DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus More on Musk

There are some things I like about it. It rides well and "Everything's computer!" The low maintenance costs on it and the fact it is ready every morning is nice, too. But some of the features are so damn cheap, and the heating/air is horrendous. Tech-wise it's probably more advanced.

Musk really started to torque me off though - before he even got into politics - when he kept making false promises (at best) and/or outright lies (at worst) about the product when it came to capabilities, milestones, etc. Left me feeling duped.

Then other EVs started catching my eye. The Lyriq is probably my forerunner now if I had to switch.

Like I said, the form-factor of the Y was really enticing. I ended up deciding that not having anything except a touchscreen and leather upholstery instead of an interior was going to bug me.


The Musk-effect would give me more pause today than it did a year ago, but I was truly out to get the car that best fit what I needed.

Well we don't want to hear about any other "Burning feelings" you got after you had urges

Who cares if Tesla received subsidies? They were obviously given to companies to further the agenda.
He is the one who won that race.

It was all good while Musk was perceived as a Green dealer. Now that he is aligned with Trump in an effort to cut government spending, he is the boogie man.

I think it is possible he can be both a concerned citizen for the environment and our countries financial health.

This flip flop by the left might be the swiftest and biggest flip flop in recent times.

It was actually Elon who flip flopped in his own stances by quite a wide margin, admittedly on his part.

I also do question his actual motivation to cut Government spending. A lot of what he has shared so far has been inaccurate and he, again by his own admission, has made some significant mistakes. Some of the first cuts also occurred in areas where he himself and/or his companies benefitted.

I think the thing that irks me most about this whole process is that the Constitution plainly says that Congress has the spending power and no money shall be spent unless appropriated by Congress. Now Congress is pointing the finger at the agencies for often times expending funds in the manner in which they were appropriated........by Congress. And now we have quite a few reps in Congress who are basically saying "Thank goodness DOGE is here!"

Hey, numbskull, it's your job (numbskull/your meaning Congress). And when you capitulate your role to the executive or to one person who's....well, nothing really.... we start really veering away from our Constitutional construct in the name of desperation. Bad things happen under that dynamic, historically.

The other part of it is the question of "How effective is DOGE at saving money?" A lot of misinformation, overstatements and arguably lies have been spread about what they have done. I think we - myself included - need to keep our eyes on three things: expenditures, revenue and deficit. If, after all this bluster, those needles move in the right direction - and no games are played with the numbers - then okay, maybe something good is being done. If those needles move in the wrong direction, I would hope those who have become engrained in the hype about how great this setup has been would be able to open up their eyes.

One of the other big problems I have with the approach, and this is another area I feel like I'm screaming into the void, is that they are targeting areas they blatantly don't care about with a hatchet. Waste/abuse - and even fraud - data has been out there in droves for decades now when it comes to large corporation direct recipients of Government contracts spanning the sectors, mine probably being at the forefront. This is relatively low-hanging fruit, too, with rather easy ways to at least begin fixing it.

Our government chose to take penalties that were imposed on auto companies not reaching fuel standards and funnel that money to EV manufactures. That money could have been used by our government for any number of other things. Instead they used it to subsidize EV's. That's the bottom line here no matter your desire to twist it to the contrary. None of that is difficult.

When the government makes a determination of where that money went they made the decision to take money that could have been used for other things and subsidize EV's with it.

Now your frame is that the government coulda done something with the money but decided to do something different? You don't say!

And my aunt coulda been my uncle, but she was born without the family jewels.


You win, Pit. This starts to feel like plucking the wings off a butterfly after a while. You'll die on any and every hill, no matter how many times you have to change your story or create false narratives. I'll let you make a fool out of yourself in some other threads now, I'm sure I speak for everyone when I say this one is turning into a real yawner.

That topic would be huge and would cause MAGA insecurity… best not to share. I can’t stand seeing grown ass men cry.

I'm sure it is. Somehow you just can't admit that giving credits to EV makers to funnel those fines to EV makers isn't a subsidy. Instead you use personal attacks like a child in response. But that is after all the trumpian way. I never expected you to describe yourself as a butterfly however.