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
So how come you think it wouldn't be a very good piece of public policy to be crystal clear and honest about that?
Like why can't the state say: "we are not subsidizing this business with taxpayer money any more, because of their ethics"?
You can make a legal case against Tesla for accounting or SEC violations or tax fraud...but that's not taking a moral stand.
Because that is not a legally protected reason like religious beliefs. He hasn't been convicted of a crime, he hasn't taken an explicitly anti-religious stance, etc.
Again, they should say "due to the growing concern of Tesla's alleged fraudulent behavior with EV tax incentives/government subsidies both domestically and abroad, we are reassessing the status of currently operating Tesla dealerships" (or something to that effect). That is related to Tesla. It's way more legitimate than a vague gesture to "he's a piece of shit." You can't refuse to let people do business because they're bigoted assholes. That's the sad reality.
You and I completely agree, it seems.
Love it when it happens! Been getting harassed by hexbear/lemmygrad fuckwits lately
I think you’re trapped by the Paradox of tolerance.
I know what that is and it’s not relevant. I’m not preaching tolerance. I’m talking strategy. I even provided what i believe to be a way better strategy using the same channels to get the same result.
How am I being tolerant of muskrat?
I disagree and think that it is. By explicitly stating that they are targeting Tesla within New York because of Elon Musk and his connection to the company there is a statement being made that they will no longer tolerate that behavior and the attempts to harm the country and the democracy by Elon Musk and that they will defend against his intolerance with whatever means they can.
When you've tried to use reason, when you've tried to work within the systems that are in place to deal with a bully and those systems have failed you and the bully is refusing to listen to reason then you reach a point where you just have to punch them in the nose.
You’re conflating ethics and legal issues. Ethically I say do whatever he’s got it coming. Legally it won’t stick if it’s flimsy. I want the same result, I disagree with the efficacy of the method and fear retaliation in kind. Weed legalization at the state level ignoring federal law created all kind of gaps for conservatives to get their shit through at the state level in flagrant defiance of federal law. We’ve seen this time and time again.
That is not tolerance of Musk and insisting I am tolerant of him won’t make it true. I am not.
No, I'm not. The article is about state lawmakers. Senators. The same people who gave Tesla a special exemption to sell directly to consumers rather than going through third party dealerships. If the bill passes and the Governor signs it then it becomes law. They gave Tesla a waiver, they can take it away.
I at no point insisted you were tolerant of Musk and if that was your takeaway then I'd suggest re-reading my comment or work on your reading comprehension. I stated that you seem to be stuck in the paradox of tolerance, it seems like you expect the state of New York to meet Musk, and more specifically Tesla, with tolerance to their intolerance.
Sorry but this just isn’t productive anymore, agree to disagree. Have a good one man
Capitulating to fascists usually isn’t productive.
I really don’t understand how you keep ignoring my desire to see the same exact result they’re going for here. It’s willful at this point. I can’t see any other explanation. Too invested in your mental image of me.
You feel the need to keep making statements like “my desire to see the same exact result they’re going for here” yet the above quotes are yours. Who are you trying to convince?
You try and accuse me of personal attacks then do the same I have no mental image of you, I’m only responding to the nonsense you’ve been putting out.
👍
We could tolerate everything except intolerance itself.
Yes, that's what the paradox of intolerance is all about.