966
White House calls Amazon ‘hostile’ for reportedly planning to list tariff costs
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 29 Apr 2025
966 points (99.0% liked)
News
29239 readers
3555 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yes, keep making enemies of the billionaires that got this administration into office and spent millions of dollars to do so. I'd very much love that for you.
Good thing this isn't a country that came about because a bunch of rich white dudes got tired of being taxed and started a revolution.
That's possibly reframing "no taxation without representation" a bit but I don't entirely disagree with the sentiment.
didn't washington own like the western 2/3 of Pennsylvania?
And Ohio. He was by far the wealthiest man in the Colonies during his lifetime.
So, he could have paid other guys to fight the war and stayed home? Instead of being in the middle of the battles, and going cold and hungry in Valley Forge?
There's a lot of bad things you can say about Washington but enough good to at least make him complicated. He chose to limit his own Presidency, the opposite of our wannabe Führer. for one.
Well, his wealth wasn't exactly liquid, it was mostly tied up in wilderness land.
Fortunes in those days weren't in bank accounts, or stocks, or index funds, etc. They tended to be tied up in assets like land, slaves, crops, etc., and cold hard cash/gold, stored in a box somewhere, like under the floor.
Yes, he was filthy rich, not in liquidity, but in assets.
But yes, he was approached with the offer to be King of The Colonies, and he refused. We can admire that.
The modern technology of satelites, phones and such werent around back then, so any general wouldn't be an effective one if they werent on the front lines with their soldiers.
Yes, he chose to join the battle and become a General rather than sit out the war at Monticello. It's not like he was ambitious to become the leader of the new country. He felt a sense of responsibility.
He was one of the richest Americans who ever lived. I don't if that is still true, but it was at one time.
They thought funding Trump would get them representation. They were wrong. Trump cares about no one but himself.
Why would they care about "Representation?"
They have more wealth than 1,000 people could ever spend in 1,000 lifetimes.
He backed down to keep profits from MAGA Cult Members flowing in.
Because being that greedy is a mental illness.
he was only ever representing putin, and MSB never the billionaires in the us.
In the most literal sense we have representation, but it sure as hell doesn't seem like it in practice... :(
Literal only in the terminological sense. We elect “representatives” but they don’t actually represent us in any meaningful way.
Don't they? Look around you.
1/3 of us. 1/3 are in opposition. 1/3 is apathetic, thinking it doesn't matter.
Not anymore.
Watch the Republican Town Halls of the few who still have the courage, or narcissism, to hold, and even though they're being booed down, they still have the arrogance to try the lecture their constituents.
I think they're trying to instigate riots so they can declare Martial Law via The Insurrection Act.
When elections are fraudulent, its the same as no representation. Besides, pretty soon they'll be suspending elections altogether. It doesn't get more "no representation" than that.
How are billionaires being taxed unfairly, and without "Representation," when they own our politicians?
I don't know, I don't see anyone saying that here.
Yeah, you're full of shit.
I really don't understand the aggression, I was talking about the old rich dead people propaganda concerning no taxation without representation 200 years ago, I never said anything about the fuckwads we have today.
If you think I'm saying something different, explain what you read and allow me the opportunity to clarify my intent.
Saying I'm full of shit at this point is just asinine.
The billionaires have thus far been too cheap to amass private armies to directly enforce their own will. Why, when you can lobby Congress for the price of a used Hyundai Sonata to get the Army to do what you want?
The government holds the power of violence and Trump holds the power of the government. The billionaires will be reminded of that if they get out of line. Coincidentally, this is the arrangement of modern Russia.
they have been too cheap thus far.
I'm pretty sure that Bezos had enough money to bribe moderate chunks of the army.
Personnel is one thing.
Modern warfighting is outrageously expensive. Guided munitions can cost hundreds of thousands each. Armored vehicles cost millions. Combat aircraft, tens of millions. And it continues to cost tons of money just to keep them in a bunker ready to go.
They will balk at the cost of owning/operating even a single Arleigh-Burke destroyer.
There is a reason they're all too happy to keep letting you and me indirectly fund their military aspirations through taxes.
this is part of why it's important for everyone to pay attention to the asymmetric warfare being conducted in Ukraine. for one, it's a genocide, don't look away and speak for their liberation just like i hope everyone is speaking up for all colonized peoples, like Mayans, Darfurians, Congolese, Palestinians, and Uyghers. for another the skills demostrated may become necessary in the near future
You can have all the expensive equipment you want. They don't have the numbers. When your enemies are all around you and this military historically fucking sucks at combating insurgency, you're going to lose.
The military would be smart to tell this dude to pound sand before they, and a bunch of people die in a new civil war that they can't win against the most armed civilian population on the planet.
Tell that to the Vietnamese 50 years ago, who defeated a technologically superior foe.
You are in agreement with the person you responded to.
I'm aware, I was stating my agreement...
They don't need one. They need a sniper.
its mostly asymmetrical/cyberwarefare now anyways. russia and china are both are good at this, but not militarily.
That's the crazy part, unless they're "outlawed" billionaires should try and improve people's lives since it means they would have more money to spend on the crap those billionaires are selling! It's hard to sell stuff on Amazon if everyone is struggling to afford housing and food.
UPS just laid off 20K workers on the expectation that Amazon deliveries will be way down.
Container ships are down 60%. More than any month during the pandemic.
Trump is imploding the entire economy.
Better to rule in Hell than serve in Heaven.
They could work to remove the destitution and desperation of working people. But if their workers weren't in such dire straits, then they wouldn't have so much power over them. Workers with good pay and a healthy work-life balance also have more time to pursue unionization and other political activities. Even if improving the lives of the people would objectively increase the wealth of the ultra-rich, it would still decrease their power. And ultimately, the only reason people ever obtain that level of wealth is because they desire power more than anything else. People who aren't power-hungry monsters cash out and retire early long before they reach billionaire status.
Workers with good pay and a healthy work-life balance are unlikely to pursue unions. That's the stuff unions are trying to achieve.
They truly believe in the Social Darwinist belief that no one is truly compassionate, empathetic, or altruistic. It's just an act to gain attention, or an advantage.
They literally can't understand it, and think it's a stupid delusion. Their narcissism can't comprehend that anyone would do anything without wanting something in return. And those who don't believe that are stupid, and deserve to be exploited.
Because winners are winners, and losers and losers. It's the natural order. EVERYONE is looking to take what's yours, and will abuse, rob, and kill you if they can. Because that's what they would do.
And then there's the competition with other psychopaths in their peer group...
That level of greed is mental illness. A perpetual state of fear of losing what you have.
You have more than you can ever spend, ever, and you're in constant fear that someone will take it from you. Because that's would you do.
In the article, Amazon already back peddled and said it was just in the idea phase and they never really planned on implementing it.
He's brought down Tesla (bankrupt in 2 years, MMW), and now Amazon. We shpuld start a betting pool for who-s next. META? Google? Microsoft?
He’s trying to kill all those US companies.
Wouldn't that be wonderful? Those corporations are what helped this "voting" travesty into power.
Corporations don't have peoples' well being in their sights except as target practice.
Power to the people, not corporations.
None of those Mega Corps are going anywhere.
They have virtually unlimited wealth. Amazon makes most of it's money off of their server business.
Tesla, on the other hand, has always been smoke and mirrors. Good riddance. If you have their stock, sell now.
That's the thing that was always gonna happen. They were always gonna bring themselves and subsequently society down. It's just the crit multi of Donald Trump a lot of people seemed not prepared for.