politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Dispite my comment below yours, I also disagree with what NY is doing here. I think the most innovating thing Tesla ever did was normalizing direct-selling to customers. It's part of the reason why I (regrettably) defended the company/cars so long even if I knew Musk was a POS for years. Dealerships are horrible for consumers.
This reads like auto dealer lobbyists getting what they want being passed off as "progress".
They would transfer the licenses that were granted to them exclusively, not eliminate them.
Seems like the right thing to do anyway. Why should Tesla have all 5. They get enough government help as is, why give them the monopoly?
The obvious response would be that customers deserve to buy vehicles from the manufacturer without dealing with middleman stealership BS. Under your definition, American Eagle jeans has a "monopoly."
They only have 5 licenses to give out. Why hide them all the Tesla?
Sure, the 5 number is artificial limit created by the government. But if they only have 5, give 1 to each company.
The limitation is a handout to car assholes.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
The wrong part is making them exclusive to Tesla but you don’t right a wrong by committing another wrong: this is not valid ground to revoke a business license
Fix the exclusive part. Every dealership is limited to five locations: Tesla, Rivian, Jones Honda, etc. and yes, a manufacturer that controls a market can not compete against a dealership in that market. Fair. Consistent.
Then sue and try musk for his horrible actions. The rule of law should be impartial: if you don’t want to support his companies, don’t. If you find like minded people, great. Your actions are based on your morals, but law should be objective
? Forcing Tesla to sell through dealers instead of direct-to-customer would eliminate the licenses. I'm confused about what you think "transferring the licenses [to dealers]" means, if not "Tesla can no longer sell direct."
Yes, this isn't a punshment for Musk as much as a revival of a subsidy for car assholes.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
While I totally see where you're coming from, let me try and steelman the counterargument a bit:
There have been signs that Elon was a shit person for a very long time. Even some ten years ago when I personally thought "well he's kinda doing cool stuff in space" I had people telling me: "look at the way he treats workers".
If you did your due diligence, you should know the kind of person you're working for. So either these companies were negligent in their responsibilities, or they knew what they were signing up for and went ahead anyways.
The people who can afford to start a car dealership aren't exactly the ones struggling to know where their next meal is coming from, or how to pay rent. These are well off people that were carless or took a gamble, and it didn't pay out, and they deserve the hardship for their negligence or poor conduct.
I don't think it was ever a real surprise that he was a asshole and a very hard to work for, at least it wasn't to me. You're right that if you looked at all it was there and not really hidden.
But this is way beyond that.
Edit: oh and he's always been vindictive and petty as well.
But the reason Tesla is different is that they don't work that way. For other car companies a rich family buys a franchise license and sets up "Jones Honda", Tesla isn't like that. Tesla owns the dealership and that makes their dwaler license different. With "Jones Honda" if they lose their dealership license, the Jones are SOL and Honda is just fine. With Tesla, they're all essentially "Musk Tesla" dealerships so only Tesla loses out.
It should.
Rules and laws come from our values. If a company isn't moral or ethical, retaliation and consequences are exactly what needs to happen. And we should create new rules and laws to make sure they are forced out.
You do not normalize Nazis.
By publicly stating that this is revenge, they've opened themselves to all different kinds of legal pushback.
If Shitler isn't angry and thinking of suing you for what you did to him, you're openly doing things wrong. They precisely should state that it's revenge so that he knows he can never prevail no matter if he wins in court. Like, the door must be closed for all time. It must be a clearly sent message that it is a personal sanction.
Revenge only plays their game, further devalues the rule of law and fair markets.
Personally I like the compromise that any manufacturer without dealerships shouldn’t require them. Dealerships are some of the scammiest businesses we have but it’s unfair to allow a manufacturer to compete with a dealer when that manufacturer controls the market. But if there are no dealers why should one be required? Good riddance: they’re not a social good
Reverse cause and effect. Wake up. They are already dismantling DEI and citizenship and due process and the courts and on and on. Now it's your move in response.
They have gotten this far precisely because of the lack of spine in their opponents. They are absolutely leveraging tolerance and a rules based ordered retreat from people who don't believe what they believe.
If you aren't a bigot, racist or Nazi, they expect passivism, banging on powerless law books and some nasty bumper stickers as a response.
There is no "spine" in subsidizing car dealers. It's just another handout to MAGA.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
Take a look in the mirror - that's literally what you're doing here whether you realize it or not; you're advocating for their methods of arbitrary punishment but giving it a pass because it's your side doing it.
As OC stated, "The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s [Musk's] activities are totally unrelated."
Also, like OC said, I agree with the sentiment but not with the method being used here.
Yes, but see, I disagree. Musk's activities are related. Sorry, but that's a dumb opinion, I just can't even see how anyone can believe that.
But trying to slide that in as an assumed proposition is very important to your argument, because otherwise you are allowing an open Nazi to run a large business unchecked.
I defend Musk's God given right to be a Nazi, but I don't think there shouldn't be a consequence for it. A civilization is allowed to respond to this information.
No, these two things are not morally equivalent. This is well studied, start here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance
Musk has done so many illegal and treasonous actions that we should be going after. Convict him, convict his minions, convict his pet judges and politicians, convict him again, make mango Mussolini go on record as pardoning him, over and over.
There is no reason to also violate the rule of law to go after him out of spite, no reason to abuse law for personal revenge
He had 20+ open federal level investigations at the time of the national elections, and basically I believe his entry into national politics was most likely motivated as an attempt to circumvent the consequences. Getting embedded into government was his "get out of jail" card.
It's left to the individual states to push him out now. Just as a practical matter, the federal level is too corrupt to hold his companies to account.
The paradox of tolerance doesn't apply here, and you're presenting it out of context. No one is saying we should tolerate Musk or his actions.
Yes, it is. We agree there. Where we disagree is how society responds. Refuse to do new business? Refuse to renew contracts/agreements? Sure. That's fine. No argument from me, and I do the same thing. Hell, I still won't fill up from BP because of how they tried to shirk responsibility for lubricating the Gulf of Mexico almost 20 years ago. That is to say I'm no stranger to "voting with my wallet" or "punishing" companies by refusing to do business with them.
But to arbitrarily revoke agreements with local businesses or legislate against one particular individual when their actions are not directly related to the legislation being drafted is not how a healthy society should handle things. "But we're clearly not a healthy society" is the response I always get when pointing out hypocritical takes. Well, society's not going to get any better if both sides are down in the mud.
What you're basically saying with your argument is "A little fascism is okay when it's my side doing it" and I say that is not okay.
You are DEEPLY confused.
Fascism is literally the system of government where businesses and the state merge. So Tesla has received over $20B in direct government subsidies and the CEO is part of the federal government.
There is no "free marketplace", not any more.
Voting with your wallet, like fascism is literally that. Literally. This is the mechanism.
This is all going to have to change to get out of this deal. People seem to actually not even know what fascism even looks like.
Just wow. You are parroting the exact ideology. This is the actual mechanism they use.
Right now the state of NY is trying to revoke the special deal they gave Tesla's dealers to extricate themselves (the governnent) from propping up his scam business. The state subsidizes his operation and they are merely trying to end that. That's how it looks when you stop fascists -- you cut ties between the businesses and the government.
Politicians are phony assholes at best.
Actually, unlike every other auto manufacturer in the world Tesla dealerships aren't franchised businesses. They're all privately owned by Musk. So, hurting the dealership directly effects his personal assets. Tesla own everyone of the buildings and the businesses themselves. Unlike, say Honda, Toyota and everyone else who just license their company name to the dealerships that are independently owned/operated.