Trump attacks Amazon, calling its shipping deal with Postal Service a 'scam' that must end

[columbus]

When Obama forced transgenders on the military there was huge opposition from the military.

Obama let the top brass decide. They decided to let in some trans. Trump just overruled them, on Twitter.
The information is not that hard to find.
Kinda like Trump trying to overrule the management of the USPS. They find Amazon's business good for the Post Office. But Trump has another agenda. I think that it's pandering to his base.
Tom

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Nonsense. Sure there are some in the military that want transgender people enlisted. I question their motives. Don’t kid yourself. The vast majority of the military don’t care to have transgender in the military if it is disruptive. When Obama forced transgenders on the military there was huge opposition from the military. You say Trump is pandering. Others would say he is restoring sound policies. As President he has the authority to do this.

Sounds familiar Why was Executive Order No. 9981 so important?

 

[Shaul]

Not all transgender people want $140,000 surgery, though, and it's not the military that wants to ban them, as I understand it.

Wow. You might read the actual action Trump took. It has two main features. It restores the policies that were in place before Obama made his own forcing the military to accept transgender enlistees and it specifically calls for disallowing those seeking gender reassignment surgery from having it paid for. So your comment that not all transgender people want such surgery is irrelevant since he is only specifically addressing those that do want it.

Presidential Memorandum for the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Homeland Security

 

[Underhill]

Wow, apples and oranges. Actually there is a right to use a public facility, such as a drinking fountain. So therefore, because it is a right, we don’t discriminate who can use it. That, of course, includes discrimination based on immutable characteristics such as pigmentation. But (again) serving in the military is a privilege, not a right. Since there is no genuine military need to disallow serving based on race, that isn’t done. But there are many physical disqualifications. Height, weight, impairments, and many others disallow people from serving. Transgender individuals simply have characteristics that make them unacceptable for service. There is no discrimination.

So, which characteristics would that be exactly?

Because there is no physical difference between a transgender and non transgender person.

 

[Underhill]

I am saying the military has a right to make just such a determination, and they have. You are also somewhat misrepresenting the ban. It isn’t a blanket ban on all transgender people from serving.

As far as your Army Ranger I doubt his case is relevant. But then again, as a Marine Corps veteran Army Rangers don’t impress me much anyways.

Are you saying the military has to accept people that would then use the military health care to have their “naughty bits” altered and while undergoing their procedures be unable to perform any meaningful duties?

You are talking about two different things. Whether or not they cover alterations is a benefits question just as whether they get dental. Whether or not they can join is a case of discrimination.

 

[Shaul]

Uh, no.
Trump was undermining the military brass. They could have made such a policy, but they didn't.

Trump was pandering to his base at the expense of national security.
Again.
Tom

According to you.

Troops support Trump's transgender policies

 

[Shaul]

So, which characteristics would that be exactly?

Because there is no physical difference between a transgender and non transgender person.

Trump specifically eliminated funding for gender reassignment surgery. This surgery is expensive, over $140,000 per case. In addition a person undergoing such procedures face lengthy periods when they can not perform their duties of enlistment. These are detrimental to the military’s ability to perform its mission. Non transgender people are no such burden to the military. The military is justified to disallow transgender people seeking reassignment surgery from enlisting.

 

[Underhill]

Um, no. Postal rates are set by the Postal Regulatory Commission(PRC), not Congress. There is no evidence of the “right” gutting the Postal service funding.

You are right. I got it wrong. Upon looking into it, they simply made it so that the post office had to fund 75 years of postal pensions in 10 years, crippling the post office at the time. I remember reading the story back in the day but had the details mixed up.

The right was complaining the entire time about how noncompetitive the postal service was.

But you are still talking out your rear about this. Amazon made a deal with the postal service. Something that happens between businesses all the time. If another company wants to make a similar deal, be it with the USPS or Fed Ex, they have that right. Of course few, if any, have enough online sales to have the leveraging power that Amazon has....

 

[Shaul]

You are talking about two different things. Whether or not they cover alterations is a benefits question just as whether they get dental. Whether or not they can join is a case of discrimination.

Two things but related because Trump’s Executive Order touched both. Strictly speaking his order rescinded Obama’s order regarding allowing self identifying transgenders to enlist and restored the policy in place before that. More specifically a “don’t ask, don’t tell” one. After all, unless they self identified how would the military know, much less discriminate? It isn’t a new policy. It is an old one restored. It wasn’t discrimination when it was in place before. It isn’t discrimination now. In theory a transgender person could enlist as long as he or she didn’t tell anyone they were transgender nor ask the military to pay for any related medical costs.

 

[Shaul]

You are right. I got it wrong. Upon looking into it, they simply made it so that the post office had to fund 75 years of postal pensions in 10 years, crippling the post office at the time. I remember reading the story back in the day but had the details mixed up.

The right was complaining the entire time about how noncompetitive the postal service was.

But you are still talking out your rear about this. Amazon made a deal with the postal service. Something that happens between businesses all the time. If another company wants to make a similar deal, be it with the USPS or Fed Ex, they have that right. Of course few, if any, have enough online sales to have the leveraging power that Amazon has....

I agree with you that the pre-funding of the pensions was hurtful to the Postal service. But, although I would need to check, I don’t think it was the “right” that did it but a general screw up by all of Congress.

As far as the “deal” between the USPS and Amazon there are several points to remember. One is that the Postal service is a quasi-government entity which means we all have a stake in its deals, especially when a single company gets an exclusive deal unavailable to others. That is a recipe for graft and undo advantages. Another thing to remember is that we don’t have the details of their deal. So any analysis must rely on limited, self serving disclosures made by the USPS. There are a dozen ways for them to bury costs.

None of this is the main thing you are overlooking. Trump is playing his opponents. Again. Like he has before but they are falling for it again. Trump is using this discussion to get leverage on Bezos. It’s that simple. Think about it. If you can’t see that I will tell you how I see it. Bottom line, by keeping this discussion in the public eye it helps Trump.

 

[tytlyf]

BBut why are you so motivated to get transgender people in the military?

Why am I motivated to get transgender people in the military? It has no effect on me one way or the other. Transgender people, like gay or straight people, should have the same right to serve. If they want to serve, let them go through the same tests, boot camp, etc to see if they make it.

If they fail, then they failed like other people.

Why are you motivated to keep transgender people out of the military?

 

[Shaul]

Why am I motivated to get transgender people in the military? It has no effect on me one way or the other. Transgender people, like gay or straight people, should have the same right to serve. If they want to serve, let them go through the same tests, boot camp, etc to see if they make it.

If they fail, then they failed like other people.

Why are you motivated to keep transgender people out of the military?

So then you can’t really object too much with Trump’s order which reverts to the previous policy which allows them in under a “don’t ask, don’t tell” system.

I am not motivated to keep them out, per se. I am opposed to forcing the military to accept them openly and burdening the military with needless costs. It is also grating to see transgender people attempting to exploit the military health care system, and hence taxpayers, to fund their sex change operations.

I’ll wager they wouldn’t want to join if they could under the condition that their sex change operations weren’t paid for. That is what this is really all about. “Big Trans” is looking for a deep pocket to cover its bills.

 

[Riders]

I don't get it. I buy from Amazon all the time just got a pet carrier copyier telephone and 12 pack of sparkling ice didnt pay any shipping on it. I think I get good deals from Amazon.

BTW has Trump lost his mind attacking different big corporations? What is it with him what is he missing his old Apprentice show, maybe he should go back to his businesses if he likes to bash businesses so much. He needs his head examined he is a nutcase attacking Amazon, does anyone thing this is Presidential behavior?I dont even believe it this must be fake news thats it!FAKE NEWS!

 

[Woberts]

They aren’t fake news in asmuch as they report on Trump banning transgenders from the military. However anyone interpreting that such a ban is discrimination is wrong. As I have previously written.

Yes, because you know better than multiple courts.

 

[Underhill]

Trump specifically eliminated funding for gender reassignment surgery. This surgery is expensive, over $140,000 per case. In addition a person undergoing such procedures face lengthy periods when they can not perform their duties of enlistment. These are detrimental to the military’s ability to perform its mission. Non transgender people are no such burden to the military. The military is justified to disallow transgender people seeking reassignment surgery from enlisting.

Why on earth would you think that? If they do not cover the surgery that's fine. But why would you care what they want? I want many things my job doesn't provide. That isn't a reason to disqualify me for the job. If it were, we would all be in trouble.

 

[Underhill]

Two things but related because Trump’s Executive Order touched both. Strictly speaking his order rescinded Obama’s order regarding allowing self identifying transgenders to enlist and restored the policy in place before that. More specifically a “don’t ask, don’t tell” one. After all, unless they self identified how would the military know, much less discriminate? It isn’t a new policy. It is an old one restored. It wasn’t discrimination when it was in place before. It isn’t discrimination now. In theory a transgender person could enlist as long as he or she didn’t tell anyone they were transgender nor ask the military to pay for any related medical costs.

It's a stupid policy and does lead to discrimination. 'Don't tell' is not just during recruitment. It can affect people years later if it comes out that they are gay. That is discrimination. Why should anyone have to permanently keep it quite what their sexual orientation is? Anything that says a person is to be treated differently based upon sexual preferences is discrimination.

 

[Underhill]

I agree with you that the pre-funding of the pensions was hurtful to the Postal service. But, although I would need to check, I don’t think it was the “right” that did it but a general screw up by all of Congress.

As far as the “deal” between the USPS and Amazon there are several points to remember. One is that the Postal service is a quasi-government entity which means we all have a stake in its deals, especially when a single company gets an exclusive deal unavailable to others. That is a recipe for graft and undo advantages. Another thing to remember is that we don’t have the details of their deal. So any analysis must rely on limited, self serving disclosures made by the USPS. There are a dozen ways for them to bury costs.

And there isn't for private companies? This is what makes this laughable. You label the post office as quasi-government but they are expected to make money just like their competition. Sure, we all have a stake in these deals. That is why we have oversight committees that have to approve every one of these deals.

The post office made a deal that was approved by their over-site committees. Amazon, as a private company made a deal that benefited them. I still have no idea what the problem is?

None of this is the main thing you are overlooking. Trump is playing his opponents. Again. Like he has before but they are falling for it again. Trump is using this discussion to get leverage on Bezos. It’s that simple. Think about it. If you can’t see that I will tell you how I see it. Bottom line, by keeping this discussion in the public eye it helps Trump.

You think it's news that Trump is a duplicitous *******? Of course there is something else at play here. That doesn't make him savvy. It's another example of why he shouldn't be president.

 

[metis]

It isn’t a non sequitur at all. I wrote that there was no discrimination in the act of not allowing them in.

Except that still is discrimination based on gender, and I'm at least fairly optimistic that the SCOTUS or a lower court will see it for what it is, namely a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Shaul]

Why on earth would you think that? If they do not cover the surgery that's fine. But why would you care what they want? I want many things my job doesn't provide. That isn't a reason to disqualify me for the job. If it were, we would all be in trouble.

Again, the military has a mission. To provide for the national defense. Yeah, I care that we get a national defense. Requiring the military to enlist people that would make that mission more difficult makes no sense. Sure we could require the military to enlist all kinds of people with physical limitations which require huge medical costs and could only do “make work” tasks. Do you think the military should be required to enlist quadriplegics too? Or do you only care about transgender people but not quadriplegics?

 

[Underhill]

Again, the military has a mission. To provide for the national defense. Yeah, I care that we get a national defense. Requiring the military to enlist people that would make that mission more difficult makes no sense. Sure we could require the military to enlist all kinds of people with physical limitations which require huge medical costs and could only do “make work” tasks. Do you think the military should be required to enlist quadriplegics too? Or do you only care about transgender people but not quadriplegics?

How on earth does a transgender person make the mission more difficult?