- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
So they endorse fascism.
So they’re cowards and idiots.
Better headline here: https://lemmy.world/post/21263675
I see Bezos is drooling over the potential tax cuts he’d get in a fascist theocracy.
Which is strange considering Trump and his cronies did to Besos while he was president. (Stealing and leaking his nudes)
Doesn’t matter. All that matters is power, and Bezos’s power is tied up in money, not reputation. Leaked nudes matter not one whit - even a 1% reduction in taxes, on the other hand? Very vital.
Wealth at that scale is a disease
Even if you don’t want to endorse a candidate, you can still denounce one. A decision not to denounce Trump and all that he stands for can easily be viewed as tacit acceptance.
I just think it’s strange considering Trumps history with Besos. They weren’t exactly friends unless something changed. Not really sure what the calculus is here.
It’s not about being friendly with Trump, it’s that Harris intends to raise taxes for people with net worth over $100M.
Not really sure what the calculus is here.
Don’t get on his bad side? Not that they aren’t already at odds, just remember T is highly transactional and this could be seen as a favor that may buy some brownie points.
I actually find kind of ominous for him to make this move. This freaks me out more than anything like he knows something.
If we’re being cynical, he knows he stands to benefit. ;)
You could say Trump’s arguments moved Bezos into a bigger house.
In a column published on The Post’s website Friday, Post Publisher William Lewis described the decision as a return to the newspaper’s roots of non-endorsement. The Post only began regularly endorsing presidential candidates in 1976, when the paper endorsed Jimmy Carter “for understandable reasons at the time.”
Hmm.
On one hand, I frequently complain about media partisanship.
On the other hand, I care much more about bias – especially willingness to distort a situation in the name of that advocacy, or mislead readers – being inserted into articles. I really don’t have a problem with a newspaper writing a single endorsement and clearly explaining their case for doing so. In fact, I suspect that it’s probably got potential to be one of the more-articulate places to make a case for someone.
I ended a subscription to The Atlantic, years back, because I was tired of reading preaching for Obama in every couple of articles, years back. I didn’t have a problem with Obama. However, I was exasperated over having political advocacy constantly being inserted into everything I read.
Speaking for myself and what media I’d rather read, that is what I’d rather have changed, rather than the presence of an endorsement, something which only really occurs once during election time and is clearly marked.
It seems odd that endorsing Carter was “understandable reasons at the time.” What were the reasons? Following the whole debacle with Nixon it made sense to endorse the guy running against the GOP? Isn’t there even more understandable reasons a this time right now?
It would make sense in any other election other than this one and the last one. Really weird choice to stop endorsing with this particular election.
