871–880 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, but that's just them voting for their interests, not voting to end democracy.
The destruction of democracy is a convenient byproduct of their consolidation of power. Fascism in germany was convenient for the wealthy-- even if they weren't the architects of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with them being unable to support Republicans, it's them choosing not to support a Democratic nominee (which they've done for the past 50 years) because they don't want to anger the possible Republican nominee because the owner is afraid of retribution affecting his other businesses.
As the cancel brigade often says: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
Obvious there is judgement for when consequences rise to the level of being coercive - someone giving you a dirty look is not, the de jure government sanctioning you is. But trying to define rights binary-axiomatically is really just creating lemmas for cryptofascism when the preconditions have been met but yet the rights are still missing (which is exactly what the cancel brigades are pushing).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. This is the exception rather than the rule. The more corporate, the more likely to give the people what they want.
Isn't that contrary to the purpose of news organizations? They should give the people what they need to know, not what they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I disagree. This is the exception rather than the rule. The more corporate, the more likely to give the people what they want.
How do you square that with social media being the source of news for many?
I like that many people here have speculated that Bezos simply wants to avoid the ire of a possible Trump administration. This is very charitable, so much so that it ignores another reasonable guess a person could make based off of the same objective information that we all have — that this action is an endorsement, and the person that chose to endorse a candidate did so because he wants them to win. On one hand you…
I think it can be both. In scenario planning it makes sense for billionaires with large business empires to vote for Trump. One, the few details that can be determined from his platform are around lowering taxes on the very rich and making it easier for them make more money. Two, Trump has been pretty clear in his rhetoric he holds a grudge and will use the government to punish anyone who he perceives is against him.…
“Elon Musk has been in deep-cover WWE-level kayfabe for the past several years” is an opinion you literally have to make up out of thin air and hopes. There is nothing public indicating that that is true. His enthusiastic and wholehearted embrace of the value set endemic amongst Trump supporters has been and continues to be very much on public display. The dude posts nonstop about culture war bullshit all day when he’s not showing off that he’s carrying around two shields in Elden Ring for some reason.
Billionaires are not aircraft carriers or nation states. They do not have a special type of existence that bestows their opinions or decisions with a deeper complexity or meaning than any other person exercising whatever level of power they have access to. “Jeff Bezos is a guy that has the power to decide what’s printed in a newspaper and exercised it in support of his preferred candidate” as an opinion only sounds outlandish to a non-billionaire because people aren’t comfortable with the idea that for one guy, changing what goes in the newspaper is easier than buying a bumper sticker.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I haven’t decided myself. My vote doesn’t especially matter because of the state I live in but I do like to vote as an experience. It’s not that I particularly like Trump as an individual (quite the opposite), but Harris is just very unappealing to me from a policy standpoint. I do think that the Hitler comparison undermines any point you are trying to make so maybe tone it down a bit.
What policies are unappealing to you from Harris? What policies do you like from Trump? His tariffs , his plan to create internment camps for undocumented residents? His sycophancy for Putin? His willingness to ramp up offensive capabilities for Israel, or his preference for shutting down Ukraine? Or perhaps you like his "tough on dissidents" policy where he is documented to have wanted to use live rounds from active…
This election is not a normal election, sadly far from it. It's not business-as-usual about policies, personalities and partly loyalties.
This election is, sadly, about paying heed to the warnings that have been given to you by the cabinet members, incl. military generals, that worked most closely with Trump in his first term, and the senior Republicans who are voting Democrat.
When multiple generals, who have worked directly with/for Trump, tell you that he is a fascist and "danger to the country", then it would be wise to pay attention.
If you care about the future of America, and want to safeguard democracy, then, sadly, you need to step up and vote to keep Trump out of office.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and the profession is also populated by people that went to specific universities, in specific cities and have a specific voting record that's the standard people are using and can be corroborated
So what? That's an incoherent irrelevant response that doesn't address any of the points I raised. Are you just trying to pull off "The Weave" by emulating Trump? You do realize that's just a lame excuse for incompetence and dementia, not an intentional debate strategy, don't you?
It was a response solely to your first paragraph about what left leaning might be in contrast to, when it’s also true that everyone else is like “or their voting record”
If the Post endorsed Harris but then added an addendum that this was the last election they’d be endorsing, this would make sense and seem a lot more impartial to a now 40-year tradition. I went to return something to Amazon and though it was clearly their fault for sending the wrong item, the rep said “we’ll make a one time exception here” and I said fine whatever. Seems like there’s a Bezos precedent for this kind…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not endorsing a presidential candidate is neutral in this context. Easy.
But what about the rest of their coverage? Every article and its editorial promotion reflects a value judgement that basically has to be not neutral. This is unfortunately something newspapers like to pretend is not true but it absolutely is. Your definition of neutral appears to be “shut up” and is creepily authoritarian.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be implying that he made a decision based on other business interests, against those of the Post, but there is no support for that in the article. Do you have a source which describes this motive? It seems like not endorsing candidates might be good for the Washington Post's business, by improving its perceived impartiality. In addition to this, the WaPo seems to have spent much of its history not endorsi…
Ignoring the objective fact that Trump is a fascist is not "objective", it's delusional.
* Effectively shutting down large swathes of the US economy during COVID, while allowing "essential" business to remain open. Where "essential" is arbitrarily determined based on the state governors political leanings.
* Biden-Harris admin strongly encouraging (ie strong-arming) social media companies to suppress what they deemed "disinformantion".
* Progressive state AGs using legal loopholes and technicalities to prosecute Trump, aka Lawfare. For example, a fraud case for overvaluing real estate properties. A fraud case with no victims that resulted in a $450 million judgment? The textbook definition of excessive fines as defined by the 8th amendment.
* Progressives stated goal to pack the Supreme Court, effectively neutering an entire branch of government. Thereby, consolidating power in the remaining two branches.
You believe people who don't consider Trump a fascist are delusional (close to half the electorate, if we believe the polls)? What actions or policies has Trump implemented that fit under that definition? In short, Trump being a fascist is not self-evident: It is your (and many others) strongly held opinion. One that is rarely backed by more than shallow progressive talking points.