Live data from Hacker News

Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

cnbc.com

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#881
post #858

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s… really not? The dude tried to overturn the previous election, and repeatedly threatens to throw his enemies in jail. Senior members of his own staff have flat out said he’s a fascist and he’s literally running on a promise to round up millions of people and put them in camps. Like probably we’ll still have elections but you know, so do Hungary and Russia.

Ok, so if he wins (seems likely even to WaPo) and those thing doesn’t happen, are you going to think “I was wrong” or double down on “he really wanted to do it but they didn’t let him”

So, he did win and a lot of bad things did happen.

Trump withheld disaster aid from blue states: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/trump-de...

Trump already punished Amazon for the Washington Post’s reporting: https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/washington-post-endo...

And like, if you don’t believe any of that reporting, listen to the man himself? Like he regularly and personally advocates putting his opponents in jail. Either you’re saying he’s blatantly lying about his intentions or your entire defense of him is that he’s an incompetent nincompoop.

The problem is that because it’s probably true that we’re not going to all and up in prison camps on Inauguration Day, you can claim that things aren’t really bad, which is absurd. Like, lots of people have ordinary lives in authoritarian countries. Most of them are not in fact North Korea.

The US becoming far more authoritarian and cronyistic is still really bad.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#882

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Authoritarianism is good, journalists have shown they do not deserve free reign.

Mask off!

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#883
post #750

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a bit beside the point in this case. Newspapers are supposed to have a first amendment right to say whatever they want and the key concern is that Bezos spiked the editorial to curry favor with Trump.

Whatever his reason, this isn't a first amendment issue because it's a private entity constraining its own speech, not the government.

The first amendment issue is that he is doing it because of fear that the government will retaliate against his other companies.

A lot of folks are exhorting him to resist in order to protect the norm, but it his true that _his_ choice is caused by first amendment violations, not causing them.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#884

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If this is true, it’s beyond bad. It may be the beginning of the end of the free world.

This is such a weird take. People can't conceptualize a world of many discrete important actions and reduce it to one event. It's a failure of imagination.

This is an ironic take.

It’s a distinct lack of imagination and historical knowledge that stops at one event, and refuses to ponder the long term consequences.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#885
post #850
post #780

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I fundamentally disagree with your comment on "exploiting workers." That's what Marx thought, and it's precisely where he went wrong.

> 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/de...

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.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#886
post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what happens behind closed doors is entirely different than what makes the papers. i am positive bezos has spoken to trump, and i am positive trump assured bezos of something that harris did not

A rational person would know that many past promises or reassurances offered by Donald Trump have proved to be empty, worthless and even costly to their recipients, as documented by countless legal actions. If Bezos believes what Trump has told him behind closed doors, then his companies are in the control of a sucker, not just a coward.

legal action does not show reality, people can sue for nearly no reason at all, and people have large political and PR reasons to sue Trump for posturing reasons. we have very little idea what trump's track record is for making deals because the vast majority of it isn't public. to base your entire opinion of him based on tabloids and biased corporate news and pretend that literally nothing ever happens that isn't public is not going to give you a realistic picture. i am sure there are also dozens of high profile examples of deals that were public and went just fine.

obligatory trump is terrible is racist etc. not defending trump, just highlighting questionable logic

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#887

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He literally tried an autogolpe. I saw it, live, on TV with my own eyes and ears. He's currently promising to pardon the people that participated in it that have been prosecuted while pardoning himself due to his own immune status. That's how a Banana Republic functions.

That and talking about prosecuting the political opposition along with journalists, poll workers, and career public servants just for doing their jobs. And using the military to do it. I don't actually think he'll be able to end democracy, because I think a sufficient number of Americans (including in the military) will stand up to him, but I do believe he'd like to.

At the very least, we’ll feel the damage from a supermajority far-right judicial system for generations.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#888
post #480

Democracy dies in darkness was a promise, not a warning.

I'm sick of this absurd FUD. You surely must realize that the claims that if Trump wins, democracy is going to end are just fearmongering, don't you?

They really think it's true.

People as diverse and mutually antagonistic as George Orwell, Noam Chomsky and C.S. Lewis said that the outer elites -- the exact kind of people that inhabit HN -- were far more thoroughly propagandized than the working class and the poor. It's on full display here.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#889

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want them to name... readers of newspapers? Editorials, by an outlet's editorial board or otherwise, have consistently been among the most popular content in news for over a century. That includes endorsements.

>> You want them to name... readers of newspapers? Obviously not. I want them to name readers who seek out newspaper opinions. One name to start with. Do you seek out newspaper opinions?

> Do you seek out newspaper opinions?

I do.

Re: Jeff Bezos killed Washington Post endorsement of Kamala Harris

#890
WaPo endorsing Harris would have changed exactly 0 minds. Everyone that would have read it already agrees with them. But it would have made them feel good about their existing world view.

Them _not_ endorsing _will_ change minds. There are people that read Washington Post that would take that as a sign that not even their trusted left-leaning paper is 100% comfortable with the candidate they should have endorsed, so maybe there's something there they should have hesitancy about too.

Post reply on HN