold blood and broad daylight.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#755

Post by chillwaves »

cm2187 wrote: post #409
jorblumesea wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

House of Saud, maybe, they are dumb enough to think this would work. Given their inept handling of the Khashoggi I wouldn't be surprised. I doubt anyone in the US intelligence profession would think Bezos would call off the WaPo because of some scandalous photos. "Just blackmail the richest man on the planet, that will totally work!"

> "Just blackmail the richest man on the planet, that will totally work!" Given the number of people and media who seem to be convinced without a doubt that Trump is being blackmailed by Russia...

Trump has publicly been known to be negative net worth in a not too distant past. It is also public knowledge that no bank in America would do business with him.

It is not a leap to suspect Russian banks (that are on record as loaning him money) have financial leverage over him.

I wonder what happens to the supporters of the president once the walls come crashing in. The man is a criminal many times over, proven in court many times over. Why is it a surprise that his current endeavor is just another grift?

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#756

Post by 3327 »

slg wrote: post #285

It seems like a lot of people are not reading between the lines of this post. Bezos apparently believes that he was hacked by either the US or Saudi government and that now one or both of those governments are using the National Enquirer as an attack dog against him. That accusation is much bigger than any other piece of this story. EDIT: Here [1] is a reporter from the Washington Post backing that up. The Bezos' cam…

Well, if Trump was stupid enough to have any remote knowledge of it or part in it - he is done. Esquirer will crack, Bezos has infinite funds, and determination, and is pissed. The truth will come out.

Stay tuned.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#757

Post by sullyj3 »

monkeydreams wrote: post #106
stupidcar wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem I have with most super rich people is that they consider genuine risk far less important than potential embarrassment. E.g. they won't dare taking a stand politically because of the chance that someone will go public with some scandalous nonsense. Bezos on the other hand seems willing to calculate differently. I have to say, this has changed my opinion of him a lot in his favour. On the very remote chance…

I agree. One thought did occur to me is that he is basically daring AMI to release the pictures. What if he knows the providence of these pictures, knows how they got into AMI hands, and knows that if AMI publish them he can sue them, Gawker (not Buzzfeed) style, into the ground?

I think you possibly mean "provenance".

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#758

Post by wahern »

njarboe wrote: post #737
squozzer wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Edgar_Hoover

Head of the FBI and its predecessor from 1924 till 1972. So, for the US, we had a department "obsessed with finding and collecting dirt on their enemies with the intent to harm or influence them" for at least that time period.

Right, and Hoover's techniques were those of an authoritarian which few in Washington wished to support or tolerate. The problem was that Hoover's enemies included those very same Washington leaders, whom he'd quietly threaten.

By contrast, we've arrived at a point where those very same techniques, practiced openly and brazenly, are considered legitimate in the eyes of a significant plurality of both Washington leaders and the national electorate.

Corruption has always existed, but unless it's normalized you at least have a fighting change of containing it. When its normalized it will consume the whole system. Pervasive cynicism is sufficient to normalize it, and that's often how it metastasizes.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#759

Post by wahern »

abrahamepton wrote: post #666
malvosenior wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sadly the era we're living in is that which blames Trump for every thing that goes wrong with no evidence whatsoever and many, many people cheer. That is dangerous as hell. I'm happy to be proven wrong but to also be clear: there is zero evidence that Trump had anything to do with this.

Zero evidence, sure. But a pattern of behavior that is deeply, deeply troubling and suspicious. As others have pointed out, he tweet-taunted Bezos a few weeks ago in a way that seems rather connected to this recent revelation. Joe Scarborough and Mike Brzezinski wrote an op-ed (in the Post!!) about having been threatened with blackmail by AMI, seemingly in direct connection to the White House's desires. Ronan Farrow…

A pattern of behavior is evidence. All evidence is circumstantial.

That realization is actually foundational to our system of criminal Due Process. It's why nearly every piece of evidence entered into trial, even simple documents and scientific analyses, requires a witness to vouchsafe. Facts cannot be divorced from their human origin, and any fact can be challenged by challenging the credibility of its origin.

All facts are messy things, and while some are messier than others there's no avoiding careful consideration in light of the available context. It follows that the distinction between fact and conjecture is one of opinion.

Re: No Thank You, Mr. Pecker

#760

Post by bennesvig »

koolba wrote: post #554
brisance wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He solicited a hostile foreign power to interfere in the 2016 elections. In many countries this would be equivalent to treason. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2016/jul/27/donald...

That video is the ultimate test for whether the viewer's political beliefs and biases are strong enough to override their sense of humor.

Not sure why your comment is getting downvoted. It's absolutely true. It was obviously said as a joke.
Post reply on HN