Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[JCTarheel82]

Trump is now threatening to send natural born citizens to prisons in El Salvador for committing a crime against an inanimate object.

Watch your back, JD Vance.

 

[dcphx]

I will just say it so Zen can move on: It was a bad thing that people set cars on fire at Tesla dealerships and they are bad people. They broke the law and committed crimes and should be prosecuted in the criminal justice system. And I hope that the next President does not pardon them. I speak on behalf of all Democrats.

and they should be punished in accordance with how these crimes are usually punished, not shipped off to a foreign prison outside of US court jurisdiction and away from their constitutionally prescribed rights.

 

[altmin]

Tesla confirms it can't sell the Cybertruck even with tax credit and discounts

Tesla has revealed Cybertruck deliveries in the US, confirming that it can’t sell the electric truck even with federal tax...

electrek.co

With Tesla’s announcement today that it recalled all Cybertrucks produced up until last month, the company confirmed that it made and delivered 46,000 Cybertrucks in the US since launching production in late 2023.

By comparing them to previous numbers, it means that Tesla is only going to deliver between 7,000 and 8,000 Cybertrucks in Q1 2025.

That would be significantly down from the last two quarters when Tesla is estimated to have delivered between 10,000 and 12,000 Cybertruck.

It is a bad look considering the Cybertruck gained access to the $7,500 federal tax credit for electric vehicles this quarter, and Tesla started to discount the truck with free Supercharger and subsidized financing rates.

The lower financing rate is equivalent to slashing thousands of dollars off of the Cybertruck.

Tesla also launched its Cybertruck lease program last month and offered free wraps on Foundations Series.

If deliveries are dropping even with those new incentives, it’s a clear sign that the Cybertruck program is in distress.

At this point, Tesla’s only hope is the upcoming cheaper Cybertruck RWD expected to start at $61,000 later this year.

 

[altmin]

Elon tells Tesla employees not to sell TSLA stock as board and execs are dumping

At an all-hands meeting last night, Elon Musk stood before Tesla employees and told them to “hang on to their...

electrek.co

At an all-hands meeting last night, Elon Musk stood before Tesla employees and told them to “hang on to their TSLA stocks” as Tesla board members and top executive are dumping their shares amid a 40% crash.


Tesla has frequently held “all-hands” meetings for employees over the years, but last night, it was the first time that they were streamed publicly.

CEO Elon Musk didn’t announce anything new during the meeting. He mostly recapped Tesla’s latest milestones over the last year, thanked employees for their work, and reinstated several of his overly optimistic predictions about Tesla’s future regarding self-driving cars, robots, and stock valuation.

The CEO again claimed that he believed that Tesla would become the world’s most valuable company by a wide margin.

Musk went as far as asking employees, and indirectly the public as this was publicly live-streamed, to “hang on to their stocks.”

 

[BillOfRights]

Yes he does. He discusses it on his podcast series related to the concept of a pardon.

You listen to ben Shapiro podcasts?

 

[sringwal]

and they should be punished in accordance with how these crimes are usually punished, not shipped off to a foreign prison outside of US court jurisdiction and away from their constitutionally prescribed rights.

Right. Literally no one is excusing the act of the protesters, or doubting that they should be punished.

 

[sringwal]

Illegal and unconstitutional is up for debate.

The intent of the actions doesn't change based on how successful they are.

Please clarify

 

[ZenMode]

I never said that intent and success are directly related. I asked if you believed that people THINK Musk can be intimidated by such actions. I do not. Therefore I don't believe at all the intent is to intimidate or coerce.

And no, illegal and unconstitutional really isn't up for debate. Musk's power grab has clearly violated the plain text of the constitution in several ways.

I understand that you may not believe the intent is to intimidate. I think it's very likely that it is. Other posters on this forum, when talking about the goal of the vandalism, have have said:

"Maybe we just want an unelected self seeking moron and his crew of misfits out of our government?"

 

[ZenMode]

Please clarify

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

 

[finesse]

No matter how often you misstate it, it's not terrorism. It's a crime but not against the general public, the government or the nation. It's more like Robin Hood trying to free the people from a malign influence from outside. Interesting that the Normans were Germanic also.

 

[bassydude77]

brings you to the part talking about why Teslas are not great.

Watched this with my son last weekend. Definitely surprising how poorly the Tesla performed.

 

[wmheel1287]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

Nobody has any intent to intimidate Elon Musk. Nobody. The man owns planet earth. Nobody has the power to intimidate him, control him, or direct him. That includes POTUS.

What's insane about you is that you're willing to see some attempt intimidate Elon when he's totally insulated but unwilling to recognize Trump's very real, very successful, and very blatant intimidation of everyone with whom he disagrees.

 

[farce©]

It seems the word “terrorism” is being tossed around pretty loosely, and frequently by the same people who never used the term to describe the Jan 6 insurrectionists.

This is dangerous since Trump and his cabal will label anyone they don’t like a “terrorist” and attempt to deal with them extrajudicially.

 

[superrific]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal.

This is patently untrue. Have you noticed all the decisions requiring employees to be reinstated? Money released? Etc. There are at probably half a dozen courts that have found Elon to have been doing illegal things.

The only reason that number isn't higher is that DOJ has been lying to the courts as to DOGE's structure. That will be coming to an end soon, as the courts are getting sick of the stalling act.

 

[superrific]

"Maybe we just want an unelected self seeking moron and his crew of misfits out of our government?"

Which is actually not intimidation. By your definition, everything is intimidation. Don't renew your season tickets? Trying to intimidate Hubert or Bubba. All protests are intimidation. I'm not talking about this any more. You've said your piece; you had that right; and what you have been saying has no mooring in the law and barely any mooring in reality. The conversation is over; you can continue to prattle if you choose.

 

[sringwal]

No court has ruled that Elon is doing anything unconstitutional or illegal. Elon is only making suggestions. Trump has to approve them. I don't see any blatantly unconstitutional or illegal, so far.

As far as the vandalism/terrorism goes....it seems very likely that those involved, as was mentioned by an posted, are trying to intimidate Elon to get him to stop what he's doing. The intent of the terrorists can be to intimidate Elon, even if he isn't actually intimidated.

The intent of the shooter in Philadelphia was to kill Trump. That is true despite the fact that he was unsuccessful.

Can you clarify what, specifically, you are referring to be “not unconstitutional”? Because there is a lot of potentially unconstitutional stuff being discussed in this thread regarding Trump and Musk’s actions.

 

[superrific]

Can you clarify what, specifically, you are referring to be “not unconstitutional”? Because there is a lot of potentially unconstitutional stuff being discussed in this thread regarding Trump and Musk’s actions.

I think he's right that the courts haven't *yet* found DOGE to be unconstitutional, but that's in large measure because of stonewalling. I would expect rulings on this coming later this spring. Courts aren't putting in preliminary injunctions that aren't supported by a factual record, so there will be evidentiary hearings and/or trials to determine who is calling the shots and how.

But illegal conduct -- everything DOGE has been doing is illegal, which is why there are so many court orders requiring it (well, technically the cabinet departments) to unwind and reverse.

 

[sringwal]

Which is fine, but he was writing that alongside discussion about Trump claiming he might send American citizens to prisons in El Salvador.

Let’s not lose the script here.

The legality of one of those things is still up for debate. The other should not even remotely be.

 

[ZenMode]

I think he's right that the courts haven't *yet* found DOGE to be unconstitutional, but that's in large measure because of stonewalling. I would expect rulings on this coming later this spring. Courts aren't putting in preliminary injunctions that aren't supported by a factual record, so there will be evidentiary hearings and/or trials to determine who is calling the shots and how.

But illegal conduct -- everything DOGE has been doing is illegal, which is why there are so many court orders requiring it (well, technically the cabinet departments) to unwind and reverse.

@sringwal as superrific mentioned, nothing has been deemed to be unconstitutional as of yet.

My understanding of the claim being made was that DOGE itself is unconstitutional. In other words, it is unconstitutional or illegal for Elon to be hands-on in government operations. Yes, specific actions, which again are approved by Trump and presumably only the responsibility of Trump, not Elon, have been initially determined to be illegal.

 

[superrific]

Which is fine, but he was writing that alongside discussion about Trump claiming he might send American citizens to prisons in El Salvador.

Let’s not lose the script here.

The legality of one of those things is still up for debate. The other should not even remotely be.

I don't think there's much debate over the legality of DOGE (it's illegal; the only debate is whether that can ever be proven).

Obviously extraordinary renditions are grossly illegal, and not just when applied to American citizens. Even in WWII, the government set up tribunals to determine if people qualified as enemies, and there was an appeals process as well. And that was during a period -- internment -- considered among the low points in our country's history.