1. It makes Teslas MUCH less attractive purchases for folks who are neutral or supportive on Elon. How much trade-in or resale value is one willing to sacrifice to send Elon a "thataboy!"?
2. For the folks who still want Teslas, a low-priced model in decent shape on the resale market is a strong competitor to purchasing a brand new model with the same features. That deprives TSLA of the new sales it needs for its business.
One interesting thing in all of this is that given all the electronics in the car and its expectation for cloud connectivity, whether Musk pulls the trigger on soft-bricking (pulling existing features from used models on sale) in order to maintain demand for the factory-new models. It's well within his ability to do that, and I think it's only a matter of time before he pushes that big red button.
3. Leaving Tesla dealers alone (other than basic protesting) deprives Tesla/Musk the ability to claim legitimate victimhood from acts of vandalism/destruction taken on said dealerships/vehicle inventory.
WOW, this commentary sure did go off the rails! Time will tell what impact the terrorists(yes, that's what they are, domestic terrorists), will have on the economy and the society in general. Here's hoping the DOJ starts to crack down on this, sooner rather than later.
Well, first of all, it wasn't an insurrection, so let's start there. Number 2, Jan.6th didn't become a series of attacks, it was a one off, and 3rd, there is evidence that agitators from the FBI were interspersed within the crowd to fire the crowd up, not to mention the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser to accept National Guard troops and to deploy them.
Well said. Don’t turn every Tesla dealership into scaled down versions of the Columbia quad.
Musk needs to be treated the same way as Trump…ignore the day-to-day insanity. Don’t respond to every inane outburst. The focus has to be the midterms and 2028.
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Elon was not confirmed and appointed by the Senate.
Congress did not pass a law that allowed the President to appoint a "super" Cabinet officer to dictate policy and action to other Constitutional officers.
Congress did not pass any laws that allows Elon to pick and choose what gets funded, overriding the Legislature's Constitutional "power of the purse".
Elon's actions shaping public policy through these cuts are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's own ruling last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference that allowed executive branch agencies to interpret the law on their own.
For example: it is unconstitutional for the Executive branch to cut a Congressionally-created agency/department to the point where said agency/department can no longer fulfill its Congressional mandate.
On the issue of studying "trans male pregnancy" (I'd appreciate a link to that study or grant proposal, thanks), RFK Jr. may be empowered to make those cuts (depending on the text of the law passed by Congress after the death of Chevron), but that's orthogonal to what Musk is doing.
My understanding is it's in regards to a study on mice to see what happens if transitional hormone therapy is entered while the transitioning person is pregnant. Which is good to know! That then informs whether it is a viable option or not.
He's not "suggesting" cuts, he's installing his own people into the gov't's financial infrastructure and interfering with lawful payments required by legally executed contracts.
If he were in the suggestions business, we'd see bills in front of Congress with Elon's suggestions in them to be voted on by the branch of the government Constitutionally-empowered to make those decisions.
Making cuts = dictating policy. What is not happening: an actual audit with a report on findings that can later be acted upon, a la the Clinton reduction in the federal workforce.
You may not value understanding how hormones affect someone that transitions while pregnant, but that is useful to understand from a scientific perspective regardless - especially when we're talking about using lab mice and not people. (Also, let's keep in mind we're talking about hormones naturally present in all people - just in differing amounts).
You can easily just say "This shouldn't happen": having some understanding of what actually happens is useful and provides more support on either side of the equation.
And more importantly: do you think hormones are taken for only the purposes of transitioning? How do those hormones, when used for other medical purposes, have an effect?
The thing I find most interesting is how you switched focus there from transmen to transwomen: I'm assuming you can't tell the difference between a genetic male and a transgender man "from a mile away", or even from across the room. Or of course for intersex people, or those that have XY chromosomes but were born with female appearance (including genitalia).
Yes, acknowledging that trans people have existed forever; have rights; and the need for determining proper accommodations makes people "useful idiots". You got me!
I’m just going to interject that it’s okay to have the opinion “no one should,” but it’s quite another to say government should not allow. The Constitution does not give the government the power to micromanage people’s sex lives.
I’m sympathetic to not caring for the whole trans phenomenon, but I stop short of saying government should intrude in their lives to stop it. That’s a slippery slope and you’ll see the other side in a leftist administration some day.
An effective alternative to Molotov cocktails is to just not buy Teslas and watch the resale market plummet:
https://insideevs.com/news/753019/used-tesla-value-plummets-yoy/
This does two things:
1. It makes Teslas MUCH less attractive purchases for folks who are neutral or supportive on Elon. How much trade-in or resale value is one willing to sacrifice to send Elon a "thataboy!"?
2. For the folks who still want Teslas, a low-priced model in decent shape on the resale market is a strong competitor to purchasing a brand new model with the same features. That deprives TSLA of the new sales it needs for its business.
One interesting thing in all of this is that given all the electronics in the car and its expectation for cloud connectivity, whether Musk pulls the trigger on soft-bricking (pulling existing features from used models on sale) in order to maintain demand for the factory-new models. It's well within his ability to do that, and I think it's only a matter of time before he pushes that big red button.
And a third thing:
3. Leaving Tesla dealers alone (other than basic protesting) deprives Tesla/Musk the ability to claim legitimate victimhood from acts of vandalism/destruction taken on said dealerships/vehicle inventory.
WOW, this commentary sure did go off the rails! Time will tell what impact the terrorists(yes, that's what they are, domestic terrorists), will have on the economy and the society in general. Here's hoping the DOJ starts to crack down on this, sooner rather than later.
I think local and state law enforcement would be more appropriate. Unless you call vandalism of a Tesla a hate crime
Remember the Weather Underground? Did state and local go after them, or was it the FBI? I think you know the answer.
Would you call the January 6 insurrectionists domestic terrorists as well? Just curious.
Well, first of all, it wasn't an insurrection, so let's start there. Number 2, Jan.6th didn't become a series of attacks, it was a one off, and 3rd, there is evidence that agitators from the FBI were interspersed within the crowd to fire the crowd up, not to mention the failure of Nancy Pelosi and Muriel Bowser to accept National Guard troops and to deploy them.
Well said. Don’t turn every Tesla dealership into scaled down versions of the Columbia quad.
Musk needs to be treated the same way as Trump…ignore the day-to-day insanity. Don’t respond to every inane outburst. The focus has to be the midterms and 2028.
Nice 90s TLC reference 👍
Article II, Section 2:
"He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments."
Elon was not confirmed and appointed by the Senate.
Congress did not pass a law that allowed the President to appoint a "super" Cabinet officer to dictate policy and action to other Constitutional officers.
Congress did not pass any laws that allows Elon to pick and choose what gets funded, overriding the Legislature's Constitutional "power of the purse".
Elon's actions shaping public policy through these cuts are inconsistent with the Supreme Court's own ruling last term in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which overturned the Chevron deference that allowed executive branch agencies to interpret the law on their own.
Make an argument.
For example: it is unconstitutional for the Executive branch to cut a Congressionally-created agency/department to the point where said agency/department can no longer fulfill its Congressional mandate.
On the issue of studying "trans male pregnancy" (I'd appreciate a link to that study or grant proposal, thanks), RFK Jr. may be empowered to make those cuts (depending on the text of the law passed by Congress after the death of Chevron), but that's orthogonal to what Musk is doing.
My understanding is it's in regards to a study on mice to see what happens if transitional hormone therapy is entered while the transitioning person is pregnant. Which is good to know! That then informs whether it is a viable option or not.
Are these different than the other trans* mice?
*(genic)
That I am not sure, but it does seem like an area where you would not need transgenic mice involved.
He's not "suggesting" cuts, he's installing his own people into the gov't's financial infrastructure and interfering with lawful payments required by legally executed contracts.
If he were in the suggestions business, we'd see bills in front of Congress with Elon's suggestions in them to be voted on by the branch of the government Constitutionally-empowered to make those decisions.
Making cuts = dictating policy. What is not happening: an actual audit with a report on findings that can later be acted upon, a la the Clinton reduction in the federal workforce.
You may not value understanding how hormones affect someone that transitions while pregnant, but that is useful to understand from a scientific perspective regardless - especially when we're talking about using lab mice and not people. (Also, let's keep in mind we're talking about hormones naturally present in all people - just in differing amounts).
You can easily just say "This shouldn't happen": having some understanding of what actually happens is useful and provides more support on either side of the equation.
And more importantly: do you think hormones are taken for only the purposes of transitioning? How do those hormones, when used for other medical purposes, have an effect?
But then again, transphobes gonna transphobe.
The thing I find most interesting is how you switched focus there from transmen to transwomen: I'm assuming you can't tell the difference between a genetic male and a transgender man "from a mile away", or even from across the room. Or of course for intersex people, or those that have XY chromosomes but were born with female appearance (including genitalia).
Yes, acknowledging that trans people have existed forever; have rights; and the need for determining proper accommodations makes people "useful idiots". You got me!
I’m just going to interject that it’s okay to have the opinion “no one should,” but it’s quite another to say government should not allow. The Constitution does not give the government the power to micromanage people’s sex lives.
I’m sympathetic to not caring for the whole trans phenomenon, but I stop short of saying government should intrude in their lives to stop it. That’s a slippery slope and you’ll see the other side in a leftist administration some day.