Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

True. Can you imagine the (justifiable) uproar if Soros donated $60 million to Biden's campaign, Biden wins, Biden puts Soros in charge of overseeing all Federal funding, Soros stays CEO and largest shareholder of two prominent companies that receive federal funding, documents are released that said one of those companies was awarded $400 million under a Federal contract, and another federal agency head, ostensibly acting under authority of that role, recommended that the public buy Soros's stock? @52-80 would be spouting off in every fucking thread that this is unethical (true), a clear bribe (true), clear cronyism (true), and a misuse of public funds and authority (also true). 

When i made this appeal to my brainwashed family, the response I got was that Soros doesn’t need a position in government, he pulls all the strings from behind the scenes without any media scrutiny. I’ve yet to find a criticism that can’t be completely dismissed by what-aboutism. It’s really disheartening 

  • Rage+1 1
Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

True. Can you imagine the (justifiable) uproar if Soros donated $60 million to Biden's campaign, Biden wins, Biden puts Soros in charge of overseeing all Federal funding, Soros stays CEO and largest shareholder of two prominent companies that receive federal funding, documents are released that said one of those companies was awarded $400 million under a Federal contract, and another federal agency head, ostensibly acting under authority of that role, recommended that the public buy Soros's stock? @52-80 would be spouting off in every fucking thread that this is unethical (true), a clear bribe (true), clear cronyism (true), and a misuse of public funds and authority (also true). 

You can now add, "as head of overseeing all Federal Funding, Soros then slashed congressionally approved funding, targeting areas of the country that did not support Biden."

r/dataisbeautiful - DOGE preferentially cancelled grants and contracts to recipients in counties that voted for Harris [OC]

 

r/dataisbeautiful - DOGE preferentially cancelled grants and contracts to recipients in counties that voted for Harris [OC]

Edited by Foosters
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
On 3/26/2025 at 1:10 PM, Dahobbs said:

Again with the false equivalences. Politicians can shit on private companies all they want. Whether it is politically wise to do so is a different matter, but there is nothing improper about it. The fact that you don't see the difference between the executive office of the United States implying to people to buy the troubled stock of his billionaire friend and the governor of state making a joke criticizing the actions of said billionaire friend says a lot about you.  

Is it not improper for the govt to gloat over dropping stock prices? (of which his state owns half a billion). It's improper for seccom to promote a domestic car brand's stock, but not improper for potus to stage promotion opp of a foreign car?

What's the difference -- in *your* definition -- between 'improper' vs 'political unwise' here? Is it a consequential legal thing, or are you just weaseling with the words?

The fact that you don't know that Dept Comm is not part of executive office should give you pause...

Posted (edited)
51 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

Is it not improper for the govt to gloat over dropping stock prices? (of which his state owns half a billion). It's improper for seccom to promote a domestic car brand's stock, but not improper for potus to stage promotion opp of a foreign car?

What's the difference -- in *your* definition -- between 'improper' vs 'political unwise' here? Is it a consequential legal thing, or are you just weaseling with the words?

The fact that you don't know that Dept Comm is not part of executive office should give you pause...

1) The Department of Commerce is an executive department. That is why there is a Secretary of Commerce that is a member of the president's cabinet. It is literally called a "department" because it is a department of the executive branch. Maybe you are the one that should take a pause and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about about. 

2) the role of the department of commerce, its congressionally authorized role, is to promote growth of the economy generally. It isn't to prop up a particularly favored entity. It is absolutely improper for the secretary of commerce, acting in official capacity, to pitch the purchase of Tesla stock to the general public. At least if we were talking about pitching the actual cars I could see an argument for it being within the scope of the "commerce" job. 

3) conflict of interest rules exist to prevent someone having their private interests interfere with their public duties. Elon's relationship to Trump and his position as a quasi government official, absolutely creates a conflict of interest when another government agency tries to influence the stock price of Tesla. It is the same problem as if the Secretary of Commerce starting imploring the public to buy Trump's stock. It is blindingly obvious that this is improper. You're not winning this argument. 

4) State government's and their officials are free to criticize private companies. They do it all the time. They even bring lawsuits against them. (E.g., see Texas AG's statements and suits against many private entities). There isn't anything categorically improper about it. Further, from what I saw of his comments, I don't think they were made in his capacity as governor. 

5) as discussed in the other posts, there is a universe of difference between a general industry promotional event with several major industry participants and begging the public to buy a particular stock. They aren't the same at all. Stop trying to argue that they are. You just end up looking even more stupid and ignorant. 

Edited by Dahobbs
  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Dahobbs said:

1) The Department of Commerce is an executive department. That is why there is a Secretary of Commerce that is a member of the president's cabinet. It is literally called a "department" because it is a department of the executive branch. Maybe you are the one that should take a pause and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about about. 

2) the role of the department of commerce, its congressionally authorized role, is to promote growth of the economy generally. It isn't to prop up a particularly favored entity. It is absolutely improper for the secretary of commerce, acting in official capacity, to pitch the purchase of Tesla stock to the general public. At least if we were talking about pitching the actual cars I could see an argument for it being within the scope of the "commerce" job. 

3) conflict of interest rules exist to prevent someone having their private interests interfere with their public duties. Elon's relationship to Trump and his position as a quasi government official, absolutely creates a conflict of interest when another government agency tries to influence the stock price of Tesla. It is the same problem as if the Secretary of Commerce starting imploring the public to buy Trump's stock. It is blindingly obvious that this is improper. You're not winning this argument. 

4) State government's and their officials are free to criticize private companies. They do it all the time. They even bring lawsuits against them. (E.g., see Texas AG's statements and suits against many private entities). There isn't anything categorically improper about it. Further, from what I saw of his comments, I don't think they were made in his capacity as governor. 

5) as discussed in the other posts, there is a universe of difference between a general industry promotional event with several major industry participants and begging the public to buy a particular stock. They aren't the same at all. Stop trying to argue that they are. You just end up looking even more stupid and ignorant. 

If the drug-addled Elon continues with his current position as a “special advisor” to this administration while sitting in on cabinet meetings , the Tesla board should vote to remove him from the car company’s leadership. 
Its 125,000 employees (including  my son who loves his job at the Austin Gigafactory) would be better off.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
12 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

If the drug-addled Elon continues with his current position as a “special advisor” to this administration while sitting in on cabinet meetings , the Tesla board should vote to remove him from the car company’s leadership. 
Its 125,000 employees (including  my son who loves his job at the Austin Gigafactory) would be better off.

Given the sales of the Incel Camino, I think it’s more of a nanofactory.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Posted
29 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

If the drug-addled Elon continues with his current position as a “special advisor” to this administration while sitting in on cabinet meetings , the Tesla board should vote to remove him from the car company’s leadership. 
Its 125,000 employees (including  my son who loves his job at the Austin Gigafactory) would be better off.

Not going to happen- that board owes much of their wealth to Elon and accordingly will always be his puppet.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
39 minutes ago, Armybrat said:

If the drug-addled Elon continues with his current position as a “special advisor” to this administration while sitting in on cabinet meetings , the Tesla board should vote to remove him from the car company’s leadership. 
Its 125,000 employees (including  my son who loves his job at the Austin Gigafactory) would be better off.

Even if the board wanted to fire Musk (they don't), they are in a complete catch 22. The ENTIRE reason that Tesla trades at a market cap almost 20X greater than GM is because of all of Elon's sycophants. He's a cult of personality, just like Trump. 

FY2024 revenue: GM - $171B , TSLA - $97B

FY 2024 Net income: GM - $6B, TSLA - $7B (but includes $600M in BTC gains and $2.7B in regulatory credits)

Toyota, VW, and a whole host of other auto OEMs make more profit and trade at fractions of TSLA's market cap. At the end of the day, they are a fucking automotive manufacturer. Remove that shitstain from the company and its valuation plummets. The time to fire Elon was 5+ years ago when his complete batshit crazyness started up. But now they have shoved all of their chips into the middle of the table and they will have to see how the hand plays out. Lucky for them, Elon is now running the country so he can start transferring even more of our tax dollars to his companies. 

 

  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Rage+1 2
Posted
12 minutes ago, Colonel Sanders said:

Assuming the stock craters after earnings are complete dogshit, I wonder how happy all his employees that were told not to sell at 250 are going to be.  Who knows maybe he can keep it propped up on robotaxi and Optimus bullshit.

Robotaxi is a fucking joke. Waymo is delivering 200K rides (1M miles) a week right now. They are far ahead of whatever micky mouse bullshit TSLA will announce. Whatever the total market is, half the country wont even consider putting a nickel in elons businesses. Likely the only thing that can continue to prop up Elon's wealth now will be government orders. And he will get them. Lots of them. Government programs that provide benefits to US citizens are being eliminated at the same time that our tax dollars will be redirected to prop up his business empire. 

Posted
On 3/28/2025 at 12:58 PM, Dahobbs said:

1) The Department of Commerce is an executive department. That is why there is a Secretary of Commerce that is a member of the president's cabinet. It is literally called a "department" because it is a department of the executive branch. Maybe you are the one that should take a pause and realize you don't know what the fuck you're talking about about. 

2) the role of the department of commerce, its congressionally authorized role, is to promote growth of the economy generally. It isn't to prop up a particularly favored entity. It is absolutely improper for the secretary of commerce, acting in official capacity, to pitch the purchase of Tesla stock to the general public. At least if we were talking about pitching the actual cars I could see an argument for it being within the scope of the "commerce" job. 

3) conflict of interest rules exist to prevent someone having their private interests interfere with their public duties. Elon's relationship to Trump and his position as a quasi government official, absolutely creates a conflict of interest when another government agency tries to influence the stock price of Tesla. It is the same problem as if the Secretary of Commerce starting imploring the public to buy Trump's stock. It is blindingly obvious that this is improper. You're not winning this argument. 

4) State government's and their officials are free to criticize private companies. They do it all the time. They even bring lawsuits against them. (E.g., see Texas AG's statements and suits against many private entities). There isn't anything categorically improper about it. Further, from what I saw of his comments, I don't think they were made in his capacity as governor. 

5) as discussed in the other posts, there is a universe of difference between a general industry promotional event with several major industry participants and begging the public to buy a particular stock. They aren't the same at all. Stop trying to argue that they are. You just end up looking even more stupid and ignorant. 

The Executive Office isn’t something you made up and get to define. The EO has been established for almost 100 years, and includes Offices and Entities like the Council of Economic Advisors…of which Howard Lutnick is not a part. 

Dept of Comm wasnt in the EOP of Obama, or Trump 1, or Biden, or now with Trump 2.

You hate Elon, which is fully your prerogative. It’s too bad you let your emotion overwhelm your capacity for logic. I said Elon’s motivation for dipping into politics is not financial.

Elon’s primary business of EVs, solar panels, and battery storage was 99% “liberal-coded”.  Do you think declaring support for the GOP in the most divisive race in America was a move to grow his financial position?

Ohhh but there was a line in a Dept of State spreadsheet earmarking $400M for some armored Cybertrucks. Ah ha! The purchase thats neither commenced nor confirmed, that’s worth about 5,000 Cybertrucks. Or in the context their 1,800,000 deliveries per year: 1 day of sales.

Complete void of any stake in Tesla, he would still be around the wealthiest person in the world. It’s definitely the money that’s steering his ship. 

Tim Waltz is prancing on stage about his state’s pension fund losing money, but it’s “not improper”. Furthermore, you “dont think he was acting in capacity as governor”??? The fuck you mean the sitting governor was acting as? People came to the politically-organized event to see Minnesota’s preeminent duck hunter? 

Would you concede Howard Lutnick made his comment about Tesla stock while “not acting in capacity” a cabinet member, but instead as a lifelong business executive of a financial services firm? (No you fucking wouldnt.)

You only spew hypocritical shit because you tricked yourself into believing it. 

Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

The Executive Office isn’t something you made up and get to define. The EO has been established for almost 100 years, and includes Offices and Entities like the Council of Economic Advisors…of which Howard Lutnick is not a part. 

Dept of Comm wasnt in the EOP of Obama, or Trump 1, or Biden, or now with Trump 2.

You hate Elon, which is fully your prerogative. It’s too bad you let your emotion overwhelm your capacity for logic. I said Elon’s motivation for dipping into politics is not financial.

Elon’s primary business of EVs, solar panels, and battery storage was 99% “liberal-coded”.  Do you think declaring support for the GOP in the most divisive race in America was a move to grow his financial position?

Ohhh but there was a line in a Dept of State spreadsheet earmarking $400M for some armored Cybertrucks. Ah ha! The purchase thats neither commenced nor confirmed, that’s worth about 5,000 Cybertrucks. Or in the context their 1,800,000 deliveries per year: 1 day of sales.

Complete void of any stake in Tesla, he would still be around the wealthiest person in the world. It’s definitely the money that’s steering his ship. 

Tim Waltz is prancing on stage about his state’s pension fund losing money, but it’s “not improper”. Furthermore, you “dont think he was acting in capacity as governor”??? The fuck you mean the sitting governor was acting as? People came to the politically-organized event to see Minnesota’s preeminent duck hunter? 

Would you concede Howard Lutnick made his comment about Tesla stock while “not acting in capacity” a cabinet member, but instead as a lifelong business executive of a financial services firm? (No you fucking wouldnt.)

You only spew hypocritical shit because you tricked yourself into believing it. 

What in god's name are you talking about? Nothing about me "hating Elon" has anything to do with this. The US Government shouldn't be asking the American public to buy the stock of a private entity, much less a private entity owned by an apparent current head of a government department. Again, if this was Soros and Biden, you'd be screaming your head off, and rightly so. I mean, fuck, go look at my posts in this thread on others. I've been much more in the defending Elon camp than in the hating (issues from this year notwithstanding). 

As to "Executive Office", you'll notice I didn't capitalize that in my original post because I wasn't making reference to the specific "Executive Office", but rather the general executive branch. As far as general principles go, I cannot imagine why you'd think this distinction matters here. 

Tim Walz (not Waltz) is allowed to criticize a private entity if he wishes. There isn't anything improper about that. Both state and federal government officials criticize private entities all the time (Trump does it on a daily basis). It may become improper if threatens freedom of speech or some other right, but that isn't this case. The case with begging the public to buy a private entity's stock is different. There is no public benefit to it, merely a private a one. Using government resources for the sole purpose of enriching a singular private entity (as opposed to the public generally) is absolutely improper. Doing so for the benefit of someone closely connect, if not part of, the current administration amplifies the problem. 

I suggest you actually look up the definition of "hypocritical" because one of us is being it, and it isn't me. 

 

Edited by Dahobbs

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



×
×
  • Create New...