That's incredibly petty and I like it. Half of America has only contempt for anyone who tries to play nice, get played, and cries that it's not fair. If you want to win, you have to play to win. If you want people to stop listening to Elon Musk, you have to make him a loser.

It's time Democrats took the lesson.

▲

someguydave 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Can you think what would happen if your enemies applied this logic to you and your friends?

▲

yongjik 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

You mean, like the current status of America?

▲

okdood64 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Where have you been the last 8 years? This is exactly what "your enemies" (in your context) have been doing.

▲

borski 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, and it’s happened twice in eight years.

▲

griomnib 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

▲

adastra22 7 months ago | parent [-]

What does that have to do with anything?

▲

yyuugg 7 months ago | parent [-]

Less than one percent of Americans are trans, yet republicans have put forth hundreds of bills to make their lives difficult.

The parent is suggesting that the other side does already do the "imagine if..." thing.

▲

ziiiio 7 months ago | parent [-]

Fifty percent of Americans are female, and most of these bills you refer to are intended to help them by preventing male incursion.

Yes, this might make it more difficult for that minority of males who demand to use female spaces. That's the whole point.

▲

griomnib 7 months ago | parent | next [-]

Please elucidate me on your opinions about women’s rights then:

Reproductive rights?

Paid maternity leave?

Equal pay?

Equal civil rights?

Acknowledging domestic labor as vital to the economy and supporting it?

It seems to me that people who get hot and bothered about “protecting” women’s restrooms don’t actually care about women, they just don’t like queer people.

	▲	ziiiio 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		Why do you believe that? For your information, I support reproductive rights including the right to abortion and I believe that paid maternity leave that is generous both in amount paid and length of time before and after birth is much-needed policy. Equal pay for the same work and equal civil rights are of course essential, and domestic labour should be valued highly rather than taken for granted like so much contribution of women is. I also support equal rights for same-sex couples, including the right to get married. So maybe reconsider your assumptions? Thanks.

▲

yyuugg 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Even if you believe this, it's still nonsense.

Let's say you believe that trans women are men. And you believe you need to protect cis women. The number of trans women is so vanishingly small, that you've spent a huge amount of energy to prevent the 0.5% case. Legislating always has an opportunity cost, putting forward a bill means not putting forward other bills.

Women suffer domestic violence and sexual violence. 33% of women in the US report experiencing domestic violence. Protect women from that!

Because there are so many ways women suffer in this country, it's very difficult to take on good faith that anyone is protecting them by legislating against trans women. You could choose to solve any problem that affects women orders of magnitude more, but those problems see orders of magnitude fewer bills, if any at all.

No, the data shows this isn't about protecting women, it's about hurting trans people.

▲

ziiiio 7 months ago | parent [-]

By this same logic, do you believe that no laws should be or should have been introduced that enable these males to access women's spaces and services? As there are only a vanishingly small number of such males, so spending a huge amount of legislative energy to give them what they want is a waste of time which could have been used for more worthy laws, like ones to prevent domestic violence.

Your argument works both ways.

	▲	yyuugg 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		[dead]

▲

senectus1 7 months ago | parent | prev | next [-]

not sure its petty as such.

They're deliberately trying to bolster smaller industry starters... the market in in danger of being a monopoly split between 1 or 2 US brands and the flood Chinese brands...

Tesla is in no danger from this piece of legislation.

▲

AtlasBarfed 7 months ago | parent | prev [-]

Nah, you just have to double-down on what Musk himself has started: Complete the poisoning of the Tesla brand.

Musk committed CEO malpractice. Utter malpractice. One of the cornerstone pillars of Tesla is environmentalist progressivism. There is no way any democrat or environmentalist or liberal can look at this election and stomach buying a Tesla in the future.

At LEAST 50% of Tesla's existing customer base is identified democrats. Every time Trump speaks in the next four years, identified democrats will viscerally feel that, and remember Musk, and blame Tesla.

A car company's MOST IMPORTANT customers are recurring customers. Brand loyalty is paramount to a car brand. Tesla does not have enough right wing converts, especially since they are generally in rural areas underserved or not served by charging infrastructure, to make up for the customer loss.

IMO Musk's stewardship of Tesla has shown huge amounts of failed opportunities:

Primarily, is that after 17 years, Tesla basically sells two cars: a crossover and a sedan, with two sizes. Medium sized and slightly bigger. No delivery trucks, minivans, real pickups, city cars, kei cars, station wagons, sports cars, convertibles, large SUVs, large pickups/commercial vehicle platforms. No heavy machinery, heavy equipment.

To that end, Tesla likely had ample opportunity to push its battery tech, drivetrains, and expertise into far more markets and segments by simply acquiring or partnering with a struggling ICE company (pick any one of a half-dozen that Geely or China have acquired in the last decade).

Tesla could have pushed for advanced/capable PHEVs of high quality (think the Chevy Volt but better) with that cross-partnership and achieved electrification and profits and education of mass market buyers into EV advantages much more quickly and at scale

Tesla could have used the acquired company for downmarket branding and cheaper EVs. It could allow the use of conventional OEM design to more rapidly bring vehicle types to market.

Tesla has not scaled production sufficiently in the last couple years in my opinion. A lot of that is lack of diversification of models, an inability/resistance to use OEM suppliers, and no longer being interested in "gigafactory" construction with the same aggression.

Home solar and home storage is basically a joke and forgotten in Tesla, again, a waste of their once-great brand.

Repairability, quality, customer service, parts availability is pathetically bad, again because of resistance to OEM usage.

Finally, Tesla is likely the least favorite company of the three major ones he heads. He is AWOL from leadership essentially, and it shows.

	▲	ivewonyoung 7 months ago \| parent [-]
		All that and you didn't mention how the political bent started. Musk voted for Biden in Nov 2020 after all. Biden had an official govt EV summit in 2021 in his first year where Tesla wasn't invited, and he praised GM's CEO as the pioneer and leader of EVs when it produced 25 EVs that quarter and Tesla produced ~200K. A ridiculous thing to do stand there and just lie. Why? Because the auto union that heavily donates to Dem campaigns didn't want Tesla there. It shows Dems don't care about the environment as much as you think if they just decide to throw a company that was doing a lot for the environment under the bus for purely political reasons, including almost excluding Tesla from the federal EV credits to help the unions. Musk got the message.