Home » Amazon » Trump Attacks Jeff Bezos

Trump Attacks Jeff Bezos

27 February 2016

From The Weekly Standard:

At a rally in Fort Worth, Texas today, Donald Trump unloaded on Amazon.com founder and owner of the Washington Post Jeff Bezos.

“I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought the Washington Post to have political influence. And I gotta tell you, we have a different country than we used to have. We have a different… He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh do they have problems. They’re gonna have such problems,” said Trump.

Trump went on to promise that, if he becomes president, he will “open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.”

Link to the rest at The Weekly Standard and thanks to Nirmala and others for the tip.

PG requests that visitors avoid getting into a political fight in the comments.


109 Comments to “Trump Attacks Jeff Bezos”

  1. “PG requests that visitors avoid getting into a political fight in the comments.”

    And yet you posted this … 😉

    Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she laid an asteroid. — Mark Twain

    And Trump has been so much noise about what he’s going to do.

    “Trump went on to promise that, if he becomes president, he will “open up our libel laws, so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money.””

    Now think on that for just a split second, just long enough to remember the last NYT blurb attacking Amazon.

    Under Trump’s wishes ‘we can sue them and win lots of money’ ‘when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles’ …

  2. I keep telling myself… disconnect from the Internet till after the election…

  3. Can you call it “Amazon derangement syndrome” if you suspect the person in question is also really deranged? 🙂

    • The problem is you have to be crazy to want that top slot, the trick is voting for the right kind of crazy — or having the right kind of crazy throw their hat in the ring (sadly we won’t be voting for the ‘best’, but for the least ‘worst’ of the bunch …)

  4. “To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
    To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
    ― Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

  5. I doubt that the president alone can rewrite the libel laws. It takes a lot of sign-on from many different parties to rewrite such things. Or at least that’s my observation as a private citizen.

    • The president, by design, can NOT write laws. Only Congress can write laws. The president can only vote them up and down, and if he vetoes a law, Congress can override his veto.

      If Trump becomes our next president, America will spend the next four years in neutral, because no way in hell is Congress going to work with that guy.

      • Yeah, I noticed that no one could work with him to get all those projects built.

        That being said, anytime the US congress is in neutral is a good day for the American taxpayer.


        • My big worry is that if the government is gridlocked, Obamacare won’t get repealed. Though at the rate it’s imploding, it might die on its own, and the gridlock would prevent Washington from passing single-payer healthcare. Still, it’s far from ideal.

        • I see he’s backing off on his wall with Canada (we’re willing to build a bridge to improve access to US markets, but we’re not going to pay for a wall to do the opposite)
          Why bother building a wall with Mexico if you leave the northern border un-fortified?
          Millions of Americans will be still able to escape his regime…

  6. If Jeff bought the Washington Post so he could have political influence, it was a costly way to get it — more expensive than just donating to campaigns, opening facilities in politicians’ home states, providing jobs, and plain ol’ lobbying.

    • …million-dollar book advances

    • If Bezos wanted political influence, buying the WaPo actually is a smart idea — think hearts and minds. It’s a platform to put forward ideas. The NYT is anti-Amazon and everything it represents, the WaPo is more likely to be fair by default; it will certainly make demonization more tricky. I don’t know if that’s what Bezos is going for, but buying a newspaper doesn’t seem so crazy in that light.

      • I don’t think it was a crazy purchase in any light, so long as one has the money to take on the risk. I have seen articles on WaPo that are not at all kind to Amazon — and this is after Bezos bought the paper. My guess is that he simply wanted the challenge of making a success of a newspaper that was among the many nationwide that are losing money.

  7. Since I totally believe Trump is running for his own benefit (the greedy narcissist being idealistic for his nation? Hah, please.) To me, this is Trump projecting onto Bezos his own reason for running for Prez.

    • Everyone runs for president for their own benefit.


      • Ambition and self-interest are natural in such a race, but i think Trump is pathological in his self-interest. I’d like to believe there are still true statesmen, even with this toxic campaigning process we have.

        • “…but i think Trump is pathological in his self-interest.”

          Hillary, Obama, Bill Clinton, (okay, all he wanted was access to more strange, but just the same). Thomas Edison.

          Now, I hesitate to include Edison in this list of people I loath, but his self-interest was massive.

          I see “The Wealth of Nations” in Trump. His pathological self-interest helps create yuuuge 🙂 wealth, that spreads across the entire economic spectrum, from the investors, all the way over to the janitors.

          Is that wrong simply because he’s loud and obnoxious?

          Most of the TPVers here want to make money from sitting in a corner with a laptop making up s***. Many of us want lots of money. Where’s the altruism in the indie-writing community?

          While I’m not sure I want Trump as president two things come to mind. He’s had lots of failures…and successes. And he has awakened (hopefully) in the American electorate a sense of “we will no longer tolerate an elite, political ruling class”.

          And he’s doing it without us having to load our muskets and head to Lexington.


          Apologies to PG if I’ve crossed the political line.

          Edited: However, if Trump continues to bash Bezos I might load my musket, anyway.

          • His pathological self-interest helps create yuuuge 🙂 wealth, that spreads across the entire economic spectrum, from the investors, all the way over to the janitors.

            Trouble is, he’s been destroying wealth through serial bankruptcies. Investing your money with Trump is a good way to lose it all (and watch him walk away pretty much unscathed). Care to hand this guy the keys to the Treasury?

            • Does the doorman or the janitor at a Trump building lose anything with a Donald BK?

              If an investor loses on his speculation with The Donald, well, it’s the investor’s money to put at risk.

              Maybe if Trump is elected POTUS you could campaign for the cabinet position of He Who Tells Investors What They Can Do With Their Own Money.

              As for handing Trump the keys to the treasury…jeez, here all this time I thought congress held the keys to the treasury.

              Trump has a lot of baggage to attack. Making up stuff doesn’t help the anti-Trump argument.


              • I’m not making anything up.

                1. If an investor loses on his speculation with The Donald, and The Donald spins off all the assets while leaving the investors stuck with the liabilities, the investor has good reason to be mad. There’s a reason why Trump companies are generally rated at junk-bond status. He has no skin in his own game. Everybody else takes the losses.

                2. ‘He Who Tells Investors’, blah, blah, blah. I’m not telling anybody what they may or may not do with their own money. If suckers want to lose their money by investing it with a con artist, that’s their problem. You folks look like you’re about to invest your whole country with a con artist, and that is the world’s problem.

                3. No, Congress does not have the keys to the Treasury. Taxation and appropriations, on paper, are Congressional powers; and all I can say is that’s a nice theory. Ask the Republican caucus how well it works when they try to stop a Democratic President from spending trillions that he hasn’t got. The President throws a temper tantrum and blames Congress for ‘shutting down the government’… after which the spending spree resumes as before. As for the actual Treasury Dept., that’s part of the executive branch – to which the President absolutely does hold the keys.

                • I have forever understood that the Department of the Treasury is part of the Executive branch.

                  However, you got me. I sincerely believed you were using poetic license to express concern with Trump having the “keys to the Treasury” as meaning “access to America’s checkbook”.

                  I stand corrected, as you dismiss Article I, section 9, clause 7 of the Constitution of the United States of America. (Yes, I had to google which clause. I’m such a delitante.)

                  To end, I do not dismiss the appropriations clause. I simply blame Charley Reese’s 545 (1984 edition). A problem correctable with muskets, if need be.

                  To end, (part 2), I do not stand in fear of Donald Trump. (Frankly, living through this “silly season” is fascinating.)

                  To end, (part 3), I take umbrage with your blah, blah, blahing my perfectly snarky description of the Department of Telling People How to Live Their Lives, or whatever the hell I typed. Come on, it was good stuff.


                • Ask the Republican caucus how well it works when they try to stop a Democratic President from spending trillions that he hasn’t got.

                  That is an abdication of the power Congress has, but that abdication doesn’t mean it lacks the power. They chose not to use it.

  8. P.G.

    “Iggerent Furriner here.”

    I’ve followed US elections for years, but Stumpy Trump just beggars belief.


    • such a good way with words you have Brendan. Thanks. There is something those who we are related to in primal language –English– have across the pond that is just so damn poetic.

      Dont read this, just scroll on by… i just wanted to say something to those who are [as many of us are] from other nations than the usa, and may not know. We have in the USA what are called checks and balances –supposed to be provided by three branches of govt, local state and national: Execxutive [prez], Legislative [House and Senate], and Judicial [the courts, including the Supreme Court which is pretty much final say so if a federal case makes it there.]

      But there are other major elements too that work through, around, in, and sometimes it seems nefariously so: Investigative arms, such as FBI {Federal Bureau of Investigation, and CIA, and DOJ {Department of Justice, and some say, Black Ops meaning under the radar groups of gov’t people who do things incognito and who knows, via long-arm jurisdiction]. There is the Military which is a whole other matter of who is sent where and why and by whom, properly or in barely legal orders.] There are more, but the most significant in the last many years is a force that is beyond the ken and power of most of our citizens to influence law making, investigation, military, boons using taxpayer money and that is the Lobbyists from corporations galore, special interest groups such as religious groups, pharma, insurance, OTHER foreign nations [amazing how much bought influence comes from outside our nation], OTHER politicos, industries meaning tobacco, coal and more.

      “Lobbyist” influence [and money given in grotesque amounts to re-election campaigns] is legal in our country, and often hidden away in terms of not easily accessible public record for the average citizen to see and assess where their dollars are actually going and to whom and why, really why.

      One of my friends, a Muslim professional from Pakistan who fled to here for his family to be safer and more free, says in Pakistan, what are called “Lobbyists” in the USA are called corrupt forces. Here, he says, “lobbies” seem to have fooled the people who do not understand corruption and theft of an entire legislative system. That personal rather than public interest is what means ‘corruption’ which is done by pouring and pouring money, favorable whatever, and logrolling. He loves his new homeland, but says Americans are very naive about having their powers taken from them that are rightfully theirs, not the layer of system of peddling that goes on here with those in power to/ with those who so badly want power over others financially, statuswise, regulationwise and in other ways.

      We have had movements to take back what belongs to the people’s will and domains, even though side-tracked by being told you can go lobby too [no money to match the monied, however, thereby little influence] or ‘your vote counts.’ Well, yes and no in the national elections for prez for instance. The movements have often fizzled, for there needs to be a tireless, evenhanded, truthtelling, FOCUSED, leader.

      I look at how Romania’s dictator and all his minions of corrupt arachnids were overthrown, and others Papa Doc, Baby Doc, Saddam and his two sons, Than Swe and more. Sometimes from within the system but replaced often with another corrupt self serving ‘strong man’ and HIS/HER creepy crawlies. And with the ‘old regime’ sympathizers willing and able to bring back the corrupt ones so they themselves can recover their ill gotten powers to order others about, to have the dacha on the Black Sea and the French appointed apartment in the city with all sumptuous foods freely flowing… and let all other stand in line for butter. And give them their allotment of free alcohol. And all should just shut up and shut up some more

      We have a nation of strong and beautiful people. I dont know that the nation itself as a political entity is strong nor beautiful any longer.

      • //We have a nation of strong and beautiful people.//


        That you do.

        I did not scroll…I seek to learn. Psephology is in my bones 🙂


        • thanks Brendan, see what I mean. You use the word Psephology. Amazing you are in your language. For others here: it’s not a mis-spelling. Psephology is the study of, well, stat study of ways and means in culture, esp elections, trends, layers of leanings in voting etc

          Ology/ logos/logy, knowledge of/ study of

          psephos meaning pebble… which used to be used in ancient times amongst some in order to place a vote.

      • Well put. Our system of campaign financing, lobbying, and, post-Citizens United, the abilty of millionaires and billionaires to create super-PACS with unlimited funding is an elaborate form of legal bribery.

        • We have to keep it above the waterline I think, Peter. We can. Civil rights, which I would consider the right to have one’s vote count rather than one’s money — are not a given. They have to be fought for, in my experience in my long life, about every twenty years. The time is now. Let’s keep going.

        • Citizens United also provided that three of us could join together as an LLC, rent a theater, and show a movie about Trump. The law in question said we couldn’t do that during periods defined by the government.

          In the US Supreme Court hearing, the US Solicitor General said books could be banned by the government.

          At the same time, the Solicitor general contended it was OK for giant corporations to say whatever they want about anything they want, at any time they want. For Example, Disney and Time Warner could spend whatever they want to say whatever they wanted, but three of us could not form an LLC, rent a theater, and show a movie the government didn’t like.

          • “Citizens United also provided that three of us could join together as an LLC, rent a theater, and show a movie about Trump.”

            Boy, what a victory that was for free speech.

            Meanwhile, billionaires can form Super PACS with unlimited funding and blitz the airwaves during an election season with ads. They can buy up all the ad slots in advance so nobody else can use them.

            And they can preempt your rights buy leasing all the movie theaters in advance for the election season even if they leave them unused.

            • Boy, what a victory that was for free speech.

              It is indeed a victory for free speech. It established that we all have rights, not just companies approved by government.

              Media companies have contended that freedom of the press applies to the institution of the press rather than the technology of the press. This means they can use technology to amplify their message, but the rest of us can’t. It limits the application of the First Amendment to a select group rarher than the whole population.

              They can indeed lease those theaters. So can I.

    • Consider that the Rs and the Ds each have about 50% of the voters (obviously this varies from year to year, but not by all that much… if one side gets 60% it is considered a landslide). Now consider that voter turnout for primaries is usually somewhere around 20% (I think it’s higher than normal this year, but don’t have an actual number to hand). Now consider that Trump has been getting somewhere around 35% of those (~28-45% in the contests so far).

      So…Trump supporters represent somewhere around 3-4% of the eligible voters. Trumpomania doesn’t look quite so impressive when you think of it that way.

      However, because of the way the system works, that may well be enough to put him over the top.

      • I’m in Illinois, and I still haven’t decided whether to vote in the Republican primary to make sure my vote isn’t Trump, or the Democratic primary to make sure my vote isn’t Clinton. If the November election pits these two losers against each other, my choice will be to write in Zaphod Beeblebrox or James Tiberius Kirk.

  9. Trump is a bully, not a builder. Bezos is a builder, not a bully.

    Why does society always tend to take power away from the builders and give it to the bullies?

    • Beautifully lucid and concise diagnosis and question. Now, if I just had the answer.

    • We can’t tell the difference between gold and fool’s gold. Our eyes are blind.

    • Why does society always tend to take power away from the builders and give it to the bullies?

      Because the builders are too busy building to want power, and the bullies need power in order to do their bullying. As long as the top jobs are done by people who want them, you’ll have this problem.

      G. K. Chesterton said once, approximately, that a hereditary monarchy is the second most democratic form of government, after direct participatory democracy. If you can’t have all the people governing themselves, at least you can pick one of the people more or less by accident. There’s something in that.

    • Probably because bullies yell the loudest.

    • Trump is a bully, not a builder. Bezos is a builder, not a bully.

      We can visit the buildings Trump built.

  10. I believe Trump is confusing government with a corporation. Being president of the country does not mean you get to walk through the Capitol Building, pointing your finger and shouting, “You’re fired!” at everyone who disagrees with you.

    Nearly every comment I see from him though, embodies that philosophy.

  11. “Being president of the country does not mean you get to walk through the Capitol Building, pointing your finger and shouting, “You’re fired!”

    But voters can do that. We just refuse to. 🙂


  12. I would totally vote for Bezos if he ran.

    However, I think he’s way too smart to take on that (thankless) job.

  13. I have to say it – I don’t understand this Trump thing. I would have thought that he’d be laughed out at the first primary. I can’t believe what’s been happening and that he might actually end up being the Republican candidate. How did we get to this point? Is it really just the fame? Because he is one of the most obnoxious and misinformed politicians I’ve ever seen. His Amazon statements just reiterate that.

    • I’m with you on that.

      I think people are sick of politicians who are two faced.

      At least with Trump, you know EXACTLY what you’re going to get. There is a certain appeal in that.

      Unfortunately, this race just proves that this is a rich “man’s” game. No money, can’t play.

      So much for “anyone” can grow up to be president. One of the biggest lies ever told.

      • Except that Trump is just as two-faced as any of the politicians he’s pointing at. He changes positions to suit his audience, lies to suit the moment, and pretends that everyone who shows him facts to the contrary are all liars.

        I don’t understand his appeal. I do know that about 20% of Democrats want him, too, which really makes me worry about November.

        Here’s hoping he craters on Super Tuesday. But I don’t think he will.

        • I think Meryl your wondering, is a good one re “understanding his appeal.”

          I think it has a lot to do with being a mouthpiece for actual and real grievances many persons have. That he doesnt have a proven plan or step by step plans to tell about HOW he will do all he says he will do, he says what a lot of folk are aggreived about. And I think that may be why. The lack of actual plans, and the sideshow of attacking others with name calling etc, however, is not best prob for all of USA.

          But look at this: he doesnt say, he rails. Many people have been railing for years, those who lost their homes through subprime mortgage criminality by bankers etc, those who lost jobs through NAFTA and cruddy trade agreements with ‘cheap labor/ soft labor/ no EPA nor OSHA mfg elsewhere: China. Mexico. India. More. His railing agrees with the angst, heartbreak and fear many are carrying. Through no fault of their own. He speaks/rails enough truths to connect.

          Many people are not supportive of gay marriage. The man says he will break the supreme court decision on that. Some are angry about rising insur. premium prices. Check. Some are angry about being forced to buy pharma, not at least expensive, but at often most expensive because of state and nation agreements they were never consulted about. Many teachers who have been told they must follow national testing mandates so they are teaching by rote til everyone is bored half to death, feel the kids are not engaged and are being trained to be barking puppets wihtout in depth attention to each child’s talents and more so, a deeper curriculum. Many elders are scared their money wont last in the rising health care costs and are well aware of the insurance and pharma incursions on their finances if they want to stay well or get well. Many are enraged about costs in military and in health and hospitals with the proverbial 300 dollar hammer and the 20 dollar aspirin.

          There is more. And the notes are true notes. And many are so sick and tired of having poli’s calmly say, My that is a problem, well, we’ll work on it. Vs someone screaming, screeching, proclaiming, threatening, demeaning, claiming about what has bothered many persons for a long time. With no relief.

          But the problem is, my .02, lots of volume without sure fire solutions. No prez in the usa is allowed to rule part of the people all the time and by personal fiat. Bombing of syria and cutting off trade with China, for instance, making Mexico ‘pay’ etc, being assertions. But really, how, specifically that will help and do no harm. That would be, in my mind the starting point of taking any candidate seriously. Because there is a position open on the Supremes, this election of prez can be the most impt of our lifetime. No one wants to live in a one-sided gulag dictated by unbalance on the court. We shall see.

          Truthtellers and ranters, both or all, have to have effective step by steps to show, to support each one of their assertions. For some, they are mardi gras flingers of colored beads. That will work for some to jump for. But the caucuses carry no finality, esp in these early stages. It appears for ad dollars, the MSM is acting as though these are actual elections [they arent] and hanging on with bated [or is it baited?] breath to each debate and einsy detail. That has enflamed what was just a burning cig on the sidewalk. Now the whole village is in flames.

          We shall see who has the cool heads and the steady hand and the most knowledge about how to get more done. Not all done; that’s impossible. But more done. And better done.

          • You’re right in your assessment. He’s the voice of the angry and disgusted.

            I don’t really think any of them have concrete plans. They all have big talks about how they’re going to “fix” things but no specifics.

            All a bunch of hot air, the lot of them.


            I have a feeling that no matter who “wins” the elections, the rest of us LOSE.

            • Dont lose heart ‘the Other Diana”…

              we’re together and marching forward

              keep speaking up

              this election might have to be one wherein many people might vote for who can win and thereby defeat the one they mistrust most.

              That has happened many times in our relatively young nation. The most important thing is that open seat on the Supreme Court that could crush freedoms for the next many decades if allowed to add, by whichever prez, a judge with an extreme viewpoint, in any direction, toward any ‘party principles of any side’, who will will wildly unablance the court for your lifetime. Very much many of us in our age group hope for the young, good chances to be free, continue to be free, for people to have self soverignty to the good re their own lives. Let us see. We can keep our voices very audible. There is, also, power in group voices, as you know. I ever encourage to join groups that are focused, know the publicity ropes, and are relentlessly creative in putting the words out– to others, but particularly to those who hope to be elected/ re-elected

        • Meryl- Besides saying that people who show him the facts are liars, Trump also keeps saying he’ll sue them. I’m still trying to figure out how that’s supposed to work.

          • In the same speech referenced here, Trump also claimed he was going to change the libel laws so he could sue people who “lied about him”. I’m guessing Polifact and similar groups would be at the top of his list.

            He’ll have fun trying to get that sort of thing past the Supreme Court.

      • Unfortunately, this race just proves that this is a rich “man’s” game. No money, can’t play.

        Rubio and Cruz are not rich and have both far outspent Trump. So has Sanders, and he’s not rich. This race shows the opposite.

    • Someone referred to him as the ‘check engine light’ of politics and I think I’ll go with that. He’s symptomatic of people’s frustrations, and I think Sanders is the same. These are people who would never have stood a chance in past elections, and yet … here we are. It’s surreal. If this were a novel no one would believe that things have played out as they have; this is the kind of weirdness that could only happen in real life.

      • Well said. It looks very much like a revolt, both left and right. The fact that the establishment of both parties has focused so much energy attacking and/or undermining candidates for their own parties only adds fuel to the fire. The voters who are already angry with their party can clearly see this happening, and it only deepens their resolve to vote for the perceived outsider, regardless of whether he’s qualified or even competent.

      • “check engine light” very good. Says it all succinctly.

    • As a Canadian watching it all I have to wonder most at his social media director. I mean you expect candidates to misremember the exact percentages in debates, but things like retweeting neo-nazi meme’s is just weird.

      I don’t take it necessarily as him being racist, though that’s nowhere near impossible, but really lacking in orginazational skills. Why is he making simple mistakes when he should have the best assistants out there?

      • He’s not following accepted practices. The only index of success is votes. He keeps getting more and more. It seems to be working. So, if the objective is votes, we might question if the social media stuff is a mistake.

        • I guess, but it seems while those ‘mistakes’ pull in your base it’s hard to win an election where the majority still don’t identify with a party. Anyway, until he invades us I’ll just watch with the rest.

          • Yu don’t get in the general election unles you win the party nomination. And that is a series of primary elections.

            A typical candidate moves further left or right to capture the primary vote of their respective party. Then they spend the general election trying to walk back from the positions they had to take to win the primaries.

    • “How did we get to this point?”

      As a state abolitionist – one who advocates the end of the current system of nation-states – I find Trump dreamy for exactly this reason… It seems like an obvious conclusion to me that any system that is ‘this close’ to giving a clown like Trump the keys to the largest set of “red buttons” in the history of the world is irrevocably flawed…

      I get to sit back and hope it wakes more of you up, and there’s a certain perverse pleasure in that. How did “we” get to this point? By imagining that you can create a civilized, peaceful society through the institutionalized violence of Statism.

      • By imagining that you can create a civilized, peaceful society through the institutionalized violence of Statism.

        How do you do it?

        • “”By imagining that you can create a civilized, peaceful society through the institutionalized violence of Statism.”

          How do you do it?”

          It’s difficult and ultimately impossible for me to be entirely prescriptive, since it would be the same difficulty of predicting who is going to win and lose in the free market (I was sure Blockbuster would outlast Netflix, so I’m not sure you want to take my stock tips). I’m 99% to my goal if I can get someone to realize that you can’t use the very thing you are trying to get rid of as a means to get rid of it: it’s a logical impossibility. You can’t get rid of societal violence using violence as your means, any more than you can get rid of carbon emissions by using carbon-emitting means or get rid of corruption by being corrupt.

          Ultimately, though, it comes down to what we accept as legitimate, and what we will not. Since this is an author site, I can tell you about the fiction series I’m working on (I am still very much an amateur, however): it depicts a smallish (300K people) society (I’m not a scifi writer, so it’s modern times/technology etc) of people so diverse and in disagreement that the only thing they can agree on is that resolving their disputes with each other via violence – being the first to escalate – is never accepted as legitimate, so that if one group does so, the others all jump on them. Without the initiation of violence available as a means to reach their ends, the resulting society has formed alternative mechanisms and institutions to Statism for the provision of governance services (laws, courts, police, social programs, safety nets/insurance, etc); of course, that’s where the fiction comes in, because as I said, I can only imagine/speculate on how these might evolve and what form they might take. Luckily, that’s the job of a fiction author: make stuff up. 😉 It’s been an enlightening exercise, and a big part of why I’m writing this fiction is because I think fiction can and has historically had a strong role to play in allowing people to imagine things they’ve never seen in real life, and no one alive today has seen or known anything but Statism.

  14. This article on Narcissistic Personality Disorder on Wikipedia is a frighteningly accurate description of Donald Trump:

  15. When you read the entire quote, it seems that Trump was attacking or threatening the news media in general and the New York Times and Washington Post specifically. To say he was attacking Amazon is not really accurate, since WAPO and Amazon are completely different companies.

    Here is the entire quote: DONALD TRUMP: “I’ll tell you what, I think the media is among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met. They’re terrible. The New York Times, which is losing a fortune, which is a failing newspaper, which probably won’t be around that much longer, but probably somebody will buy it as a trophy, keep it going for a little longer. But I think The New York Times is one of the most dishonest media outlets I’ve ever seen in my life. The worst, the worst. The absolute worst. They have an agenda that you wouldn’t believe. And they’re run by incompetent people. They are totally incompetently run. Washington Post, I have to tell you, I have respect for Jeff Bezos, but he bought The Washington Post to have political influence and I got to tell you, we have a different country than we used to have. We have a different — He owns Amazon. He wants political influence so that Amazon will benefit from it. That’s not right. And believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems. They’re going to have such problems.

    And one of the things I’m going to do, and this is only going to make it tougher for me, and I’ve never said this before, but one of the things I’m going to do if I win — and I hope I do and we’re certainly leading — is I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We’re going to open up those libel laws. So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace, or when the Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected. You see, with me, they’re not protected because I’m not like other people but I’m not taking money. I’m not taking their money. So we’re going to open up those libel laws folks and we’re going to have people sue you like you never got sued before. We have many things to do. We have many, many things to do.”

    And boy, he better be careful if he gets the libel laws changed, as he seems to make himself open to such charges on an almost daily basis. He should be glad that it is so difficult to prove libel or slander.

    • Actually he explained a while back that he thinks Amazon bought the Washington Post, not Bezo’s directly. I can’t quite tell from the quote if he’s been corrected since.

  16. I’m a big believer in the wisdom of story and character. This and this shed some light on what’s going on, in my opinion.

  17. Bezos bought the WP.

    The WP takes sides in politics, and tries to influence outcomes.

    Bezos is taking political sides and trying to influence outcomes.

    He’s a big boy, and he’s chosen to enter the fight.

    Let him take his lumps like anyone else. He’s not special.

    • “Bezos is taking political sides”

      Which ones, exactly?

      “and trying to influence outcomes.”

      Can you point to one case of Bezos influencing something written in the WaPo for the sake of his “political side”?

      • The Washington post is firmly on the democrats’ side. That’s no secret.

        It’s Bezos’ property, his priperty is taking sides, so he’s taking sides.

        He publishes it. He’s responsible. He knows that. He owns the whole thing.

        If he wants to be a political player, let him face the consequences. He knows what he’s doing.

  18. I remember as a kid asking my grandfather who would make a good prez when Regan was running the first time vs Carter.

    His answer?

    Always pick the one you think will spend the most time leaving you the hell alone…

  19. If I were Donald Trump, I’d leave Mr. Bezos alone–he’s got drones.

    Another Canadian here who is watching the political dance in our neighbours house with more than casual interest. Today, I noticed that two of the front runners, Marco and Donald, were tossing insults at each other about makeup and tanning spray.

    It was good to see a discussion about something that truly matters . . .

    • I’ve been watching Trudeau with equal interest. The Canadians don’t have to make the same budget mistakes the US did. Look south, learn, and don’t do stupid stuff..

      • Lol, I don’t know how much you followed Canadian politics in the past, but for others reading, they are kind of weird if you use US terms. A Liberal can balance the budget and get a surplus while a Conservative can run up the debt.

        I swear I never know what our government is going to do. Especially since PM’s have more power over new laws/budgets than US Presidents do. Which means directions sometimes change fast.

  20. Trump better watch out. Getting into a pi**ing contest with a fellow billionaire probably isn’t a good strategy. Especially if the other billionaire has more money than you and can play the legal costs attrition game.

    On second thought, Bezos is probably about as concerned about Trump as an elephant is about an ant underfoot.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.