Make MAGA pay for the Wall Street

[Tiberius]

Post Office has contradicted the claim they lose money delivering Amazon parcels.

It was my impression First Class Mail was the big money loser and the collectibles and parcels were profitable.

What's ridiculous about this whole thing is that if the post office were losing money, it would be their own damn fault. Amazon haven't found some weird loophole that lets them send packages for low prices, they signed a contract with the post office for discounted mail rates.

[henryp]

If you can charge 2 dollars for a service, and charge 1 dollar instead, you'd be losing a fortune, even if you're making a profit.  

It's like the best baseball player in the world signing a contract for $25,000 dollars a year.  They'd be profiting $25,000.  But they lost a ton of money signing the deal, because they could have gotten $25,000,000 a year.    

The key principle is that the value of that 1 dollar exists.  And Amazon, the giant company that prints money is getting it,  and the Postal Service which loses tons of money doesn't.

Don't let the semantics distract from the more important point.

No no no no, if you are going to claim 45 is making this argument, even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it is still FUCKING LIP SERVICE.

We've done deregulation, union busting and "don't tax the rich" since Reagan, now, which party does the Orange fuckface belong to?

If you want a Republican who actually cared, Teddy would have fit that bill.

45 only gives a shit about himself, nobody else.

Brian, you've got to dump your partisan bullshit.  There are tariffs in place.  The Republican establishment HATES tariffs.  Also, the Democrat establishment HATES tariffs, just more quietly.  Because Billionaires HATE tariffs, and both parties are owned by the billionaires.  

All the people that you oppose, oppose what Trump is doing.   Maybe if the 62 billionaires who control all the worlds wealth don't like it, there may be something positive to it?

---

Post Office has contradicted the claim they lose money delivering Amazon parcels.

It was my impression First Class Mail was the big money loser and the collectibles and parcels were profitable.

What's ridiculous about this whole thing is that if the post office were losing money, it would be their own damn fault. Amazon haven't found some weird loophole that lets them send packages for low prices, they signed a contract with the post office for discounted mail rates.

You're right.  That's all it is.  And I think all Trump is saying is "That's a shit deal. They should renegotiate." 

And I think we probably all agree he's right.

[Tiberius]

You're right.  That's all it is.  And I think all Trump is saying is "That's a shit deal. They should renegotiate." 

And I think we probably all agree he's right.

He's not right though, he's completely wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-fortune/

There is literally a law, passed by Congress, which prevents USPS from sending parcels at a loss.

[henryp]

You're right.  That's all it is.  And I think all Trump is saying is "That's a shit deal. They should renegotiate." 

And I think we probably all agree he's right.

He's not right though, he's completely wrong: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...g-fortune/

There is literally a law, passed by Congress, which prevents USPS from sending parcels at a loss.

That's the semantics half of the argument.  

The example I gave earlier:  If Lebron James signs a 1 year deal for 1 million dollars.  Is he losing money with that deal?  He's making 1 million dollars, but he could be making 30 million.  

I don't think it'd be outlandish to say he'd have lost 29 million by signing that contract.  Even though he's making 1 million.

--

But the phrasing is a political distraction.  There's some number with a lot of 0's of value that the Post Office is missing out on, because of a bad deal with Amazon.

[Tiberius]

Trump said "Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed."

He's clearly trying to sell the idea that the Post Office does not make money with Amazon, he says that only fools believe otherwise. "THEY LOSE A FORTUNE" is said in the context of the previous statement. He's not mentioning potential revenue, he's talking about existing revenue and profits.

The facts are, that the post office legally cannot lose money with Amazon. They are in fact, making money with Amazon. They are not losing a fortune from their deal with Amazon.

I'm not convinced that Donald Trump of all people, has such a way with words that he's suddenly some expert in phrasing. His intentions were clear.

Also, losing money and "losing out" on money are two completely separate things. Trump said the former, not the latter.

The example I gave earlier:  If Lebron James signs a 1 year deal for 1 million dollars.  Is he losing money with that deal?  He's making 1 million dollars, but he could be making 30 million.  

I don't think it'd be outlandish to say he'd have lost 29 million by signing that contract.  Even though he's making 1 million.

He's not losing money, he's losing out on potential money. There's a difference. That 29 million wasn't his, so he didn't lose it.

[Brian37]

No no no no, if you are going to claim 45 is making this argument, even if I agreed with you, which I don't, it is still FUCKING LIP SERVICE.

We've done deregulation, union busting and "don't tax the rich" since Reagan, now, which party does the Orange fuckface belong to?

If you want a Republican who actually cared, Teddy would have fit that bill.

45 only gives a shit about himself, nobody else.

Brian, you've got to dump your partisan bullshit.  There are tariffs in place.  The Republican establishment HATES tariffs.  Also, the Democrat establishment HATES tariffs, just more quietly.  Because Billionaires HATE tariffs, and both parties are owned by the billionaires.  

All the people that you oppose, oppose what Trump is doing.   Maybe if the 62 billionaires who control all the worlds wealth don't like it, there may be something positive to it?

---

What's ridiculous about this whole thing is that if the post office were losing money, it would be their own damn fault. Amazon haven't found some weird loophole that lets them send packages for low prices, they signed a contract with the post office for discounted mail rates.

You're right.  That's all it is.  And I think all Trump is saying is "That's a shit deal. They should renegotiate." 

And I think we probably all agree he's right.

Yes because "They're rapists" and "McCain is no hero" and "fuck my own intel" is so productive. 

Yep, I am partial to sanity.

Guys, he has coned people his entire life. He is NOT a Teddy republican, not even close. He is still the head of a party that started the pay gap explosion and undermined workers.

45 doesn't give a shit about anyone but himself.

He'd sell his own mother if he thought it would get support.

I find absolutely no credibility in claiming he has a remote desire to do the right thing even if he is saying the right thing. This is the same asshole who bragged about not paying back the full amount he stiffed his "University" investors out of.

He is not fighting the CEO of Amazon because he cares, he is fighting them because he got his ego bruised.

[Divinity]

Oh, we have another Trump cultist on this board now. Anything daddy Trump does is good!

Spin, Spin, Spin until you're so fucking dizzy you puke. Keep all that spinning. Trump's attacks on Amazon are Unpresidential. And all because he has the mentality of a spoiled 3 year old. Not surprised people with similar mentalities are supporting him.

[henryp]

The example I gave earlier:  If Lebron James signs a 1 year deal for 1 million dollars.  Is he losing money with that deal?  He's making 1 million dollars, but he could be making 30 million.  

I don't think it'd be outlandish to say he'd have lost 29 million by signing that contract.  Even though he's making 1 million.

He's not losing money, he's losing out on potential money. There's a difference. That 29 million wasn't his, so he didn't lose it.

In at least one circle I've been in, that's been described as losing money.  

I can't remember if you are a poker player or not.  But in poker, we look for flaws in our game.  Which is places where we're losing money.  That's how all the people I've read/talked to about it would phrase it.

So if Larry always calls with Kings, we'd say they are losing money by not raising.  They probably still win more than they lose even playing it improperly, but nobody would ever say "You're making money by just calling kings every time you get them."  If someone said "You're losing a fortune by just calling" everyone who plays poker seriously would nod in agreement without a second thought.

With poker, I can say that confidently.  More anecdotally, I've experienced the same thing with Investors.  Both on a personal level, and just on the tv/print.  

Going back to the Lebron thing.  The idea for a lot of people, and I think Trump would fit into the mindset I'm speaking of, is that Lebron being able to get 30 million makes him worth 30 million.  And if he sells a 30 million product for 1 million dollars, he's losing 29 million dollars.

But again, this is just semantics.  You can tell me I'm saying it wrong.  But whether we phrase it as losing, or missing out on, it doesn't change the reality of the situation.

That the Post Office would benefit greatly from a smarter deal.

[Brian37]

Trump said "Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed."

He's clearly trying to sell the idea that the Post Office does not make money with Amazon, he says that only fools believe otherwise. "THEY LOSE A FORTUNE" is said in the context of the previous statement. He's not mentioning potential revenue, he's talking about existing revenue and profits.

The facts are, that the post office legally cannot lose money with Amazon. They are in fact, making money with Amazon. They are not losing a fortune from their deal with Amazon.

I'm not convinced that Donald Trump of all people, has such a way with words that he's suddenly some expert in phrasing. His intentions were clear.

Also, losing money and "losing out" on money are two completely separate things. Trump said the former, not the latter.

The example I gave earlier:  If Lebron James signs a 1 year deal for 1 million dollars.  Is he losing money with that deal?  He's making 1 million dollars, but he could be making 30 million.  

I don't think it'd be outlandish to say he'd have lost 29 million by signing that contract.  Even though he's making 1 million.

He's not losing money, he's losing out on potential money. There's a difference. That 29 million wasn't his, so he didn't lose it.

 As an aside, this reminds me when I was working as a dishwasher, the owners son who worked in the kitchen, STUPIDLY brought over a pan of biscuit gravy to my dish washing station and put it down. I automatically thought it was something to wash, because that is where you put dirty things. I dumped it out, and he shouted at me, "Why did you do that, you just cost me $75 dollars."  And all I could think was two things.  "Why the fuck did you put it here if you didn't want it thrown out?" and "Bullshit, that bag cost maybe 2 or 3 bucks at most to manufacture."

Ok so he had to replace that bag, so instead of making $75 dollars he only made $72. And can you imagine, the place didn't suddenly burst into flames.

[henryp]

Oh, we have another Trump cultist on this board now.  Anything daddy Trump does is good!  

Spin, Spin, Spin until you're so fucking dizzy you puke.  Keep all that spinning.  Trump's attacks on Amazon are Unpresidential.  And all because he has the mentality of a spoiled 3 year old.  Not surprised people with similar mentalities are supporting him.

People are so blindly anti-trump, that a bunch of alleged progressive lefties, many who cry day and night about corporate greed and wealth inequality are defending the interests of literally the richest person in the world.

But the reality for many is you're not really progressive.  Or anti-corporations.  Or anti-wealth inequality.  You're just Democrats.  And you'll think whatever you're told to think by the party.