Trump personally pushed postmaster general to double rates on Amazon, other firms

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

YuliApp

Senior member
Dec 27, 2017
420
120
116
desirehive.com
it is a good move. Amazon abuses the delivery chain and uses it's more or less monopoly to dictate prices.
Sure it is "legal", but definitely not ethic, especially seeing that even in Germany how the work of those people look like.
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
36,730
28,907
136
Maybe you can stop sucking any dick you see and point out where I ever mentioned either of those things.
You are one stupid son of a bitch.
You didn't I did.

Point being anyone who sucks Trump's dick has no standing bitching about anyone's standard of proof. As evidenced.

You wallow in dog shit and complain about someone else's smell?? Laughable at best.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
BTW, Trader Joe's is known for some of the best benefits in the grocery business. I would double check your information before you paint them with too broad of a brush.
I was not referring to the retail locations, TJ just opened a DC in our area about 16 months ago, it's staffed primarily by temp workers. This is hardly unique to them however, many Co's go this route because temp workers are not eligible for a benefits package. I agree with you in that our politicians should have addressed this long ago, it should not come down to how lucky you are that a particular Co you work for has health insurance.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.
I usually do as well, but I will make an exception or two. As an example I have ans Ace Hardware, Lowes, Home Depot all nearby but I choose to use Ace 90% of the time, there is always someone there to assist me and they know their stuff vs Home Depot where I've actually had someone tell me "I'm clocking out" as I asked for the location on something.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
34,004
8,040
136
I will buy wherever it's cheapest.
And that's what's wrong with America.
Nope. Consumer is not there to solve social problems, that's what government is for.

I mean, if I had the money then maybe I would make a statement by ripping myself off on higher prices. To support made in America, or whatever cause this is about. But anyone who is not rich is going to be struggling. Trickle down's income inequality has destroyed America's Middle Class. Beggers cannot be choosers. The nation shops at Walmart. We have become dependents on the cheapest prices.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ch33zw1z

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Agree, but is that worse than businesses getting preferential treatment from the government because they hire the right lobbyists?

Yes. In fact the same premise was the basis for Article 2 of the impeachment charges of Nixon. If businesses are given a break that is magnitudes of order more harmful than a President being allowed to use the supreme power of government to crush you like a bug. That is what Trump tried with Bezos.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I mean, if I had the money then maybe I would make a statement by ripping myself off on higher prices. To support made in America, or whatever cause this is about. But anyone who is not rich is going to be struggling. Trickle down's income inequality has destroyed America's Middle Class. Beggers cannot be choosers. The nation shops at Walmart. We have become dependents on the cheapest prices.
The money went to the top. They should be taxed to pay for health care, not average Joe who hasn't got a raise in ages spending more on purchases he can barely afford.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I usually do as well, but I will make an exception or two. As an example I have ans Ace Hardware, Lowes, Home Depot all nearby but I choose to use Ace 90% of the time, there is always someone there to assist me and they know their stuff vs Home Depot where I've actually had someone tell me "I'm clocking out" as I asked for the location on something.
You are paying more for service that benefits you. That's not same as paying more to solve social ills that the rich should be taxed to solve.
 

FIVR

Diamond Member
Jun 1, 2016
3,753
911
106
What i don't understand about this is why don't Bezos and other fight back? These people have enough money to lobby corrupt republicans and make them do what they want. Instead, they whine about the treatment they get and keep stuffing their pockets and bank accounts.


I don't think Bezos gives a crap what Trump does or how it affects the stock price. Bezos has more money than a person could spend in 50 lifetimes. Losing a few billion here or there is nothing to him. He probably just thinks "Trump will be gone soon and I will still be here".
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Nope. Consumer is not there to solve social problems, that's what government is for.


So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
 

BUTCH1

Lifer
Jul 15, 2000
20,433
1,769
126
So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
But let's face it, shoppers are more concerned with convenience, price, value. Everyone knows Walmart pays crap wages and little to no benefits but how many have actually refused to shop there because of that fact?, few.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
The government should take care of societal problems by taxing the rich, who got all the benefits of growth over the last 40 years, not expect consumers with stagnant incomes at best to pay more to pay more.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,199
18,669
146
So an authoritarian then because if you can't behave it's the government's responsibility to make you do what it wants. I'd wondered. The citizen has no responsibility for their actions, that's for someone else to make me and others do. You can shop as you wish but the government should tell you how to think? Nope.
U ok? This seems out of the ordinary for you. You're intertwining the roles an individual plays in our society. First, foremost IMO, is the tax paying citizen, who looks to the government to maintain a level of harmony in our lives. Second, being a consumer, who looks to save what they can when purchasing items. Obviously, this is a broad overview, and the two can and will intersect like voting g with your wallet over social issues.

There's other roles, but these seem to be the two being conflated
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
What i don't understand about this is why don't Bezos and other fight back? These people have enough money to lobby corrupt republicans and make them do what they want. Instead, they whine about the treatment they get and keep stuffing their pockets and bank accounts.


I don't think Bezos gives a crap what Trump does or how it affects the stock price. Bezos has more money than a person could spend in 50 lifetimes. Losing a few billion here or there is nothing to him. He probably just thinks "Trump will be gone soon and I will still be here".

There is no power like that of an untethered President. If Bezos is going to a fight he's not likely to mouth off about it an telegraph his actions. Besides if Bezos has the influence with Republicans you say he'll let Trump hang himself with selecting out Amazon and testify to articles of impeachment, then sue Trump for every dime he has.

If the postmaster general does give in to Trump then we have the same scenario as we find here:

Article II alleged in part that Nixon:

repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposed of these agencies.

That is the Article concerning abuse of power, which in part is related to Nixon attempting to use the IRS to punish people on his "enemies list". This is the same with Trump and Bezos by attacking his company.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
U ok? This seems out of the ordinary for you. You're intertwining the roles an individual plays in our society. First, foremost IMO, is the tax paying citizen, who looks to the government to maintain a level of harmony in our lives. Second, being a consumer, who looks to save what they can when purchasing items. Obviously, this is a broad overview, and the two can and will intersect like voting g with your wallet over social issues.

There's other roles, but these seem to be the two being conflated

I'm fine, thanks. How are you?

"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.

I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
38,199
18,669
146
I'm fine, thanks. How are you?

"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.

I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
If the consumer wants to conflate the two roles, and purchase items based on their moral compass, that's fine, it's up to them. I do that on a regular basis, but I dont anywhere this being required to buy things.

It is very trumpian, he's a ginormous american stereotype. And millions of Americans are the same way.

Personally, I'm still a prime member, but it's tougher every year to stay. As they increase membership prices and continue to treat employees poorly, I'm not sure how long I will last.

Others can stick with it they want, it's not criminal, and looking to the government for solutions to employer/employee problems isn't asking the government to moderate our thoughts either.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
I'm fine, thanks. How are you?

"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.

I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.
Lol, what? Buying cheap is cheating?
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Lol, what? Buying cheap is cheating?

You can buy where you want, never said otherwise. My point of contention is that it's government's job to fix things, leaving you with no responsibilities for your decisions, however you brought up government fixing society or words to that effect. Government has roles it properly plays, but how we act is our ourselves and the consequences too.
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
You can buy where you want, never said otherwise. My point of contention is that it's government's job to fix things, leaving you with no responsibilities for your decisions, however you brought up government fixing society or words to that effect. Government has roles it properly plays, but how we act is our ourselves and the consequences too.
It's the government's role. If we need consumers to take care of social ills at the point of sale, that's a failure of government.
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
I'm fine, thanks. How are you?

"The consumer has no responsibility..." That's what I was addressing. That's wrong. The consumer, AKA citizen at least at the age of majority does not surrender responsibilities for their actions, claiming that it's for government to handle society.

I'm in strong disagreement. The individual has freedoms to make choices but surrendering responsibility for their actions. In fact it's very Trumpian. It's perfectly legal to go bankrupt and screw your investors time and again. To cheat within the law those who worked for you. After all it's for the government to stop him and others, so there's nothing morally wrong here.

Well, yeh, but conservatives contend that what we need is smaller govt even less capable of dealing with fraud & thievery at an international scale. You know, that rugged individualism & hard work & blah, blah, blah will somehow address the power disparity of wealth over ordinary people.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,879
4,266
126
Well, yeh, but conservatives contend that what we need is smaller govt even less capable of dealing with fraud & thievery at an international scale. You know, that rugged individualism & hard work & blah, blah, blah will somehow address the power disparity of wealth over ordinary people.


You know that's not my argument, right?