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

[metis]

Trump is using this discussion to get leverage on Bezos. It’s that simple.

Which is a form of "crony capitalism" because a president should not be picking winners & losers in the commercial sector.

I find it appalling, and on different levels, whereas we see people who call themselves "conservatives" and/or "libertarians" taking positions favoring what Trump is doing vis-a-vis "crony capitalism", whereas they should be fighting mad instead. This leads me to believe they should put the prefix "pseudo-" in front of what they actually do believe.

It's quite obvious that Trump's attack on Bezo's have really nothing to do with Amazon and a lot more to do with the Washington Post. He pumps up Fox at the expense of most of the other networks because Fox, especially "Fox & Friends", caters to his ego and the various forms of bigotry that he mouths just about every day of the week.

 

[metis]

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?

Again, what a terrible non-sequitur the above is. Implying that a transgender person is somehow unfit to serve in the military as a quadriplegic person would be is nonsensical.

But it begs the question why do you think gender discrimination in this area is wrong? Why is that OK with you? What if it was religious discrimination? or nationality discrimination? Is it that you'll take Trump's positions automatically?

 

[Shaul]

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?



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.

Well then let’s be blunt about it. The “over-site”[sic] was done by the Obama administration. Obama and Bezos are buddies. Have you heard of crony capitalism?

Let’s not forget this either. The USPS Amazon deal is up for renewal. Trump will be posturing, remember the “Art of the Deal”, and that as President he will influence those renegotiations. Also bear in mind that Amazon’s long game is to implement last mile delivery in house. (Think drones) This whole Amazon USPS fight is turf warfare and rank politics. But the public and low level employees will bear the brunt of the casualties. Trump knows that positioning himself as their advocate against “big mean Amazon” is a smart political move. I get that you don’t think Trump is savvy. You might reconsider. He didn’t get rich in the cut throat world of NYC real estate or get elected President by being a dullard.

 

[metis]

Have you heard of crony capitalism?

The USPS Amazon deal is up for renewal. Trump will be posturing, remember the “Art of the Deal”, and that as President he will influence those renegotiations.

This whole Amazon USPS fight is turf warfare and rank politics.

Trump knows that positioning himself as their advocate against “big mean Amazon” is a smart political move

Any you really cannot see the inconsistency with what you're saying above? You criticize "crony capitalism", which I also do btw, and yet you want Trump to interfere with a negotiated contract that the USPS has with a private company (Amazon).

Also, aren't you aware of the fact that the bulk-rates with Amazon are on par with other companies as well that go through the USPS? Where in the world do you get your "news" from?

 

[Underhill]

Well then let’s be blunt about it. The “over-site”[sic] was done by the Obama administration. Obama and Bezos are buddies. Have you heard of crony capitalism?

Sure, if Obama were in around in 1970 (when the Postal Regulatory Commission was put in place) that may be true.

Let’s not forget this either. The USPS Amazon deal is up for renewal. Trump will be posturing, remember the “Art of the Deal”, and that as President he will influence those renegotiations. Also bear in mind that Amazon’s long game is to implement last mile delivery in house. (Think drones) This whole Amazon USPS fight is turf warfare and rank politics. But the public and low level employees will bear the brunt of the casualties. Trump knows that positioning himself as their advocate against “big mean Amazon” is a smart political move. I get that you don’t think Trump is savvy. You might reconsider. He didn’t get rich in the cut throat world of NYC real estate or get elected President by being a dullard.

Right, so he is picking sides in a battle that should have nothing to do with the presidency.

And Trump may be savvy, but he is also a disgusting human being. If there is another angle to this, I am certain he will benefit from it personally.

And lastly if you think Amazons last mile policy involves drones you are dreaming. Drones were a marketing ploy and are a lousy way to deliver anything.

 

[Underhill]

Any you really cannot see the inconsistency with what you're saying above? You criticize "crony capitalism", which I also do btw, and yet you want Trump to interfere with a negotiated contract that the USPS has with a private company (Amazon).

Also, aren't you aware of the fact that the bulk-rates with Amazon are on par with other companies as well that go through the USPS? Where in the world do you get your "news" from?

I think we know the answer to that last bit...

 

[Shaul]

Yes, because you know better than multiple courts.

Multiple courts have ruled against me. Funny I don’t remember being in court.

Oh, you meant courts have ruled the military don’t have a right to restrict enlistment. Actually, no, the courts have ruled the military has very broad discretion in its enlistment policies.

 

[Shaul]

Sure, if Obama were in around in 1970 (when the Postal Regulatory Commission was put in place) that may be true.



Right, so he is picking sides in a battle that should have nothing to do with the presidency.

And Trump may be savvy, but he is also a disgusting human being. If there is another angle to this, I am certain he will benefit from it personally.

And lastly if you think Amazons last mile policy involves drones you are dreaming. Drones were a marketing ploy and are a lousy way to deliver anything.

Um, the Amazon USPS deal wasn’t made in the 1970s, Amazon wasn’t even started until much later. The Amazon USPS deal was done during Obama’s tenure. When the PRC was created has nothing to do with when the Amazon USPS deal was done.

I didn’t say the Amazon USPS deal involves drones. I wrote that Amazon has ultimate plans on taking last mile delivery in-house and not using the USPS at all, drones being one possibility they are seriously investigating.

 

[Shaul]

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

By requiring time off for reassignment surgery and recovery for one. As I already wrote several times! There are others ways they make the mission more difficult too. But I don’t feel much inclination to enumerate them since you couldn’t even be bothered to read what I’ve already written that addressed you previous question.

 

[Shaul]

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.

No it isn’t a discrimination based on gender at all. It is about not requiring the military to make a non-military required and solely lifestyle related medical cost special accommodation to benefit a special interest group.

Attempting to wrongly frame this as some civil rights issue is absurd. It isn’t that at all.

 

[metis]

From Vox, and notice the year that the law was passed:​

Sandbulte’s claim is based on how the Postal Service sets its prices. USPS is not allowed to set prices so low that it loses money on delivering packages. (If it could, it could undercut competitors like FedEx or UPS.) But the formula for how it sets its prices was created by Congress in 2006, and doesn’t account for the fact that packages are a much bigger share of the USPS’s business than they used to be.

That was during Bush's tenure, btw.

 

[Underhill]

Um, the Amazon USPS deal wasn’t made in the 1970s, Amazon wasn’t even started until much later. The Amazon USPS deal was done during Obama’s tenure. When the PRC was created has nothing to do with when the Amazon USPS deal was done.

The over-site board, which approved the deal, is a bipartisan board created in 1970 just to avoid what you are claiming happened. So the PRC being around since 1970 is definitely relevant.

I didn’t say the Amazon USPS deal involves drones. I wrote that Amazon has ultimate plans on taking last mile delivery in-house and not using the USPS at all, drones being one possibility they are seriously investigating.

Yes and those plans don't affect the last mile issue for most cases. Drones are worthless for rural deliveries or anywhere with a high population density. They have a very limited use and, at the moment anyway, are more marketing hoopla than viable alternative. In 20 years that could change if battery technology experience a massive improvement.

It's not a large part of the discussion but I've done a lot of research on the program
.

 

[metis]

No it isn’t a discrimination based on gender at all. It is about not requiring the military to make a non-military required and solely lifestyle related medical cost special accommodation to benefit a special interest group.

Attempting to wrongly frame this as some civil rights issue is absurd. It isn’t that at all.

The issue of "medical cost" I never commented on, but "gender discrimination" I did.

IMO, the issue of having an operation is something that would have to worked out by the interested parties, and I think there's some good arguments that can be made by both sides. As for myself, I haven't a position on that one way or another.

 

[Underhill]

By requiring time off for reassignment surgery and recovery for one. As I already wrote several times! There are others ways they make the mission more difficult too. But I don’t feel much inclination to enumerate them since you couldn’t even be bothered to read what I’ve already written that addressed you previous question.

You may write this many times but it doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. Not all trans people want the surgery, and even for those who do, they may very well join, do their service and wait till they are discharged to get it.

The minute you say Trans people cannot join the military because they are trans, you are discriminating. If you want to cut the ability to get the surgery from their healthcare you aren't necessarily discriminating, although you probably are, you are just being a cheap sob who doesn't have a soul.

 

[Shaul]

You may write this many times but it doesn't change the fact that it's nonsense. Not all trans people want the surgery, and even for those who do, they may very well join, do their service and wait till they are discharged to get it.

The minute you say Trans people cannot join the military because they are trans, you are discriminating. If you want to cut the ability to get the surgery from their healthcare you aren't necessarily discriminating, although you probably are, you are just being a cheap sob who does

Even the trans people that don’t want surgery will entail special accommodations such as separate facilities and restrictions on assignments. How should the military deal with a male in a billet that doesn’t allow females who suddenly becomes a female? Trans people that want to wait until the get out aren’t any issue. So long as the don’t openly say they are trans they could serve and nobody would know or care. The restrictions aren’t for all trans onl those that are openly public about it. Nobody is asking them. The military doesn’t ask. So there is no discrimination on someone being transgender, only a rejection on any of the costs of them being transgender. Reread Trump’s order. It includes a severability clause. That means that even if some court found the military must admit transgender people the other clause which states the military won’t pay for gender reassignment still holds. As I have written before the real purpose of this ruse was so transgender people could have their massive medical procedures paid for. Since they won’t be able to get that they won’t join in significant numbers. Oh, sure people such as yourself downplay that being their motivation. I say, bogus to that. This is now the policy, like it or not. Trump is winning in this one. Fool yourself into thinking the courts will stop this. They won’t. As for who is a sob, it is those that want to profligately stick the bill for operations to chop off unwanted members on the taxpayers that are the real soul less sobs.

 

[Underhill]

Even the trans people that don’t want surgery will entail special accommodations such as separate facilities and restrictions on assignments. How should the military deal with a male in a billet that doesn’t allow females who suddenly becomes a female? Trans people that want to wait until the get out aren’t any issue. So long as the don’t openly say they are trans they could serve and nobody would know or care. The restrictions aren’t for all trans onl those that are openly public about it. Nobody is asking them. The military doesn’t ask. So there is no discrimination on someone being transgender, only a rejection on any of the costs of them being transgender. Reread Trump’s order. It includes a severability clause. That means that even if some court found the military must admit transgender people the other clause which states the military won’t pay for gender reassignment still holds. As I have written before the real purpose of this ruse was so transgender people could have their massive medical procedures paid for. Since they won’t be able to get that they won’t join in significant numbers. Oh, sure people such as yourself downplay that being their motivation. I say, bogus to that. This is now the policy, like it or not. Trump is winning in this one. Fool yourself into thinking the courts will stop this. They won’t. As for who is a sob, it is those that want to profligately stick the bill for operations to chop off unwanted members on the taxpayers that are the real soul less sobs.

There is nothing a trans person requires that could not be accommodated with the male/female facilities in use currently.

You are stretching.

Did you notice the smiley face? I was kidding. On the other hand, you have made it patently obvious that it was accurate.

 

[metis]

If the military can't figure out how to handle the issue of how to treat transgender soldiers, then how in the heck are they gonna figure out how to handle battlefield tactics?

These same lame arguments were used against racial integration, homosexual integration, and female integration.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I love it when ignorant cis people run their mouths about trans people as if they know anything about us. So sick of this world.

 

[Cassandra]

>tfw you think that xenophobic policies are good policies

Are you xenophobic?

 

[Cassandra]

So, morals don't matter? And you're saying as such here at Religious Forums? Would you say the same thing if his actions hurt your own family?

Sure, why not?

I think this is the problem with the whole Biblical thinking, it takes emotions as arguments. That is wrong. People in emotion have clouded judgement. Should we leave the decision of death penalty to the family of victims? or to the children of the murderer? Whose emotions will we use to push our view? That is what Reps en Dems have been doing. Seeking emotional outcries they can present to the public as argument for self-serving measures. All it leads to is religious wars that lead to division not unity. It only harms people by leading attention away from the real interests en replaces it by useless bitter discussions. It is nothing more than manipulation.

The attempts of Dems and Reps to take the moral high ground by pushing moral stands are laughable.