Your causality is wrong. This adminstration has no interest in working with competent people. They're fired huge numbers of them, gone out of their way to make life hell for those left so they quit, and are moving faster than ever imagined possible to drive competent people in non-government jobs away from this country - by deporting them, taking away their visas, attacking them, and more.
I disagree. The first Trump administration showed that not only were some competent people interested in working in the Trump cabinet, plenty of other competent people were content to keep doing their non-political jobs well for the government, running things, fighting for normal people and what they right, pushing back against overreach.
The second Trump administration took aggressive measures against all competent people - selecting a horrifying cabinet with literally no one qualified for the role they fill and working as fast as possible to fire as many as possible, even through illegal means later rejected by the courts, and punishing any who remain. It's a one-direction causation.
This administration is a haven for charalatans and grifters. It's no surprise that they don't have competent people. The goals of competent people are diametrically opposed to what this government wants to do.
For example, most competent people I know didn't want a nuclear war to start yesterday. Lo and behold, the administration also did not start nuclear war yesterday.
While there are a lot of incompetent idiots in this admin, don't forget that a lot of them are grifters who are only trying to get rich/powerful while they can.
I don't like doing the Hitler comparison, but the similarities are definitely there. A lot of the Nazis thought Hitler was a "useful idiot" that they could use and then get rid of. Trump is very similar.
I would imagine this is true of many other dictators and authoritarians over time too: Putin, Kim Jong Un, etc. If you are looking for non-Hitler comparisons.
> The implications of the treatment go far beyond treating KJ, said Dr. Peter Marks, who was the Food and Drug Administration official overseeing gene-therapy regulation until he recently resigned over disagreements with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the secretary of health and human services.
The irony here is that Democrats, for more than a decade, did anything and everything, by bankrolling taxpayers money into incentives and subsidies, to protect Tesla, help it compete and even flourish and scale, in the auto market where margins are razor thin and true innovations are hard to come by, even less so from smaller players. Nobody, except Republicans, batted an eye because climate change, science and environment comes first supposedly.
Climate change, science, and the environment are indeed valid reasons (as was plainly stated at the time) for subsidies to electric cars (amongst hundreds of billions of dollars of other environmental subsidies Democrats passed). The CEO spending hundreds of millions of dollars to curry favor with the ruling party, which is almost certainly the reason this specific number was chosen, is not.
Tesla's success/threat pushed traditional automakers to actually build EVs at scale. It convinced consumers that EVs are viable and kickstarted charging infrastructure. The left accomplished its goal even if it probably would have preferred Elon not go all Kanye on us.
I don't know if I can actually believe that. EVs were already coming. Yeah the rollout was a bit slower than the demand for them in established companies, but not by much. People had already been driving hybrid vehicles for quite awhile, and some electric cars already existed even if most were lower mileage/smaller battery models.
To me it is like claiming without iphones we wouldn't have gotten smartphones or touchscreens until a decade later. Except PDAs and touch screens already existed, apple just got a few years jump start on a big brand model before many other companies did the math on how cheap mobile computing and touch screens were becoming.
I'm not convinced it's a good comparison. Even in the dumbphone days we had the Blackberry and NGage and JavaME and other attempts to be the next big thing. It just took a few years and certainly wasn't because of Apple.
With automakers it seemed like in the 20-teens they all shrugged and said, "looks like hybrids are the best we can do". Then Tesla started selling sedans and SUVs and exactly one legacy auto design cycle later we got the electric Mustang, Golf, 3-series, etc. I think they would have milked ICE as long as they could had no one come along with a successful ev.
Yeah we allowed a deranged billionaire to transform auto industry, even if it cost us democracy and threats of fascism and authoritarianism for the foreseeable future.
A lot of people, including me, realized even as early as circa 2018 that he was a nutcase. Imo the point of post hoc ergo should've been when he said zero Covid case by April (2020).
Sure but the authoritarianism outcome was not predestined by simply funding the technologies he invested in. Plenty of eccentric and/or drug-addled billionaires went on to live relatively harmless lives. He could have been a jar-pissing recluse or spent his days pinning the weasel in a Caribbean polycule dormitory or gone on wild John McAfee adventures.
The place we went wrong wasn't incentivizing Tesla, it was allowing the other guy to escape conviction.
The fact that Trump was democratically elected changes nothing, Hitler (and Putin) were too.
Threats of fascism and authoritarianism aren’t baseless fear mongering, it’s all already happening.
While fascism might be too strong of a word the amount of hate administration creating against particular group of people (immigrants, especially undocumented) is huge; just take a look at this wall https://www.borderreport.com/regions/washington-d-c/white-ho...
How you can consider following not to be signs of authoritarianism?:
– sending people into foreign prison without (criminal) due process
– attacking law firms which used to represent opposing parties to yours
– attacking universities representing views different from yours
– attacking media through FTC to exhibit control over their reporting
– attacking platform for donations for opposing party
– routinely abusing power by issuing lawless executive orders every day
– literally dismantling federal government and international position of the country
– turning the state into police state, with ICE being modern day gestapo
If you read constitution you know we’re land of the people and laws. President isn’t a king. President is a person elected for faithful execution of the laws, and it’s hard to underestimate how deep in the woods we’re towards authoritarianism. Calling it baseless fear mongering is nothing but being truly delusional.
> – sending people into foreign prison without (criminal) due process
They were in the country illegally. That's breaking a law. They received the due process that illegal aliens get.
> – turning the state into police state, with ICE being modern day gestapo
Not even remotely close. ICE targets illegal (criminal) aliens. Not to mention the deportation numbers are pathetically low.
> – literally dismantling federal government and international position of the country
How is he dismantling the federal government? Surely you don't mean doge which has been a pathetic failure.
> President is a person elected for faithful execution of the laws
The 2nd amendment has been infringed upon by previous administrations. How come that's not covered by this?
All the other stuff is bunch of nothing. Far better examples are under Biden against Trump, i.e criminally prosecuting your political opponent - but ofcourse there's plenty of excuses just like there are for everything in here.
> – attacking universities representing views different from yours
What views are those? I agree with you here, this part is messed up. Isn't it crazy how, having anti-certain country view, will get uni's federal funding shut off, or students that are in US legally deported? Those students didn't criticize US, but a certain foreign country. How crazy is that. Really shows you the influence those people have huh.
i think it’s more than irony. why would the government—irrespective of party—give him billions in refundable credits for over a decade? remember paypal was also an in-q-tel investment? “boring company” to connect DUMBs. starlink for the control grid. spacex to deploy it. tesla as the self-driving AI slam-dunk (windows update car is another control grid). the government has been heavily invested in elon long before donald trump got political. why? with the kind of budget the CIA has, you could make anyone seem as though they had “the midas touch.” name one of your kids “damien” and dress up like the antichrist. the devil has an army. the pentagon points south (down). we ponder our next pleasure as the innocent are slaughtered with our energies, with our tacit approval.
Thanks, I am indeed talking as a neutral observer. It's been almost 7 years since I realized how much of a nutcase he is. Some democrats only realized it 8 months ago.
This is some wild revisionist history. Democrats have been sounding off about Musk for years. He endorsed Trump way back in 2020. Nobody is learning anything new about him. On the contrary, everyone is dug in with how they feel about him because it's too late to do anything about it, so they might as well pretend everything is fine.
Cybernetic refers to systems of communication and automated control, which would describe the purpose of a corp in a broad sense, no?
The Dan Davies book “The Accountability Machine” [0] makes the link between corps and cybernetics through early business author/consultants like Stafford Beer [1].
In this context, "cybernetic" refers to the systems of control, communication, and feedback that govern corporations.
Corporations function as systems designed for efficiency and goal achievement, often prioritizing these over human qualities like empathy or creativity.
That's second amendment for nuclear weapons. Inside US people are generally nice to each other because you don't know who's carrying.
reply