> Like making everything so relative

That industries shift affiliation if it brings them money is not "relative", it's just something they show again and again, some more than others. I don't care about US politics right/left but as someone who worked in the oil industry I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money. Many industries do this, much of the left leaning tech sector collectively kissed the boot of the Trump administration, shoveled money his way, and clapped on order at his inauguration. It probably wasn't ideological but pragmatic.

> And using Musk is not example of this case because he is not part of oil industry.

And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money. The poster child of the traditionally left EV/green industry slinking away to the famously non-green right. How many examples do you need? Worldwide the oil industry doesn't show a particular preference to the right, it does without exception show preference to the side making them more money.

> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.

Musk has never changed affiliations.

You can look at his political contributions. Like most of the ultra-wealthy, he does donate to both political parties. But he has never donated more to the Democrats than the Republicans.

In fact, in the average year, for the last 16 years (I went back as far as I have lived in the US) he's donated, eleven times more to the Republican party.

Musk has been libertarian at best, not liberal. And even that is sketchy. It's fine for him as CEO to go on podcasts and smoke weed and have "the highest ability to process ketamine on the planet", but work for Tesla or any of his companies and you'd best piss clean, or you're out.

> I can guarantee you that the industry will shift its affiliation towards the side that makes it more money

Which in this case is just 'right-wing' side. I get that they would shift to other side if it fits but in reality there is no other.

> And yet he is, as the perfect example of changing affiliation for money.

He may be example of "of changing affiliation" for money - even if this is also arguable - but still not relevant to topic of that fossil industry goes hand in hand with right-wing agenda.

Why do you want to move attention from the relation between right-wing politics and fossil industry by creating hypothetical scenarios that are not happening and by moving the goalpost of the topic with examples that are tangential at best?

You are correct. The fossil fuel industry will fund anyone who will take their money and push their greedy agenda. The difference in the republicans are normally the only ones who will stoop that low to sell out future generations for power today. That’s why no one cares about your false equivalency.