Trump shouldn't criticise the news media, says Amazon's Jeff Bezos Jeff Bezos, owner of the US Washington Post newspaper, has opined that it is "dangerous" for America's mop-haired 45th president Donald Trump to criticise the media. Bezos, the world's richest man and gros fromage of the sprawling Amazon online services empire, had a pop at The Donald after one of the latter's wearyingly …
This post has been deleted by its author
Look at the votes on these posts with the name Trump... LOL! You can't talk shit here!
FTFY
A lot of visitors to the Reg are outside the US reality bubble and, as some denizens of the US might allegedly put it can tell shit from shinola when they read it.
"Washington Post claims president Trump is a sorcerer creating storms."
you know, that's worth a pause for thought, at least...
when you take *THIS* kind of lunacy into consideration, and apparently from all angles [except Fox and a handful of others], is it any wonder Trump is 'a little unhappy' with 'the media' ? They've been filtering out all of the good things he's done (economy, trade, N. Korea, etc.) and only reporting what they perceive to be the bad, mixed with obviously biased opinions, continuously, for the last 2+ years, worse than they ever did to Nixon as far as I remember - admittedly being a snark-meister is more fun, but they are being at least a *little* irresponsible, ya know?
Oh, and the new Amazon location is possibly the one here in the San Diego area. They're apparently looking to hire 'DevOps' people. One of the ads I saw practically begged people to come work for a 'socially conscious' company or something like that. I think I'd rather sleep at night, thanks (and keep my stomach contents on the inside where they belong). If the benefit for working at Amazon is working for a 'socially conscious' company, I have to consider some of the recent news about Google where they (*LITERALLY*) did a big 'group hug' in response to Trump being elected, and someone recently leaked the video to Breitbart.
In the past, certain 'Silly Valley' companies have been reported to have colluded together to drive down wages with secret 'do not recruit' pacts, and to use H1-B visas to hire foreign workers and kinda 'trap them here' so they can pay them less and drive the wage scale down. Trump's approach to immigration threatens this kind of thing [which is good, because nobody outside of 'them' likes wage manipulation].
Couple that with some of the 'big tech' company policies with countries like China (Google helping the 'great firewall' to block content, for example, something called 'Dragonfly') ya think maybe *THAT* kind of thing is ultimately why a lot of these very wealthy "tech" CEOs don't like Trump??? Trump is in their way for driving down wages and controlling the flow of information and goods here in the U.S. (and of course 'the world'). And apparently they're 'globalists' and Trump is 'America First'. It's an obvious divide in politics that can't be crossed.
So yeah, maybe Amazon's CEO should review his own company policies, and remove the obvious blinding 'log' from his own eye, before trying to remove the spec of sawdust from Trump's eye. Yeah, that was in the bible someplace, an illustration about hypocrisy.
There is no filtering required, he hasn't done anything good, he really hasn't done much of anything at all except whine and cry about how unfairly he's being treated. When you the worlds most visible buffoon you have to expect that kind of stuff.
The economy is still coasting along, and only keeps going because it took so long for this administration to actually pass any legislation. But it will come crashing down eventually, and of course he will blame everyone else.
And with North Korea he hasn't actually achieved anything, he gave up what NK wanted and got nothing in return. Kim was never a real threat anyway, he knows that starting a war would be the end of him. He just need to threaten war without ever actually having one.
BTW, where is the wall? And why haven't Mexico written that big fat check to pay for it?
I'm not even going to get into how stupid it is to take Breitbart's word on a Washington Post article says. Breitbart is deliberately over the top with it's "news pieces."
"They've been filtering out all of the good things he's done (economy, trade, N. Korea, etc.) "
What good things?
Economy: He inherited an economy on the way up (I'm not going to give the previous president credit for something he didn't control either) and juiced things along with debt fueled tax cuts.
Trade: Hes made some tweaks and is currently crying about how big bad Canada, who the US has a trade surplus with, is not being fair by protecting their dairy industry from American subsidized farms who sell their product below cost. He still can't get his head around the fact that services matter as much as goods when it comes to trade.
North Korea: He started a shouting match that seems to have only ended because the North Koreans managed to damage their nuclear nesting facility to the point where China has warmed them of dire consequences if the facility blows up and spreads radiation into China. For all of the nice talk, they are still upgrading their nuclear facilities and have shown no tangible sign that they will change their ways.
> Washington Post claims president Trump is a sorcerer creating storms.
That is nuts
> https://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2018/09/13/nolte-from-terrorist-hurricane-creator-wapo-ramps-hate-campaign-against-trump/
Oh wait, that's your source?
OK, I put my internet condom on and followed your link into the stink.
Brietbart claim this - https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-hurricane-is-about-to-batter-our-coast-trump-is-complicit/2018/09/11/ccaed766-b5fb-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html - is blaming Trump for the storm.
What is actually says is Trump is actively trying to downplay human-caused climate change, which is capable of increasing the severity of weather events.
At no point does it suggest Trump is a "sorcerer creating storms", just that he's a callous cunt who tweets semi-sympathetic stuff whilst laying waste to stuff that might help reduce the impact. That is, when he's not busy tweeting about himself in the aftermath.
Of course the Washington Post article is quite long, so it's no surprise that a Brietbart dweller might not bother reading it, even if the basis of it is only one paragraph long
Yet when it comes to extreme weather, Mr. Trump is complicit. He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks. It is hard to attribute any single weather event to climate change. But there is no reasonable doubt that humans are priming the Earth’s systems to produce disasters.
> "What is actually says is Trump is actively trying to downplay human-caused climate change, which is capable of increasing the severity of weather events."
It's a well-known tenet of the Left that those who "deny" global warm... excuse me, "climate change" have the blood of future billions on their hands, and therefore they are complicit in crimes against humanity and need to be punished. That's what Bob was alluding to in his admittedly florid prose. We all knew what he really meant. Well, most of us did. ;-/
> That's what Bob was alluding to in his admittedly florid prose.
It was Naive who posted it originally ;)
> It's a well-known tenet of the Left that those who "deny" global warm... excuse me, "climate change" have the blood of future billions on their hands,
Well, yes. If we as humans are impacting the climate - which looks damn near certain - those who try to deny it (particularly those who do so in pursuit of short term profit) do potentially have blood on their hands. It might even amount to the blood of billions, in a worst case scenario.
You can try and make this a left and right thing if you want, but the actual differentiator is that those who seek short term profit by denying climate change do not give a fuck about what happens to future generations. It really is that simple. That the feckless, money driven sociopaths seem to be drawn to the American right is an ancillary point - I don't think being right wing makes you one of them, but being one of them probably does make you lean heavily right.
Then you've got the feckless idiots who listen to these profit driven feckers. A good number of whom fall in demographics where (outside of lottery wins, strokes of luck) their descendants will be more heavily impacted by climate change (not being rich enough to protect themselves more).
So yeah, they potentially are complicit. Needing to be punished is something else, of course, but only a complete moron would deny that those people are complicit if it later turns out they were not only wrong, but knew it and were lying to make money.
>That is nuts
I see you didn't reference the Washington Post article itself anywhere, so let me help:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-hurricane-is-about-to-batter-our-coast-trump-is-complicit/2018/09/11/ccaed766-b5fb-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html?utm_term=.282d4a31ff26
The actual headline is: "Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit."
Given the meaning of the word "complicit," I would suggest that the above headline does indeed imply Trump is responsible for the hurricane. Unless of course, they are talking about two completely different things and have then put them side by side to create an illusion. Surely they wouldn't be that disingenuous, would they?
Regardless of what the article might say, it is pretty difficult to suggest they aren't trying to assign some responsibility for hurricanes to Trump. Even if you agree that "He plays down humans’ role in increasing the risks, and he continues to dismantle efforts to address those risks" and you totally agree with the most alarming AGW predictions, I'm not sure that the last two years over-rides everything that has happened since the industrial revolution began. But maybe it does, maybe he is the evil god of hurricanes.
When your newspaper headlines make concerns about chemicals turning the frogs gay look sane, I think it is safe to say it isn't the president who is shredding the reputation of the mainstream media.
> I see you didn't reference the Washington Post article itself anywhere, so let me help:
I see much like the referenced article, you didn't bother to read the rest of my comment given that I did reference it, including providing a URL.
> Regardless of what the article might say,
Strangely, when discussing the written word, it tends to matter what those words say.
> I'm not sure that the last two years over-rides everything that has happened since the industrial revolution began. But maybe it does, maybe he is the evil god of hurricanes.
You seem unable to grasp that there's a difference between "He's complicit" and "He's the root cause". You can be complicit in a crime without being the one to commit a crime, for example.
Naive by name, naive by nature?
A couple of points:
1. I, too, find Fox News too close to the centre and afraid of taking a clear stand on the hard issues. Thank God we have Breitbart for the honest man's opinion.
2. I wonder how critical the Washington Post is of Amazon? Not very, I suspect.
3. I'm not sure if I'd want to make an enemy of Jeff Bezos. I suspect that he could destroy The Donald within a couple of years. Having billions at your disposal makes you very persuasive.
I, too, find Fox News too close to the centre and afraid of taking a clear stand on the hard issues. Thank God we have Breitbart for the honest man's opinion.
I want to believe this is sarcasm, but it's really hard to tell sometimes.
Regardless of whether it is sarcastic or not, it is true for many Americans.
Within a generation or two, whites may be less than 50% of the overall U.S. population and this scares the shit out of a lot of folk. What if they [1] do to us what we have been doing and continue to do to them?
[1] not us.
How anyone from or within the mainstream media can talk is unbelievable.
Remember all the Fake News you've ran about Trump? Need a reminder?
First he was a comedy act that couldn't win a primary
Then he was a bully that couldn't win a primary
The he won a primary
Then he was a racist who couldn't be president
Then he was a sex attacker who couldn't be president
Then he was a sexist who couldn't be president
Then he was a bigot who couldn't be president
Then he became president
Then he was an incompetent president
Then he was a colluding president
Then he was about to be an impeached president
HE IS STILL PRESIDENT
Fake new is a joke and the mainstream media is dying on its arse. The sooner it kicks its final bucket the better.
Fake news is a news hype cycle about what is going to happen but never does. … That easy.
Apparently not that easy, given you got it wrong. Reporting on potential future events is mere speculation; fake news is a form of slander/libel, meaning that it has to make deliberately false or misleading claims about someone or something. Saying "candidate X is going to destroy the country" is mere speculation, for example, while saying "candidate X runs a secret child porn ring in a nearby pizza parlor" is fake news (slander/libel).
> "Reporting on potential future events is mere speculation; fake news is a form of slander/libel, meaning that it has to make deliberately false or misleading claims about someone or something."
Just a few weeks ago it was widely reported that Trump was "separating families" at the border, with no initial mention of the fact that this was a policy adhered to by presidents Bush and Obama. To make it even more impactful we were treated to an image of said separations, said to be going on right now, but which turned out to be a pic from the Obama Era. This was pure slander against President Trump. We who support him see it for the propaganda it is, and so we are labeled "marching morons" by actual morons.
Go figure.
Not to worry. By piling on with the ad hominem attacks, they've managed to ensure that those who voted and won the last set of referenda will not lose again for a very long time. They don't seem to realize that if they stop playing by the rules - and they clearly have, a consequence is that the deplorable opposition might also stop. s /Brexit/Trump and you have American social justice identity politics with no other changes, though this Brit said it the best I've seen yet. I probably don't agree with the rest of what this guy is pushing, and I've been around too long to believe that these clowns in the news - on any side - have much to do with the real powers that run the world, but this can be a fun circus to watch if taken with a grain of salt - or a shovelful.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9T4dGAxtO0
First he was a comedy act that couldn't win a primaryThen he was a bully that couldn't win a primary
The he won a primary
Then he was a racist who couldn't be president
Then he was a sex attacker who couldn't be president
Then he was a sexist who couldn't be president
Then he was a bigot who couldn't be president
Then he became president
But he demonstrably is a comedy act, a bully, a racist, a sex attacker, a sexist and a bigot. His very own words show this. The fact that he became president simply demonstrates that slightly less than 50% of voting Americans either didn't care about any of these facts or were positively encouraged by them. Do you think that's a good thing?
"It also says a lot about the alternative and how desperate some people were."
"Also gullible."
No, it's just a case of the Marching Morons.
Remember all the Fake News you've ran about Trump? Need a reminder?Nope. He's still a comedy-act bully, racist, sexist, and bigot, who won by appealing to the basest instincts of a minority of people who voted, but managed to swing the Electoral College. He may be president, but that doesn't make him any less reprehensible. And the wolves are closing in. Manafort's about to flip. And that, buddy, ain't fake news either.
Yes, but Manafort's flip isn't related to collusion. And probably spells yet more trouble for those who abused the FISA court and used the intelligence services to spy on the opposition candidate. I would think that Sally Yates for one should be considering hiring some very high priced lawyers - oh, look, she has.
If you don't think that is a catastrophic failure and a danger to democracy, will you start to think so if Trump does exactly the same ?
For all his faults, Trump is still less reprehensible than the fool who last occupied the office and the crook who conspired to replace him.
The problem was that the mainstream media underestimated the extent of the stupidity and gullibility of the voters. When you're not an idiot it's really hard to fathom just how stupid people can be. It was obvious from the beginning that trump is an incompetent con-man and all around dirt bag.
For most of us in the rest of the world we just can't understand how anyone could be stupid enough to not see that.
I always post anon mainly because I'm silly but sometimes not so don't want to be classed as the village idiot even though I am.
Just to be clear though the only tramps are the people that listen to their opinion, not Americans in general who I find to be an ok bunch even if some of them wear stetsons, I also don't class el reg as main stream media and hold it in the highest regard when it comes to publishing news.
Amazon is also planning to build a second headquarters somewhere in the US, bringing with it thousands of job opportunities. On being asked where in the US this would happen, Bezos would only say: "We will announce a decision before the end of this year."
They should have said "As far away from Trumpton as possible."
