Our government shouldn’t be rewarded him shit and we should seize it and nationalize all his companies. After all our taxes subsidized it to begin with.
Maybe it’s a trap. Perhaps its harder to punish musk for his Ukraine shortcomings, but if he decideds to fuck up under federal contract with the MIC of the US government . . .
I only think of this because I cant imagine the pentagon thinks highly of him, hes a borderline (possibly unwitting) russian apologist at best and asset at worst. Usually Im not so sure bad things happen to rich people, but crossing the MIC would probably be the line that does it if anything does.
I’m sure the US government would love nothing more than to smash musk open like a piggy bank and annex everything he owns through some mix of civil asset forfeiture and eminent domain on sloppily and carelessly assembled rhetorical basis that boils down to “because we say so,” and also “what are you going to do about it anyway loser, we have nukes” plus furthermore “you can’t possibly pretend like this dipshit didn’t have it coming. If one does not wish to find out, one should not fuck around”
They don’t need to make up a basis to take over his stuff, it already exists and has existed for almost 75 years. They’d just tie his hands with the defense production act if push came to shove. They could then just lock Elon up if he refused to do what he was told.
He’s an intentional Russia apologist. Period. You don’t get to be the richest person on Earth and not be invited to a few private meetings with international leaders. He regularly promotes the idea that Ukraine is evil and Russia is doing good on Twitter.
I have a conspiracy theory that Musk utilized Russian troll farms to hype up his pump and dump scheems when those were his big thing. That would explain the meetings with Putin, the proclivity to do what Putin says, and his purchase of twitter under the guise of removing the bots and free speech then not removing the bots. He probably just removed the evidence.
Not relevant. The relevant version of this would be, if you genuinely believe Jodie Foster to be immortal, can you be charged with attempted murder for shooting at her?
Isn’t it wild how far off Reagan’s republicans are from trump’s? Yesterday there was a post about Reagan vetoing the anti-apartheid bill over concerns with communist language.
I think if Ronnie Raygun came back to life and saw a russian-backed stooge leading a horde of propagandized fascists to dismantle democracy, he’d sh*t himself twice and die again. Which, I would support.
Did you just wake up from an 8 year nap? The dude straight up bragged about raping women and wanting to fuck his daughter, on camera, and they loved him for it.
Hillary was right when she called them all deplorable.
His rhetoric has always been extreme, but I feel calling for executions is taking it a step further. This man is fucking dangerous and everyone on the republican side is just “hehe can’t say anything bad about daddy trump or I’ll get spanked by his supporters hehe”. Even though there are republicans who are avidly against him and they haven’t been, as far as I know, hurt too much in their respective state polls.
Because he’s giving them what they want and they know that democracy won’t do that. This is the party of REDMAP and Gingrich and Goldwater and shutting down polling places in poor and predominantly black areas. Trump escalated it sure, but he was more the one willing to say things that they were afraid were political suicide. That’s why they distanced themselves but fell in line. When no backlash came they rode it out. There aren’t any people in 2023 carefully weighing their options between trump and Biden, just people acting on their emotions and allegiances.
At what point do you accept that you’ve been one of the bad guys? At what point do you accept that the friends and family who cut ties with you over this were right? How far back do you have to look at your affiliation? Was it ok for you to have voted for McCain, romney, bush, Reagan?
Kinda weird they had to pass a resolution to overrule Schumer’s non-resolution decision, but they did it by unanimous consent so if Schumer (or Fetterman) disagreed they could have stopped it. If Schumer and Fetterman are on board for this, they could have just reversed the earlier decision.
Yeah, it seems odd to me that Fetterman would have voted for it. Unanimous consent means that they said “any objections” and there weren’t any. Thus there is no record of who voted for it. Maybe they planned the vote to be when some members were absent?
I don’t think it’s as likely that the Feds break this strike like they did with the railroads. Their argument against the rails was that almost every other industry relies on them to move product, while having fewer new cars will only effect the new and used car markets. With however hundreds of millions of usable vehicles that are already out there, this strike doesn’t really have the same opportunity to spill over to the larger economy.
It's odd. I still remember the days of memes labelling Twitter as the home of left-leaning activists, but now it's slowly becoming just a better funded truth social
news
Hot
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.