ewsieg

I think with the UAW specifically, you have to remember that they have new leadership. Old leadership was more apt to work with the big three and was part of the regime that allowed two tiered pay, etc. You can argue their core wanted it at the time. We're roughly 15 years later and a larger contingent are working on that lower tier level. The older ones already got 'theirs' and seem to recognize what they gave up and how it affected their younger 'brothers and sisters'. As such, I think you have a much more vocal union leadership that is much more steadfast in showing support to Democrats, they are seeing democrats showing up to walk the line with them, and they are seeing Biden repeat their demands, record contracts to go with record profits. Trump absolutely needs to peel off voters in this group to win and he is smart for recognizing that, but I think he's going to be much harder pressed as you see the Dems fight for it as well.

Let's wait to see how he executes it. Trick plays are only good if they work. If he gives an answer like he did to Walker this past weekend, a union crowd on strike is going to turn quickly.

Only on the supercharged models.

Magnets too!

If I didn't know better I'd think you hit on her and she turned you down.

https://nypost.com/2023/09/12/cops-called-after-jennifer-granholm-staffer-uses-gas-powered-car-to-hold-ev-charging-spot-for-biden-energy-secretary/ To help promote EV's and ease of long drives with them, she used an advanced team to hold charges open for when they got there. Seriously no one could think of a PR nightmare holding up a charger could cause? smh.

My doc knows about my wife's issues, but said for me he has no concerns with me getting them together, that said I plan on separating them so I don't add concern to my wife. I'm at my Walgreen's once a week for her medication anyway, not like it's a big deal for me anyway.

If you have any auto-immune issues, I highly recommend you space out the flu and booster. My wife still isn't the same.

I think I would actually be excited about a Klobuchar/Buttigeig ticket. You get competance with Klobuchar and potential with Buttigeig. I think this Transportation gig exposed that he was still pretty green behind the ears, but in terms of a communicator, I don't think there are many better than him. In time, he should be the face of the party.

I absolutely believe that, I just have no idea what you believe. Still not sure if you folks are gaslighting me or what.

You do realize you are using evidence that he didn't violate the Logan act (work with a foreign government beyond legal limits) to claim he did violate the Logan act simply because you would have preferred the outcome, right? There is plenty to dislike about him and I wish there was a Washington think tank using him as a use case of what can the government do to ensure individuals don't have too much power, but I simply don't see it with this specific issue.

Thinking about something is not against the law, at least not yet. Show me an action he has made which shows he was conducting foreign policy? I'll wait.

I suspect you're just trolling me, but I truly want to understand the reasoning on why this particular issue can be viewed as a private citizen determining foreign policy. He is providing a service in Ukraine of which I have never heard any government response indicating that it's illegal for him to do so. In fact they, along with other countries we have aligned ourselves with, are actually paying Starlink to provide this service on behalf of Ukraine at this time. Ukraine asked for him to expand that service outside of the original scope, he provided his personal reasons, which frankly who cares about, he stated his company policy, which likely is predicated on legal regulations, and provided a legal reason why he wouldn't expand his service.

I found additional information which appears to pass the smell taste and I provided it. Everyone here has been posting information that Musk turned it off and no one has been able to provide any information to indicate he did that outside of tweets of people saying he did. As for the reasoning why he didn't turn it on, I provided what he said was his personal reason, clarification on an established policy that he enforced when requested by a foreign government to provide anyway, and what he said was the legal reason for doing so. Those don't have to align perfectly. In fact I provided another quote from him that stated that if the request came from the US, he would have turned it on. As of right now, I am not aware of any request by the US government for him to turn on Starlink in Crimea.

Isn't every US based company that provides goods or services in violation to the Logan Act by that definition? From major corporations like GM that chooses to sell their vehicles to other countries to small mom and pop shops that choose to service locally and not sell/service internationally?

While I agree that i'm sick of billionaires setting their own rules and there is a lot on Musk I don't like, I still don't understand what appears to be a narrative built on falsehoods being pushed here. You claim he needs to abide by the rules. Regardless of his personal reason on not turning on Starlink in Crimea, his position is that he would need the US Gov to authorize that. That does not seem unreasonable to me.

How was he conducting foreign policy? He agreed to provide them a service within their pre 2022 boundaries and he did it for free for awhile at that. To my understanding the service he is providing is not breaking US laws nor am I aware of the US demanding any regulation of that service. He has provided the service he stated he would provide, Ukraine just wanted more and per Musk, he believes providing that would have in fact been illegal. Maybe he is wrong, but it is not illegal to be wrong and/or error on the side of caution when it comes to the law. https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-joe-biden-us-government-responsible-for-starlink-debacle-2023-9#:~:text=Starlink is not allowed to,No such request came through."

Agreed, the war was already started, but it would have been a major escalation. Also, what's the obvious admission to breaking the logan act?

Just to note, Musk claims Starlink was never enabled in Crimea, not previously when he supposedly turned it off when he got word about an attack (which our own intelligence has privately complained they have been left in the dark too often by Ukraine) nor right now. What's the value in pushing this narrative? Additional note, the biographer has walked back this story as well. https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/elon-musk-sabotaged-ukraine-attack-russia-1234820180/

Not to mention less moving parts... many plusses with EV's. Oligarchs will encourage the realignment, once they feel they are in position to profit from it.

Ultimately the goal is regardless of your use case, there is an EV that can provide what you want. From a technology standpoint, it's pretty cool to see how far we've come in a short time. Unfortunately it just seems like politics has seeped into the market. If you're pro-electric, then you have to claim there are no fallbacks and you have to negate any criticism you see against it as petty issues that are being blown out of control. If you're anti electric, than you negate what the market can provide now and focus on long term concerns, like a power grid to handle the influx or cold/hot weather. I'm not going to pretend to know if your 70-90% number is accurate, and I would argue that even if that number is right, the fear of not having that long driving range, even if you rarely need it, will still hold people back. That said, I feel like our current technology can support a significant percentage of our driving population. If we can set expectations better, hopefully we avoid any sour taste with this transition.

We have some spare Nukes we could give them.

My buddy watched this guy open for the Rival Sons last night, turns out he's from the west side of the state. He said he sounded better in concert than any of the music he's found online so far.