Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Elon & Twitter

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Status
Not open for further replies.
It's too simplistic just to shout "it's a war zone" or "fake news".

When They Say Chicago Is A War Zone, We Know What They Really Mean

Chicago is merely the latest city to be the poster child for urban violence, even though New Orleans, Philadelphia, Richmond, Atlanta, Baltimore, and St. Louis have higher murder rates. Painting Chicago into a corner is a dangerous exercise that evades talking about sound gun policy or improving urban centers. It does nothing to fix our gun problem, or help understand why it exists in the first place.

It’s no coincidence that singling out Chicago became so widespread during Barack Obama’s presidency. The right jumped at a chance to highlight gang-style violence in his hometown, with the same barely concealed racial animus that came with suggestions that he wasn’t a real American citizen, or that he was seeking to undermine America itself.

“It’s so tragic the way that the Trump Administration is using Chicago as a prop in the racial politics of America,” said Harold Pollack, a professor and codirector of the University of Chicago Crime Lab.
....

There's a misperception that the city is even more violent than it actually is, and as a result, we are having the wrong conversations about solutions. The communities that suffer the most need resources and support — we cannot simply police our way out of gun violence. Even though Chicago and Illinois have gun laws many regard as tough, it’s trivially easy to buy guns in nearby states and drive them into the city, meaning illegal weapons are easy to obtain.

Instead of understanding these problems and thinking about how to solve them, people panic, and declare the city a war zone. That’s the wrong metaphor — and it's wrong in the same way as the similarly racialized and equally disastrous war on drugs. That war also fueled violence, as draconian laws and discriminatory enforcement led to record levels of mass incarceration. Men emerged from prison more troubled, and more likely to find trouble, than when they entered.
 
And yet that SAME special counsel concluded that there was no collusion with Russia:
Sorry to come back to this so late, but I'm sure if you think of it, you'll recall that at the time Mueller hastily and publicly reported his conclusions before the (redacted) final report became public.

The bottom line was a political and controversial decision to basically ignore the facts. To wit:

Investigators “found multiple acts by the President that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian-interference and obstruction investigations.” But, the report said, “ecause we determined not to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment, we did not draw ultimate conclusions about the President’s conduct.”

Factoring into the decision to not weigh in on prosecution, according to the report (and as we’ve written before), was an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel that found that a sitting president cannot be indicted.



Getting back to to the original question, the Mueller Report by no means exonerated Trump and his campaign of colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice. At best, it possibly failed to adequately prove conspiracy (what was redacted?), which is a different thing. And they willfully chose not to pursue a criminal charge.

No reasonable person would dismiss the entire episode as fake.
 
There are a LOT of things I think Trump was stupid about. And I think he was GUILTY of obstruction when he was being investigated (and I'm fine with that impeachment).

But he was INNOCENT of collusion / treason with Russia.
1st Collusion isnt a crime. The crime is conspiracy. Treason is far more specific.

He obstructed the DOJ/Mueller so that they wouldnt find evidence of his innocence. Yeah that sounds logical.

He was guilty (not criminally) of having no issues with working directly or indirectly with Russia to win the election.
 
Sorry to come back to this so late, but I'm sure if you think of it, you'll recall that at the time Mueller hastily and publicly reported his conclusions before the (redacted) final report became public.

The bottom line was a political and controversial decision to basically ignore the facts. To wit:




Getting back to to the original question, the Mueller Report by no means exonerated Trump and his campaign of colluding with the Russians and obstructing justice. At best, it possibly failed to adequately prove conspiracy (what was redacted?), which is a different thing. And they willfully chose not to pursue a criminal charge.

No reasonable person would dismiss the entire episode as fake.

And no reasonable person would convict based upon that, as well.
 
I think people are leaving a lot of city/blue states more due to cost of housing than all the media reports on crime. Are any people here really moving to TX, FL when their homes in CA under prop 13 has tripled and they are paying a 2% mortgage and low property taxes forever? Those Walmarts closed because they never made $$ ever. It's a business decision and articles said Walmart coming in killed the local businesses so Walmart (I don't think) was even leaving because of the crime. It was just a bad business move to place a big box store in dense cities where people need cars to back up their large hauls.

It's more the "poor" renters getting priced out with high rents, no homes, still very low supply, high mortgage rates now, possibly poor job prospects or high minimum wages in CA that was never meant to buy a home, etc...

We can all find news articles/statistics to support our cases, but I don't think that many home owners are leaving CA just yet, even with all the crappy crime that's reported, but I've read there are more gun killings in red states per capita vs. blue states.

I think we're all biased from everything I still see posted here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Norbert
Ha ha ha.. I wasn't born yesterday.

Take a look at the articles between Lora Kolodny (CNBC), Russ Mitchell (LAT), Linette Lopez (BI), Dana Hull (Bloomberg) and Faiz Siddiqui (WaPo). Between them they would have authorized around 200+ articles. Close to 99% 100% of them are negative. A company that has transformed the auto industry and shown the way to the legacy giants on how EVs should be built, with industry leading profit margins, and yet all these reporters have written is all out and out negative stuff.

Ya no agenda there..
what is the motive for some agenda? there isn’t one. you’re just kind of waving your arms and speaking in stereotypes. it has been discussed ad nauseam, but the fact of the matter is those outlets get very little money from the auto industry, which isn’t the major force people think. And the editorial sides of those organizations all have policies against even discussing story content with their ever-less-important ad departments. It is a firing offense at every last one of them.
So what motive does the NYT for example, with most of its revenue now coming from its audience’s subscription fees have to do what you describe?
It doesn't. This is just imaginary.
A whole, giant, shadowy world trying to take down Elon for who knows what shadowy reason.... Yet somehow he’s managed to create one of the world’s largest fortunes. Minus $44 billion or so that of course recently vanished for no discernible reason.
I used to think his biggest talent was taking in a lot of information on an engineering-related topic and cutting through to an elegant, though hard-to-acheive solution.
Now it seems his most extraordinary skill is the sheer amount of trouble he can make for himself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: TSLY
I think people are leaving a lot of city/blue states more due to cost of housing than all the media reports on crime. Are any people here really moving to TX, FL when their homes in CA under prop 13 has tripled and they are paying a 2% mortgage and low property taxes forever? Those Walmarts closed because they never made $$ ever. It's a business decision and articles said Walmart coming in killed the local businesses so Walmart (I don't think) was even leaving because of the crime. It was just a bad business move to place a big box store in dense cities where people need cars to back up their large hauls.

It's more the "poor" renters getting priced out with high rents, no homes, still very low supply, high mortgage rates now, possibly poor job prospects or high minimum wages in CA that was never meant to buy a home, etc...

We can all find news articles/statistics to support our cases, but I don't think that many home owners are leaving CA just yet, even with all the crappy crime that's reported, but I've read there are more gun killings in red states per capita vs. blue states.

I think we're all biased from everything I still see posted here.

What I find funny about Prop 13 is its basically a republicans wet dream, and yet it exist in one of the most liberal states.

In any case if a homeowner did move from California they likely kept their house and simply became a landlord.
 
Can we talk about Elon and Twitter?

In my defense I couldn't find a post to respond to that was both on topic, and worthy of being talked about. :)

Plus nothing current is going on with Elon and Twitter.

How do I know? There is no Elon & Twitter Arstechnica article today. :p

In all seriousness I'm a little confused about any desire to stay on topic. This was always meant to be off-topic section who's primary function was to keep other sections on TMC free of Elon/Twitter stuff. Maybe the thinking is it operates as a better filter if at least some effort is applied to keeping it on topic despite likely only average 2-3 posts before a thread goes way off topic.
 
Last edited:
Is Google part of the world-wide cabal which is intent on taking down Musk?

Is there a sign up sheet to join the cabal somewhere?

Interest in joining Twitter has plunged after surging when Elon Musk took over last year, Google data shows

  • Google searches for "Twitter sign up" have fallen 81% since peaking last November.
  • Searches for deleting accounts have now returned to pre-Musk levels.
  • But those relating to joining Twitter appear to be less common than before the acquisition.
...

The search index for "Twitter verification" has also fallen a drastic 96% in the same period, as Musk introduced the controversial Twitter Blue subscription. It allows anybody to get the blue checkmark for $8 a month, while businesses are being asked to hand over $1,000 a month for a gold checkmark.
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: DrGriz and JRP3
... Any solution has to focus on mental disease treatment and drug rehab (and arguably reducing drug supply). ...

Regarding reducing drug supply, I get the impression that fentanyl makes everything much worse, and that disrupting fentanyl drug trade is a very important step.
(Without wanting to continue discussing this topic here beyond saying just that.)

EDIT: And I hope that Twitter will cooperate with the JD/DEA in so far as Twitter is in fact being used as one of the social media companies part of that "last-mile" distribution.
 
Last edited:
Well the only reason there are 15,317 posts on this thread is something that I don't think I really comprehended until this thread.

This thread does not exist to argue about the perception of crime vs. actual crime vs. causes of crime. It was supposed to be about Elon and Twitter.

But why is there even "Elon and Twitter?" Its because Elon decided that suspending Babylon Bee for "jokingly" giving its "Man of the Year Award" to Rachel Levine was worth $44 Billion. Now, presumably, there will be no more of that.

But what is the "that" that there now will be no more of in the new Twitter? The that, is as far as I can see, a re-definition of what counts as offensive, and anything insulting, threatening, liberals is now presumably OK.

But its all part of this anti liberal media campaign. Witness Elon and NPR, which, I think we all can agree, proves that Elon had never actually bothered listening to NPR for any sustained period of time, as the constant fundraising weeks pretty much shows who NPR is pandering to, and it ain't the government, that's for sure.

I've see TV stations and Radio Stations compete for listeners my entire adult life. Until recently, it was only drive time morning zoo Dj's who routinely bashed their competition ----- mainstream news, and mainstream entertainment never mentioned the competition, why give the competition a free plug? Back in the day of big 3 broadcast media, CBS never spend any amount of time talking about ABC, for example.

Until conservative talk radio and Fox, ---- then, slamming other media became a fundamental part of their existence. Its now a daily event. Its not enough to have a different opinion as to an issue, you have to shoot the messenger.

I don't know why Elon would be surprised at blowback when he decides to attack 60% of the US population. He can do it, he can do pretty much anything he wants. I guess he is so isolated by being a billionaire that he just assumes a certain number of people will be against him. Its such a shame because there are any number of billionaires who just stay in whatever lane made them billionaires.

You could make a case that he is the number one person who actually did something to combat climate change, our of all the people on the planet, yet now, he just wants everyone to know who he despises. Ugh, I mean its up to him but its such a shallow look.
 
Elon doesn't lie and what possible reason would he have to in this case?
Actually Elon owns Twitter in large part because during his lawsuit to back out of the Twitter acquisition he lied in a deposition (you, know after swearing an oath to tell the truth) about not ever using the Signal App to communicate about the Twitter acquisition. Explanation why no responsive documents to that were provided in discovery. Except 3rd parties (the ones Elon was communicating with and lied about it!) had already provided Twitter with the evidence.

Just like Fox News is trying to settle with Dominion because they were caught lying and withholding evidence, so was Elon about to lose his case because (a) he didn't really have a valid case in the first place and (b) he was caught lying to the court. So rather than go to trial lose (and be disgraced in the process), he decided to go through and buy it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.