Never should have gotten an exclusion in the first place. It's a shitty rule but he shouldn't have gotten special treatment
this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
310 points (98.1% liked)
politics
23188 readers
2814 users here now
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
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The problem is that shitty rule is often (not sure about NY specifically) added after the fact to stop Tesla.
The general rule was always if you ever used a dealership you have to continue using a dealership. (and Tesla never has so shouldn't have to)
Then when Tesla came around the auto ~~makers~~ dealers lobbied to change that to you must use a dealership regardless. In some cases Tesla lobbied/went to court against that and got exemptions, in some cases got it thrown out, and in some cases outright lost.
The rule of having to use one if you already use one makes sense. The dealerships put a lot of money into it and could be rugpulled otherwise.
But changing a law specifically to fuck with Tesla was more than just a shitty rule.
But I don't know if NY is one of these places that changed the rules to fuck them in the first place.
Absolutely disgusted with musk.
However, I also wish we could somehow break the dealer networks as well, original reason I was rooting for the waivers.
The entire dealership model is stupidly outdated. They add no value, and if they truly did, remove the law mandating it and let the market sort itself out.
Car salespeople at these dealerships are the prime example of leeches.
Unless you can fix your tesla yourself , you should not buy one..
Dealer franchises can suck my balls, but Elon can go fuck himself.
Imagine being such a dumb power-hungry Nazi you tank your entire EV company, the highest valued auto brand in history, bankrolling the guy/movement who promised to get rid of EVs. Seemingly very little "6D chess" comments about Musk because his actions are that indefensibly stupid.
To be fair, it was incredibly overvalued. Its value was driven by one of the most successful conmen of all time. I just can't figure out if Trump or Musk is the most successful conman of all time. One has the most wealth in the world, one has the most power.
What do you expect? What do men with power want? More power.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Agree with fucking the rat up, don’t agree with this method. The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s activities are totally unrelated.
I really, really want to cheer this on. But when I step back and look at the whole picture, I can’t justify it. If someone can break it down in a way that makes sense I am SUPER open to changing my mind because again, I want to cheer this on.
If it’s really about letting other ev companies in, then grant them licenses too or take some of Tesla’s when they expire/are up for renewal at least. But to just revoke them as retaliation for musk’s unrelated bullshit doesn’t sit right with me.
Here’s another angle: why don’t they say “after seeing the fraud committed with ev tax credits in Canada we have decided to reassess Tesla licenses to operate in New York.” At least give it real footing.
If someone can break it down in a way that makes sense
Politicians are phony assholes at best.
But to just revoke them as retaliation for musk’s unrelated bullshit doesn’t sit right with me.
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
“The Trump administration has revoked the right to do business from Fairphone, Costco, etc. due to their spreading of dangerous WOKE ideology.”
Again I want this to happen but the justification as it stands is without precedent and is flimsy as hell
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
Dude there are so many better ways to attack Musk than risking terrible optics/precedent to close five Tesla dealerships.
But why do you want to attack Musk though?
Are you mad because he cheats on his taxes or his wives? We should probably broadcast that our only problem is with his taxes. That would be a better way, right? Like, dont call him out morally, tolerate that and just look for a legal case?
Do you see the problem?
Because he’s a bigoted piece of shit dismantling our government and stealing info on US citizens to enrich himself as he needlessly persecutes marginalized groups with his rhetoric and actions.
Flimsy attempts to shut down a few dealerships that will have little to no impact on his life does nothing to solve the above.
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?
We could tolerate everything except intolerance itself.
You do not normalize Nazis.
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.
As OC stated, "The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s [Musk's] activities are totally unrelated."
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:
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.
A civilization is allowed to respond to this information.
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.
That is to say I'm no stranger to "voting with my wallet".
"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.
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.
There is nothing moral or ethical about car dependency. This is not retaliation or consequences or evena new law. It's the return of a subsidy for other car dealers. These dealers are complete garbage. Just as bad as Elon. Fuck cars.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
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".
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
She wants the company to relinquish its five licenses and instead distribute them to other EV manufacturers, such as Rivian, Scout Motors, and Lucid.
…
Fahy said that Musk is “part of an administration that is killing all the grant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure, killing wind energy, killing anything that might address climate change.”
“Why should we give them a monopoly?” she asked regarding Tesla, adding that this bill was her “making amends” with her previous support of the company.
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 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
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
? 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."
Yeah bending the law/weaponizing bureaucracy like this to attack him so indirectly just doesn't seem appropriate and even if we want to ignore that, it sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t want Texas or Alabama taking notes.
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.
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.
I guess I just don’t understand what makes these dealerships different from any other others. They’re being singled out because of who he is and what he is doing right now. I don’t think the counter argument really says a whole lot to be honest.
Ultimately we have to look at their reasoning and it doesn’t feel very sound. It just feels like “we are retaliating because of the owner’s other activities,” nothing related to Tesla. That’s a very dodgy approach that opens a very wide, troubling door
Like what do we mean by “due diligence”? They wouldn’t have granted Tesla a license if they knew musk was a bigoted asshole back then? Fat chance.
load more comments
(2 replies)
It's worth emphasizing that cars are a dead for humanity and a foundation for fascism. There's nothing to be gained by favoring different chuds. It's political theatre.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html
view more: next ›