Over the past day he's been reposting posts from JD Vance and Trump in support of their actions in LA.
He most likely is. Elon is like a woman - very emotional and impulsive, with no speech filter. Ruled by hormone surges and periods of irrational behavior. Like most women today, they don't have a fear of consequences as men have become beta and too scared to call them out - Elon's immense wealth gives him the privilege. The drugs he is on probably wore off, and he had a WTF moment about what he'd done, so he is trying to save his business empire. Much like a woman who gets drunk, has sex with some stranger at a party, wakes up the next day, goes WTF and accuses someone at the party of rape.
Hurt people hurt people. So you gotta blame Ashley St. Clair for all this. She goes unhinged and puts Elon on blast over baby momma issues a few weeks ago. So somehow that gets added to the list of acceptable reactions to not getting your way, and here we are.
Hurt people hurt people. So you gotta blame Ashley St. Clair for all this. She goes unhinged and puts Elon on blast over baby momma issues a few weeks ago. So somehow that gets added to the list of acceptable reactions to not getting your way, and here we are.
It's his own fault.
He's gotten so arrogant because of his success, wealth, and power that he thinks he can stick it in wherever he wants, whenever he wants with no consequences. He can pay off everyone he bangs and not even feel it. But eventually it will F with one's mind.
Ashley St Claire without makeup looks like one of those house keeping ladies at DoubleTree. But when she has her makeup on, she looks pretty hot. Women!
It's not that. It's frustration from the competition in the White House between populist luddite protectionists (Bannon style "conservatives" that are a whisper away from being communists) vs. open market technologists and the luddites are winning.
Over the past day he's been reposting posts from JD Vance and Trump in support of their actions in LA.
He most likely is. Elon is like a woman - very emotional and impulsive, with no speech filter. Ruled by hormone surges and periods of irrational behavior. Like women today, they don't have any thing holding them back as society is too scared to call them out - Elon's immense wealth gives him the privilege. The drugs he is on probably wore off, and he had a WTF moment about what he'd done, so he is trying to save his business empire.
This is actually a pretty accurate description of him
Elon calls the POTUS a pedo and now deletes the tweet.... like a dog.
Is this how he runs his companies? I am amazed he is that successful considering how impulsive he is and does things without thinking. Or maybe he has become that way after success? People change.
One of the most impresses things (to me) about Elon is how quickly he is willing to give up on bad ideas or reverse course when he gets new information. This is pretty obvious with all the harebrained ideas SpaceX has abandoned. I was in Hawthorne during a launch and Elon sat in the seat next to me and talked with his lead engineer for 2 hours about trying to recover their fairings. I think that may have been their last attempt with the catcher's mitt atop one of their ships.
Quick to give up on bad ideas? Have you not been following the cyber truck disaster?
Elon calls the POTUS a pedo and now deletes the tweet.... like a dog.
Is this how he runs his companies? I am amazed he is that successful considering how impulsive he is and does things without thinking. Or maybe he has become that way after success? People change.
One of the most impresses things (to me) about Elon is how quickly he is willing to give up on bad ideas or reverse course when he gets new information. This is pretty obvious with all the harebrained ideas SpaceX has abandoned. I was in Hawthorne during a launch and Elon sat in the seat next to me and talked with his lead engineer for 2 hours about trying to recover their fairings. I think that may have been their last attempt with the catcher's mitt atop one of their ships.
Quick to give up on bad ideas? Have you not been following the cyber truck disaster?
I didn't know their truck was a disaster. Polarizing, sure, but I believe it's basically tied with the F150 Lightning for sales.
It's not that. It's frustration from the competition in the White House between populist luddite protectionists (Bannon style "conservatives" that are a whisper away from being communists) vs. open market technologists and the luddites are winning.
What is a "populist Luddite protectionist"? I know the individual terms but I don't think they go together.
And how does one define "open market technologist"?
Elon calls the POTUS a pedo and now deletes the tweet.... like a dog.
Is this how he runs his companies? I am amazed he is that successful considering how impulsive he is and does things without thinking. Or maybe he has become that way after success? People change.
One of the most impresses things (to me) about Elon is how quickly he is willing to give up on bad ideas or reverse course when he gets new information. This is pretty obvious with all the harebrained ideas SpaceX has abandoned. I was in Hawthorne during a launch and Elon sat in the seat next to me and talked with his lead engineer for 2 hours about trying to recover their fairings. I think that may have been their last attempt with the catcher's mitt atop one of their ships.
Quick to give up on bad ideas? Have you not been following the cyber truck disaster?
I didn't know their truck was a disaster. Polarizing, sure, but I believe it's basically tied with the F150 Lightning for sales.
The thing is falling apart going down the road. Its had the frame casting fall apart. They're bricking themselves sitting still.
Its gotten bad enough there have been "founders edition" trucks sold with that buffed off. They're sitting on lots not selling by the droves.
Yeah, the cyber truck has been an electrical and mechanical disaster that has the offroad/actual truck capacity of a 7000 prius...
That label describes Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon. They are people that claim to be protecting the interests of the U.S. middle class (populist) by instituting tariffs, not only eliminating illegal immigration, but eliminating immigration in total (protectionism), advocating or outright calling for the ban of development of AI and other technologies that threaten jobs (luddite).
If you asked these people "Should self driving cars be developed?" They would say no, because millions of Americans make their living driving cars and it would put them out of a job. Not because they'd be unsafe, not because they don't believe its possible, not because it would cost more money, but because it threatens a workers wages.
30 years ago they would be called liberals.
Open market technologist would say tariffs are bad, regulation should be reduced, technology should be allowed to be developed, and subsidies should equitably be eliminated.
Populist simply means "people". It's not middle class, it's the broad, collective will of the people.
I have not heard once a wide party platform that calls for no immigration. That is patently anti-American. It's certainly not the view of MAGA or Trump. Legal immigration is what is desired.
The self-driving car nonsense has to be some Blue Anon talking point. Recall it was Biden that intervened on automating the ports. Are Dems also luddites?
Itnusually refers to "common people" or "the common man" not the collective will of the people. Further, it's usually in the context of some sort of "us vs them" arrangement.
Itnusually refers to "common people" or "the common man" not the collective will of the people. Further, it's usually in the context of some sort of "us vs them" arrangement.
Yes, the common man vs the ruling elitist. That is wholly inconsistent with "middle class".
John Conlee songs aside, the common man drives more than a common van and some of their dogs have pedigrees.
The term continues to be *******ized in order to serve as an "attack" against the will of the people.
I've never said populism is the middle class. It could be a economic movement. It could be a social movement.
Populism has a shifting definition, but it's definitely not the will of the people as you keep referring to it And again, then usa was definitely not set up as a populist nation
The will of the people isnt the same thing as populism though
It's the will of the common people vs a perceived ruling, elitist class.
So… we can split hairs. But populism =/= middle class.
And it's sort of a basic principle of America. "We the people" and such.
The founders would never support taking from one group of taxpayers to support another group's individual needs and the taker's group are the ones largely voting for that theft to happen. People would be getting shot over that bs in the late 1700s America.
That is a basic principle of our founding, rugged individualism. Not many state socialism.
The will of the people isnt the same thing as populism though
It's the will of the common people vs a perceived ruling, elitist class.
So… we can split hairs. But populism =/= middle class.
And it's sort of a basic principle of America. "We the people" and such.
The founders would never support taking from one group of taxpayers to support another group's individual needs and the taker's group are the ones largely voting for that theft to happen. People would be getting shot over that bs in the late 1700s America.
That is a basic principle of our founding, rugged individualism. Not many state socialism.
Rugged individualism… as in share croppers and slavery? Community is actually a huge part of the greatness of America. State socialism is not.
If you think the Founding Fathers were "every man for himself", then you may have missed a couple of history classes.
Fun fact, on 40-45% of the colonists supported the American Revolution. 15%-20% wanted to remain loyal to the Crown. the remaining 45% to 35% fell somewhere in "middle". Thus, the American Revolution was indeed a populist movement. The collective common ousting the ruling elitist class.
I've never said populism is the middle class. It could be a economic movement. It could be a social movement.
Populism has a shifting definition, but it's definitely not the will of the people as you keep referring to it And again, then usa was definitely not set up as a populist nation
And it's not splitting hairs.
Of course populism has a shifting definition! That is sort of the whole concept.
The will of the people changes over time. Our Country has a Constitution that allows for it, welcomes it.
The will of the people isnt the same thing as populism though
It's the will of the common people vs a perceived ruling, elitist class.
So… we can split hairs. But populism =/= middle class.
And it's sort of a basic principle of America. "We the people" and such.
The founders would never support taking from one group of taxpayers to support another group's individual needs and the taker's group are the ones largely voting for that theft to happen. People would be getting shot over that bs in the late 1700s America.
That is a basic principle of our founding, rugged individualism. Not many state socialism.
Rugged individualism… as in share croppers and slavery? Community is actually a huge part of the greatness of America. State socialism is not.
If you think the Founding Fathers were "every man for himself", then you may have missed a couple of history classes.
Fun fact, on 40-45% of the colonists supported the American Revolution. 15%-20% wanted to remain loyal to the Crown. the remaining 45% to 35% fell somewhere in "middle". Thus, the American Revolution was indeed a populist movement. The collective common ousting the ruling elitist class.
They in no way intended a collectivist form of central government. When did fed government individual entitlements for basic needs start to pop up?
The founders were so populist that they heavily restricted who could vote.
Populist simply means "people". It's not middle class, it's the broad, collective will of the people.
I have not heard once a wide party platform that calls for no immigration. That is patently anti-American. It's certainly not the view of MAGA or Trump. Legal immigration is what is desired.
The self-driving car nonsense has to be some Blue Anon talking point. Recall it was Biden that intervened on automating the ports. Are Dems also luddites?
I'm not going to get into an argument over common man or middle class. Middle class in America is a self identification for people from anyone in the 15th percentile all the way up to the 95th percentile, because they've all got someone poorer, and all have someone substantially richer. Leftist populism is inclusive of all individuals that aren't "elite," current right wing populism excludes the poor welfare recipients and the elites.
Yes, some Democrats are luddites too.
What I'm saying to you is there is a wing of the MAGA movement that would be considered a liberals 30 years ago, because they are anti-corporatists, anti-technology, anti-free trade, anti-immigration. Tucker Carlson, Steve Bannon are of that ilk.
It's not the party platform, but they do have influence over the administration. When Trump goes on the All-In Podcast and says he'd staple a green card to the diploma of any graduate of an American university, and then within 24 hours walks that statement back, that's the Tucker/Bannon wing of the MAGA movement having influence.
Over the weekend you have people like Walsh, Kirk, Posobiec calling for the cessation of all immigration from the "third world" whether legal or illegal. In a conversation with Cuomo Tucker said that he is for the cessation of all immigration from everywhere for 30 years, because we've had such high levels of immigration into the country that we don't have social cohesion.
No more third world:
Ban all third world immigration. Legal or illegal. There should be a moratorium on all immigration from the third world. We've reached our capacity. We cannot be the world's soup kitchen anymore.
Net-zero immigration, with no more third world. i.e. if we have outflows then we'll accept western democracy immigrants, but no more than we lose:
It's time to ban third world immigration, legal or illegal. We've reached our limit and we have a huge cultural, educational, housing, financial, and essential services problem to fix now because of it. We need a net-zero immigration moratorium with a ban on all third worlders. https://t.co/izQCytb7G5
It's time to ban third world immigration, legal or illegal. We've reached our limit and we have a huge cultural, educational, housing, financial, and essential services problem to fix now because of it. We need a net-zero immigration moratorium with a ban on all third worlders https://t.co/iVqBt1eorm
No. No. That's definitely not what populism is. Our country was set up in a very non populist way. The revolution shared some populist language and ideals, but I wouldn't call it a populist revolution. Not like the French revolution was.
And we definitely didn't set up a populist govt afterwards.
You seem to be confusing rule/will of the majority and populist which are not the same thing
Okay, let me be accurate. You are making up a definition of populists / populism that simply does not exist.
It quite literally is a movement to reflect the will of the people. Oft it is a movement without a leader until the populists fall upon a leader that already represents the movement, or a leader takes advantage of a movement and adjusts to fit it. Obama was more of the former… he was more of leader who rose with the movement.
Trump took advantage of a very frustrated Republican Party who had been curbstomped to the point of permanent irrelevance. Following Obama in 2012, the Dems were quite content knowing their ballot casting / recording machine could overcome any candidate not of their choosing. Trumps disruption will likely be the impetus of a 50-year cycle of geopolitics and I say that not in admiration as we will not know if this change was great or if it led to total world chaos.
We started a representative govt. And one specifically that protects from the "will of the people."
See: the senate, the electoral college, the Supreme Court, the separation of powers and so forth
Yes, we created a democratic system so the people could have a voice. We specifically did not give said people the power to rule through will and that idea is something the framers would probably laugh at
We created that government to represent those that had skin in the game. Not everyone.
For sure. It'd be more accurate to say the American revolution was American elites rebelling against British elites. And then the country was set up where the voices to be heard were only of a certain class or above.
