back to article Donald Trump jumps on anti-tech bandwagon, gets everything wrong

Combining his three favorite pastimes – trying to steal the news cycle, getting all his facts wrong, and spreading brain farts on Twitter – Donald Trump went on anti-Amazon tirade on Thursday. While Facebook continues to be hauled over the coals for its loose relationship with the truth, and Google looks down with its hands …

Page:

  1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

    So the real question is: what does Trump have against The Washington Post? And the answer is: journalism.

    Spot on. That's called a preemptive strike in lieu of Watergate 2.

    1. Mark 85 Silver badge

      In his eyes, the Washington Post isn't journalism, it's "Fake News". So the owner is getting the heat because he hates the WP and other "Fake News" sites. Which if I understand correctly, the only non-fake news site is Fox. Hmm.....

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        "the only non-fake news site is Fox. Hmm....."

        ISTR reading somewhere that Fox are licensed as an entertainment channel, having not managed to gain a news licence. Shirley that means that Fox News is misleading the public with its name, never mind what they broadcast.

        1. aqk
          Paris Hilton

          Shirley that?

          Fox News is misleading the public obviously.

          But please don't call me Shirley.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Maybe Bezos should just buy Fox News and locate the new Amazon headquarters in Canada. Although that might make tRump mad enough to press the button, just not sure where the missiles would end up.

    2. The Man Who Fell To Earth Silver badge
      FAIL

      Irony

      Irony is Trump making claims that others are not paying their fair share of income tax while he uses the excuse that his own taxes are still being audited by the IRS* as the lame reason for not releasing his income taxes.

      * For tax evasion. The IRS does not go around auditing folks taxes hoping to find over payments in order to pay the taxpayers back.

      1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

        Re: Irony

        Trump's tax avoidance strategies became publicly available during his election, but for some reason most of the press were distracted by some skilled attention seeker. For years, Trump paid hardly any tax (probably about 1%) because he was a real estate professional. Real estate professionals do not have to pay tax, but they have to spend 750 hours per year in the real estate business.

        After Trump had campaigned full time for months in the primaries it became that even if he dropped out and spent the rest of the year buying, selling and developing property he would still not qualify for real estate professional tax avoidance. Gradually the story came out. Trump had lost such a huge amount of money in the real estate business that he could offset the losses against tax for years. He was in debt and such a bad risk that only bank that would lend him money was Deutsche Bank.

        There are people out there who still think Trump much be a genius because he is so rich. If they catch on before the next election, the next US president will be Elizabeth Holmes.

        1. MonkeyCee Silver badge

          Re: Irony

          "He was in debt and such a bad risk that only bank that would lend him money was Deutsche Bank."

          It's actually worse than that.

          None of the commercial banks want to loan Trump money. He defaults and fights it in court, and lost pretty much all access to the commercial money markets some time ago. Most of Deutsche Bank won't lend to him.

          His "business" loans and mortgages are through a private bank, which is indeed now owned by Deutsche. There are some people who are quite upset about that, as there are good reasons why you don't want to be his creditor.

          Most of his money has come from other sources since then. Some of which he clearly didn't do enough/any due diligence on. I believe he even quoted Clay Davis of the Wire: "I'm not going to ask someone where their money comes from"

        2. DougS Silver badge

          @Flocke Kroes

          Real estate professionals do not have to pay tax, but they have to spend 750 hours per year in the real estate business.

          Real estate professionals most certainly do have to pay taxes, the 750 hour rule is about whether they can deduct paper losses like amortization from their income. This allows reducing their taxes quite a bit over what they would otherwise be, but unless they aren't making much money they will still owe some taxes. Owning real estate would benefit Trump by lowering his taxes, but couldn't account for years of paying nothing. The only way you could do that would be if you had huge losses you were carrying forward, like if you were the worst businessman in the world who managed to go bankrupt owning a casino.

        3. JohnFen Silver badge

          Re: Irony

          "There are people out there who still think Trump much be a genius because he is so rich"

          My entire life, I've been amazed that anyone thinks there is any correlation between intelligence and wealth, given the huge amount of evidence to the contrary.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Irony

            So of course, JohnFen, you're naturally wealthy AND intelligent, amiright ?

        4. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Irony

          Trump inherited his money from his father, he did not earn it. One can argue that his claim to fame is that he managed to avoid losing all his inherited wealth-- although barely, by ignoring his lawyers and scamming the IRS successfully to avoid bankruptcy. Indeed, that is probably why President Spanky ignores his current tattered legal team...

          As for his taxes, he learned from the mistake of Romney disclosing tax returns. All those marginal "expenses" and "businesses"[1] look almighty scurrilous in the light of day.

          [1] Romney had several businesses that advantaged his friends and family, consistently losing money, but by being anointed by expensive ex-Federal IRS tax attorneys the IRS just accepted the business deductions. Don't try this at home, Club Fed isn't all THAT attractive. (for those that don't know, Club Fed is the white collar federal penitentiary, mostly free of bubba, but still a pen)

          1. allthecoolshortnamesweretaken Silver badge

            Re: Club Fed

            I hear their ping-pong tournaments are murderous.

            1. DougS Silver badge

              @AC - Trump's inherited wealth

              Not only did he inherit his money and get what he called a "small loan" of $1 million (back in 1970 when $1 million was real money!) from his father to start investing on his own, his father also bailed him out to the tune of nearly $100 million in the early 90s when he bankrupted a couple of casinos and would have bankrupted his whole empire (and personally) if it hadn't been for daddy. Not very many people are lucky enough to not only have a father worth hundreds of millions of dollars to bail them out when they get in over our heads because they're a clueless dolt, but have a father willing to bail them out (after demonstrating to him they're a clueless dolt)

              Had he had simply invested his inheritance in an index fund and reinvested dividends, his net worth would actually be higher than the $10 billion he claims he's worth! Which makes him a terrible businessman in my book - if you can't beat passive investing you obviously have no clue what the hell you're doing. Why go to all the hassle and stress of running a business if you're making less money than you could make sipping drinks on a yacht 100% invested in the S&P 500 and not even having to pay brokerage fees?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Irony

        So I wonder what happens if The Donald get stung with a tax evasion rap? Can you still be President if you're in the pen?

        1. Flocke Kroes Silver badge

          Re: Irony

          There was an interview with one of Trumps accountants. He said that Frederick Trump's tax records were meticulous. Frederick could prove to the cent exactly how much tax he owed. Donald's were a mess. It would take a determined effort to prove anything one way or the other. Donald did not show any interest during the meeting, but Ivana had many questions.

        2. Pascal Monett Silver badge

          Re: "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

          I think it's the other way around : you can't be in the pen if you're still President.

          Meaning : to put the President in the pen, you first have to de-President him, in other words : impeachment.

          1. Mark 85 Silver badge

            @Pascal Monett -- Re: "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

            Meaning : to put the President in the pen, you first have to de-President him, in other words : impeachment.

            That's only partially correct. Impeachment is the first step. The second one is "remove from office".

            1. Richard Plinston Silver badge

              Re: @Pascal Monett -- "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

              > The second one is "remove from office"

              IMHO that would be an even worse situation. Pence not only thinks that The Rapture is coming soon but will try to ensure that it will - with . Trump is merely a corrupt criminal liar, Pence is insane.

              1. Mark 85 Silver badge

                Re: @Pascal Monett -- "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

                I believe Pence was picked as "insurance" or maybe the poisoned chalice. Other presidents have done that also... picked the one guy no one wants as President and thereby allow themelves to stay in office and alive.

              2. Alistair Silver badge
                Windows

                Re: @Pascal Monett -- "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

                @ Richard P:

                That sadly is what scares me more than a braggart of a con man being president. I'm *almost* certain that the reason Trump accepted Pence was him thinking "That guy is batshit crazy religious nutbar, There's no way in hell they'll impeach me if he's my VP"

                Worse is that I'm starting to think that the extreme edge of the 'publicans *will* consider impeaching Trump.

            2. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

              Re: @Pascal Monett -- "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

              Impeachment is the first step. The second one is "remove from office".

              Really the second step is the trial (by the Senate, and if the defendant is the POTUS, presided over by the Chief Justice of SCOTUS). If a two-thirds majority of the Senate vote to convict on one or more of the charges listed in the Articles of Impeachment (which come from the House of Representatives), then the defendant is removed from office.

              So removal is really a consequence of the trial. You could call it part of the "second step" (since the Constitution doesn't specify the process in terms of "steps"), but mainly that second step is the trial itself.

              Note that all the Senate can do is remove the convicted defendant from office and optionally bar him or her from holding Federal office in the future. To actually put Trump or any other former President in prison, there would have to be a regular criminal trial after impeachment, conviction, and removal.

              In Trump's case, it's all but certain that Pence would pardon him. Ford pardoned Nixon, and that was political suicide; but an impeached Trump would see a large swathe of his followers digging in their heels and proclaiming his innocence. They would be instant Pence supporters. So we're not likely to see Trump in prison, if he gets impeached.

              What if Trump got impeached, convicted, and removed from office, but prosecutors waited for a friendlier President before bringing charges? Pence could still pardon Trump. Ford preemptively pardoned Nixon when no charges had been brought, for every Federal offense he "may have committed".

              There's been much discussion of whether Trump could pardon himself. Some legal scholars say no; others say it's unclear. Presumably if he tried it SCOTUS would have to decide.

              So, the only way to get Trump in prison, at least on a Federal conviction, would be for someone not sympathetic to him to become the next President (otherwise he'll get preemptively pardoned), and either for him to not try pardoning himself (and what does he have to lose?), or for SCOTUS to rule that he can't.

              The same, of course, would apply to some hypothetical other President who might run afoul of the law. I can't see that ever happening, though. Usually they're swell folks who hold themselves to the highest ethical standards.

        3. JohnFen Silver badge

          Re: Irony

          "Can you still be President if you're in the pen?"

          You can't be put in the pen if you're still President. The way it has to happen is that the President must be impeached and removed from office first, then prison becomes an option.

      3. Rich 11 Silver badge

        Re: Irony

        Irony is Trump making claims that others are not paying their fair share of income tax while he uses the excuse that his own taxes are still being audited by the IRS* as the lame reason for not releasing his income taxes.

        It isn't irony, it's hypocrisy. Trump isn't sufficiently self-aware to know this, or he just doesn't care because he knows his target audience will cheer him to the rafters even when he states six contradictory things before breakfast.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      The Washington Post used to do real journalism, but in the last decade it has declined significantly. Half or more of any of the stories they publish are sensationalist click bait better suited to a tabloid. They are low on fact, high on inference, don't check their sources, and are more editorials than real journalism in the form of investigative reporting. Still, even at 50% they are better than many other formerly great papers who now have a much lower percentage.

      Many Journalists seem to have forgotten what journalism really is - and Kieren McCarthy is no different in that regard. While the rest of his article was based on facts, and correctly trounced on Trump for his errors, his closing statement claiming that Trump is anti Washington Post because of journalism is a fabrication without any supporting facts. It detracts from what would otherwise have been a good article.

      However, if you look back at Kieren's articles you will find that fabrications when it comes to stories about the US government are not at all uncommon. Just read his closing paragraphs and then go back to his named sources to see if they support his conclusions. Many times you will find that they don't. Still, he is much better than anything you are going to read on Fox or MSN.

      1. Geoffrey W Silver badge

        RE Anonymous Coward

        You criticize KM on the basis of unspecified past articles without reference to anything we can use to check your own accusations accuracy. I looked through several articles and their references and have thus far failed to find any actual inaccuracies other than those that are clearly opinions with which you may disagree. I charge that you have also forgotten what journalism is and are merely offering more opinions with which we are free to differ. Have a nice day.

        1. Doctor Syntax Silver badge

          "You criticize KM on the basis of unspecified past articles without reference to anything we can use to check your own accusations accuracy."

          And,of course, we can't check on consistency or accuracy sources of the A/C's previous posts.

        2. elip

          Check for the story where he said Amazon and other retailers will have to disclose full shopping histories of their customers to the government on demand, if X legislation goes through. It was based on dubious understanding of the law at best. I wish I could find the article for ya, but I can't.

      2. dmacleo

        pretty sad when you can tell who wrote the article just from from the headlines.

        really don't care for trump but in end was choice of someone I don't care for or someone I really detest.

        and since my state is one of the 2 that awards electoral votes correctlly had to vote fr the egomaniac.

        1. cambsukguy

          > really don't care for trump but in end was choice of someone I don't care for or someone I really detest.

          What you should have asked yourself was "Why do I detest Hillary?". Was it because she used poor judgement running mail servers, which doesn't seem reasonable when compared against "I just grab 'em by the pussy".

          Or was it because of a continuing series of lies and distortions created since the 90's, perhaps starting with the, almost believable, Whitewater scandal (only investigated 3 or 4 times, including by people that despised her politically and STILL had to find her not guilty), continuing with ridiculous stories suggesting she had people killed and culminating in (somehow, even more ridiculous) levels of untruth which beggar belief.

          Or was it because she tried to enact some modicum of gun-control legislation, resulting in a useful ban on Assault rifles, the ending of which shows a marked increase in homicides.

          Or was it that she tries so hard to get Universal Health Care legislation passed and so nearly accomplished it. The children's heath care act that did get passed has been responsible for saving countless lives since it passed.

          So, genuinely, please state here the reasons you hate her so much and we will simply judge you on them. If you care to tell us the reasons you also came to find a moronic, misogynist, selfish, lying liar of a non-tax-paying sociopath preferable, then do enlighten us.

          I imagine you will get short shrift around here and this is NOT a leftie paradise by any means (as witnessed by my down votes when saying anything 'leftie').

          1. Updraft102 Silver badge

            Or was it because she tried to enact some modicum of gun-control legislation, resulting in a useful ban on Assault rifles, the ending of which shows a marked increase in homicides.

            Wow, you really don't know what really happened, do you?

            "Assault rifles" were ever only used in well under 1% of gun murders (closer to a tenth of that). Bare hands kill far more people in the US each year than "assault weapons," without exception. Even if NO ONE could get "assault weapons" despite the ban (prohibition worked wonders with drugs, right?), and if NONE of the criminals who killed people with them would have done so by other means, the most the murder rate could have declined was way under 1%.

            Also, the so-called assault weapon ban (AWB) ended in 2004. Completely. Like it never even happened. The murder rate has continued to drop since then (far more than 1%), even as the number of states that went from never issuing (or practically never issuing) concealed gun licenses to issuing them to anyone without a criminal record skyrocketed. At the start of the AWB (1994), 20 states issued to anyone without a criminal record (a short one-day training course is typically required, but this is but a formality; no one fails it), 17 issued with discretion, meaning that law enforcement gets to choose whether to issue them on an individual basis, and 12 did not issue any permits to anyone.

            Now we have thirteen states where no license _at all_ is required to carry concealed guns, up from only one (Vermont) prior to 2004. Twenty-nine more issue them to anyone without a criminal record. The remaining eight issue them with discretion by law enforcement. Zero states of the fifty don't issue them at all now.

            While all of that change in carry laws was happening, the US murder rate was in a steep decline. It is now _half_ what it used to be during the peak of the crack epidemic, which was about when the trend of liberalized concealed carry started as well as the now-defunct AWB.

            These are facts; if you don't believe any of them, please feel free to look it up. You may not like that this is how things are, but that doesn't change that it is. Downvote if you must, but be aware that you're downvoting verifiable and objectively true statements, and think about what that means...

            1. CRConrad

              Six thousand words...

              ...of pro-gun-ownership ranting, not a word about any of the other umpteen issues.

              Q.E.D: Right-wing nutjob.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Perhaps because despite a lifetime of criminal activity, Hillary Clinton has never been brought to the account she richly deserves.

            And you show all the hallmarks of the clintonistas. You buy into the myth that her email server is a minor matter, it isn't. She had classified information on it in ways that are strictly illegal, and for lesser exposures of such information multiple people have gone to prison, so why is she exempt ?

            Whitewater, you clearly do not understand what happened. Very briefly there was a bank fraud where the owners and directors of a local bank used the bank's money to bail themselves out of a disastrous real estate development (Whitewater Estate) leaving the bank insolvent and ultimately the Fed bailed it out. The convicted fraud conspirators were advised by a lawyer from the Rose Hill Law partnership, and the investigators wanted to charge thgat lawyer in the case as well, but because that person was "famous" (they were FLOTUS at the time) they wanted to be sure so specifically sought the billing records from the firm to unequivocally demonstrate that the lawyer had met with the conspirators to plan the fraud - and client privilege does not extend to criminal conspiracy.

            Unfortunately when the investigators subpoena the firm and arrived to collect the records, not only had the firms computers been wiped of the relevant data, but the paper back records had entirely disappeared. At this point the Monica Lewinsky affair erupted and the investigators decided to just charge the original conspirators, who were duly convicted.

            Funnily enough, when the statute of limitations for that bank fraud occurred, the law firm's paper billing records turned up - one set in the White House, and one in the apartment of alleged suicide Vince Foster. One surely has to wonder quite how those records just happened to get into the White House. So that lawyer got away with fraud by removing and concealing evidence under subpoena - sound familiar - almost reads like a Clinton MO doesn't it.

            And let's not mention that she lied under oath to a federal judge over her emails - she claimed that she had released all relevant emails from her server, yet the FBI recovered hundreds if not thousands of official emails that had been deleted and not released. That's perjury. Email records under subpoena were deleted after thge subpoena was issued - that's obstruction of justice.

            And contrary to your assertions, no one unbiased has yet really investigated Clinton or the Clinton Foundation despite the voluminous evidence of considerable potential wrong-doing.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Anybody actually paying atttention knows Trump attacked the WP and owner before

        Trump attacks any critics and their owner / advertisers with worse lies and slander he sues others for doing to him. You can't find a more clear blatant hypocrite in office and it only illustrates how little you know when you agree with the man. (not that Trump is wrong 100% of the time but if you don't double check and question him you are an idiot.)

        Like any teenager, when you verbally lash out at somebody you try to find some basis in reality to make it hurt more. Trump is fine with outsourcing his highly marked up products and could easily have cut profits to pay Americans while still making a profit. He attacks others using what people want to hear and the little information he has in his senile mind oblivious to contradiction.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Pity that the WaPo doesn't seem to have a concept of what Journalism actually is. They seem to think it means "attack republicans".

  2. redpawn Silver badge

    LSoT

    Lying Sack of Trump is in continuous need of deflecting attention from himself so facts don't matter. LSoT pretends to be for the ordinary man, not person, while pushing money into the hands of elites. By the way, LSoT supporters are still waiting for all those coal mining jobs to come back. They are terminal optimists.

  3. BobC

    SOSDD

    Same Old Shit, Different Day.

    I'm a solid Centrist. I favor minimal taxes, but as high as needed to fully fund government commitments. I also favor parts of the Liberal Agenda, but only if the gains are solid AND we can afford to pay for them.

    I consciously try my best to avoid the "Echo Chambers" of the Extreme Right and the Extreme Left. Both make far more errors than valid points.

    But the PoTUS Tweet stream is beneath dignity on all levels. A true travesty, no matter which side of the aisle you are on, especially so for me in the middle.

    The first and finest service Twitter could do for the USA would be to delete @realDonaldTrump.

    1. Jeffrey Nonken Silver badge

      Re: SOSDD

      I want to say that I upvoted you, but I disagree with your last point. The best response to bad speech is not censorship, it's better speech.

  4. JeffyPoooh Silver badge
    Pint

    Amazon? Postal Service?

    Although 'Used Books' from random sellers marketing on the Amazon Marketplace universally arrive in the postal mail box; I've never figured out how to get Amazon themselves to put anything into the mail system.

    It's always FedEx, UPS, Puro(much)later. These courier services involve standing beside the front door waiting for them. Otherwise they leave a card and then you need to drive 245 miles to go fetch the package yourself.

    If they leave the box on the front step, then somebody steals it. Then you spend the rest of your life trying to make dog poo explode when the package thief steals yet another package.

    The whole Delivery-thing is a fiasco.

    1. Hugh McIntyre

      Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

      Lots of times USPS gets used for delivery here. There's no specific way to choose one delivery service or not, except indirectly by changing delivery time.

      Presumably Amazon picks whichever bids the cheapest price between UPS versus FedEx versus USPS versus their own delivery service. But also sometimes UPS packages also end up going into USPS for final delivery - apparently it's sometimes cheaper to do this than to send a UPS truck round.

      But if you're ordering items that need signature this may restrict you to not-USPS. Or this may depend on where you live -- some locations may always be cheaper via UPS?

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

        We get them the same way you do. Small stuff via delivery service to USPS or straight USPS and bigger items via one of the delivery trucks. But we're not in a major (for value of major) city either. Only about 30,000 or so in the whole county.

      2. kain preacher Silver badge

        Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

        Yep then you have smart post. Which starts off FedEx but is delivered by USPS even on sundays. Then you have DHL which acts as a drop off point for the USPS>

        1. Updraft102 Silver badge

          Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

          Yep then you have smart post. Which starts off FedEx but is delivered by USPS even on sundays.

          Surely you jest. The Post Office delivers... anything? I can't get them to deliver a letter on any day of the week (no one in my zip code can), and packages... the best I ever got was a little slip that said I had something waiting in the post office.

    2. JohnFen Silver badge

      Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

      Amazon delivers to me via USPS much more often than not. I greatly prefer it over the other carriers, so I notice.

    3. SVV Silver badge

      Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

      "[Amazon uses] our Postal System as their Delivery Boy"

      Errr, isn't that how everybody uses it? By paying to use a nationwide delivery service as a nationwide delivery service? He's just got so far beyond any sort of coherent sense that all you can do is wince whenever you're confronted with the latest nonsense. Thw worrying thing is that some people are still thinking that he's making sense, or not caring that he isn't.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

      Round here Amazon uses UPS for lots of deliveris. Which is a pity because they are completely incompetent. If I use my home address they consistently return items as undeliverable, presumably because the driver doesn't want a long drive down country roads. Even when I use my office address (on the basis that they deliver here at least once a week for business) I've still had drivers phone me to ask where it is. The post office gets it right, every time.

      If there was a "don't use UPS" box on Amazon, I'd tick it every single time.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

        Here's an idea, AC:

        Stop using Amazon.

    5. bombastic bob Silver badge
      Devil

      Re: Amazon? Postal Service?

      "If they leave the box on the front step, then somebody steals it"

      I've never had that problem [nor do I know anyone else who has] but I've seen videos taken of package thieves broadcast on the news, and as such, know that it occasionally happens.

      'Robbing the mail' is a federal offense in the USA and carries a stiff penalty (according to an online search, up to 5 years in prison, up to $250k fine). No joke. A serial package thief could theoretically be charged with MULTIPLE felonies and spend the rest of his life in prison. Good riddance.

      As for Amazon itself, it *appears* as if they *might* be engaging in either "unfair business practices" (an FTC issue), or even PREDATORY marketing practices (also an FTC issue, and violation of anti-trust laws). I would expect that Trump's concern is that Amazon may be causing retail businesses to go under, such as 'Toys R Us' (very recent).

      That being said, Amazon is ALSO involved in the Demo-rat Party with contributions, etc. just like Faecebook (for what it's worth). It may *seem* that Amazon has way too much political clout, and as such, might be a threat to Trump's agenda. THAT much should be acknowledged as well, if you're being honest.

      So I think Trump wants to investigate Amazon via the FTC to see if they're engaging in ANY kind of activity that violates federal law, specifically with respect to predatory practices and collection of sales taxes in states where they have a presence, INCLUDING for those "online stores" that use Amazon as a 'store front'.

      Personally, I think that stores that adapt [Target, Walmart, etc.] by having an online presence and "pick it up at the store to avoid postage" are doing what needs to be done. So I'm not really concerned about Amazon, UNLESS they're engaging in activities that violate the law.

      Back in the day, when "mom and pop" grocery stores were the way people got their food, the supermarkets ended up putting them out of business. In the 1960's we had milk men and independent butcher shops [who still had the best meat]. But most of the groceries came from supermarkets, who had lower prices and better selection. This put the "mom and pop" groceries out of business, except for those that converted themselves into "convenience markets".

      Queue up modern times, and Amazon vs "mall shops". That kind of thing.

  5. Blake St. Claire
    Holmes

    Twitler? Factually challenged? No shit Sherlock.

    You seem to be trying to imply that this is surprising.

    He's got a beef with Amazon paying low taxes? Using WaPo's losses to offset Amazon's profits?

    This from the guy who claimed to pay no taxes? And how exactly was he managing that, if not using losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere?

    Or is "being smart" all it takes. I don't remember seeing a box to tick on my tax form labeled "credit for being smart – 100% of what you would otherwise owe." TurboTax doesn't seem to know about that box either.

    1. Jaybus

      Re: Twitler? Factually challenged? No shit Sherlock.

      "This from the guy who claimed to pay no taxes? And how exactly was he managing that, if not using losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere?"

      Of course he would use losses in one place to offset profits elsewhere, or more accurately, losses in any place to offset profits in any other place. That is the way it works. His "being smart" comment was not in reference to cheating, but to imply that he wasn't stupid enough to pay taxes that he wasn't required to pay. Listen to the entire debate again. When Clinton accused him of taking advantage of loopholes purposefully placed into the tax code to give the wealthy tax breaks, he admitted to taking advantage of the loopholes, pointing out that everyone in his position did, including Soros and other wealthy Clinton supporters, because that was the law. And of course that a Congress that included Clinton had done nothing to remove those loopholes. It wasn't so much a smart move on his part as a blunder on her part.

      I think the man is an ass, but not for using tax loopholes. Those tax laws were in place long before he was, and since he never previously held an office, he certainly cannot be blamed for the skewed US tax law. In fact, I believe that he won the election precisely because he had no previous political experience.

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019