| ▲ | flapadoodle 14 hours ago |
| But...you're not, this is entirely normal politics now. DeSantis has been waging open war on Disney for years, Cruz has gone after everyone from Blackrock to Target for political reasons. The incoming administration has made no secret it intends to use any and every lever to hurt any opposition. At some point you need to stop pretending to be surprised by entirely quotidien events and accept this is in fact precisely who you are. |
|
| ▲ | cscurmudgeon 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| There will also be exceptions for any general principle. Remember, Americans still allow TikTok despite mainland China banning almost every major US social network. Citing a few events and calling them "quotidien" doesn't make it so. E.g, Twitter/X is still flourishing in the US while regulators in the EU frequently threaten it. |
| |
| ▲ | stann 13 hours ago | parent [-] | | Correction: China has never banned any US social network. That said social network decided not to comply with local laws is their decision. Even Tiktok does not work in China |
|
|
| ▲ | dlachausse 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, those examples you gave are also disgusting, but do not make politically motivated actions against Elon Musk right. |
| |
| ▲ | flapadoodle 14 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Is it right? That's endlessly debatable. But is it unusual, unexpected or 'not who we are'? No, that is clear and if anything this is at the mild end of recent weaponisation of political office against businesses. | |
| ▲ | chrsig 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | no, but they do make them normal. | |
| ▲ | yyuugg 12 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You've moved the goal post. You said "we're better than this". You got several instances where, clearly, we are not. Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this". And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff. | |
| ▲ | 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
| ▲ | ANewFormation 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| In the examples you're listing, those actions were overwhelmingly supported by Floridians and Texans respectively, and worked to increase the overall support of those politicians. Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing. |
| |
| ▲ | igetspam 7 hours ago | parent [-] | | So you’re asking if the majority of Californians would gladly see Musk be excluded from these benefits? Seems like the recent election results would be a pretty good indicator of how that would go. And assuming that they would, then you’re okay with it, right? Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and what the people want are rarely aligned. The Texas government knows this. The people know this (ex Texan here). Its cleverly and not secretly crafted to make it nearly impossible for the state to go blue. | | |
| ▲ | ANewFormation 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Musk makes $0 directly from these benefits. He only gains from those who buy a Tesla with the perk, but wouldn't otherwise, and that number is going to be quite small. The primary beneficiaries, by far, are normal citizens of California. And I really doubt they're thrilled about paying more because of petty political games. Ted Cruz is a Senator - gerrymandering plays 0 role in his victory, which was far more dominant in 2024 than 2018. |
|
|
