Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Attacks Amazon, Incorrectly Claiming That It Owns The Washington Post For Tax Purposes (recode.net)
The Washington Post, which has been critical of Donald Trump and his administration in its coverage, has become the latest victim in Trump's Twitter tirade. On Wednesday, he accused Amazon of not "paying internet taxes (which they should)," adding that the company is using The Washington Post "in a scheme to dodge" the taxes. Quick fact check: Amazon doesn't own The Washington Post, Jeff Bezos -- in his personal capacity -- does. At any rate, Trump's furious tweets come a day after The Washington Post reported that a fake issue of Time magazine with Trump on the cover was hanging in some of the president's golf clubs. The timing of this is also awkward because just last week the president met with Bezos and other top executives to discuss ways the White House can modernize government and aid the tech industry. But the two have a long history. As Recode reminds: Meanwhile, Amazon is about to embark on what could be a lengthy government antitrust review of its bid to buy Whole Foods. Already looming large over the roughly $14 billion deal are the president's own comments: He has previously attacked Bezos and claimed the Post is a tax-dodging scheme for Amazon. "He thinks I'll go after him for antitrust," Trump said at one point during his campaign. "Because he's got a huge antitrust problem, because he's controlling so much, Amazon is controlling so much of what they are doing." Months later, Trump charged: "Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems, they are going to have such problems." Meanwhile, Bezos isn't one to shy about his anti-Trump views either. At one point during the election, Bezos tweeted that he'd save a seat for Trump on his Blue Origin spacecraft, with the hashtag "sendDonaldtospace."
I'm not quite sure how you get from that to Amazon owning the Washington Post. If there are multiple possible interpretations of a statement, the one that makes the most sense is likely the correct one, not the one which best reinforces your political biases by making the speaker appear the dumbest.
I've pretty much eliminated the Washington Post from the news sources I'll click through on Google News for this exact reason - they spin nearly every story in the most anti-Trump way they can think of, rather than giving an evenhanded presentation of the facts. (And no, I didn't vote for Trump.) I wouldn't call it fake news, more like news with a double serving of editorializing on the side. I don't need my news source telling me how I should think, thank you. I guess I'll have to add Tony Romm at Recode to the list.
Still better than Hillary.
Next time...give us better choices, maybe someone with a brain AND it moderate.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Why doesn't everybody in the US care that the United States of America has become the laughing stock of the entire rest of the human race?
Because we have seen the opinion of the rest of the human race in this regard is about as valuable as spit, being prone to manipulation of opinion by the global elite.
And because most of the people of the U.S. only vaguely care about what the president does, since he has little impact over their lives in the end. It's not like other countries where you have to be scared of what the Glorious Leader thinks of what you say or do lest you be imprisoned or worse.
You can deride him all you want but it's not like your own leaders are any better and in a lot of ways they are vastly worse. There are not many other countries I'd rather be living in currently than the U.S...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley