Articles/megaposts by DaveT

[JRP3]

Perhaps it's very different in California than where you are. Out here I see the majority of people here disturbed by what Trump/Bannon are doing... definitely not a small minority of extremists.

Many are concerned by the state of democracy worldwide, including US democracy downgraded to a "flawed democracy", Declining trust in government is denting democracy

Also, many are concerned by the global tensions between nations that have been exacerbated since Trump/Bannon. Ie., Board moves the Clock ahead

You're missing the point. Of course many are disturbed by Trump/Bannon, including myself. That doesn't mean we aren't supportive and understanding of what Elon is trying to do. If someone is about to bash you over the head with a club would you want a friend involved trying to stop it or would you rather they stayed out of the fight in protest? I'll take the former.

 

[DaveT]

Breathe deep, it is too soon, with too little data to predict doom. With the exception of a few (drama laced) Model III cancellations and some twitter back and forth, Nothing has happened. I have greater faith in how Elon is navigating these treacherous waters - even with the views I have of the exiting administration - than I do of the many that are Monday Morning quarterbacking his actions. It feels a little bit like Adam Jonas managing Tesla's strategy as an analyst in quarterly conference calls. We have so little data and with the little data we have, we feel comfortable second guessing one of the most intelligent and strategic mind in my lifetime. That's hubris.

I guess we'll choose to disagree here. First, I'm not sure how you know for sure it's only been a few Model 3 cancellations, unless you're privy to more data than the rest of us. The cancellations we're aware of are those that have been made public via media outlets but the chances are there are far more cancellations than just a few. Second, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have to dive into the various risk factors of Elon being perceived as siding with Trump/Bannon and how that can impact Tesla brand and demand. I don't think it's hubris... rather it's being diligent and responsible as an investor.

 

[DaveT]

Bannon has claimed to be a Leninist who wants to "destroy the state" and "bring everything crashing down".

Steve Bannon, Trump's Top Guy, Told Me He Was 'A Leninist' Who Wants To ‘Destroy the State’

Apparently, Bannon has been writing the terrible, badly-written executive orders Trump has been signing. After Trump signed the counterproductive ban on people from six mostly-Muslim countries -- which still lets in anyone from countries like Saudi Arabia which actually sent terrorists to the US -- apparently the DHS secretary immediately issued an interpretation saying "of course this doesn't apply to people who already have green cards or immigrant visas". Which makes sense since those people have already gone through extremely extensive vetting.

IIRC the DHS secretary also said it didn't apply to dual citizens, which makes sense because Syria doesn't allow people to renounce their citizenship, so a lot of people have "Syrian citizenship" who have completely rejected Syria and are citizens of the US, UK, Canada, or some other country.

Then apparently Bannon intervened *personally* to say "yes it does apply to green card holders", and instructed that dual citizens be harassed too, immediately alienating and angering every major corporation in the entire world, alienating every government in the world period, and causing chaos at airports.

I see only two scenarios: (1) Trump figures out that Bannon is nothing but trouble and fires Bannon; (2) Trump is removed from office by the Republican Party (...start thinking about President Pence). Bannon is set and determined to make enemies of all the major powerbases in the world at once, and that's not a path to staying in power.

It should go without saying that all sane people should oppose President Bannon.

One of many articles on Bannon:
Steve Bannon, Bolshevik: Maybe Donald Trump’s alt-right Svengali really is a “Leninist”

To bring the topic back to Musk... as long as Musk doesn't endorse Bannon, I think he can only do good. Bannon is giving Turmp advice which is awful in every conceivable way, like Rasputin did for Tsar Nicholas; any voice telling Trump to stop listening to Bannon is helpful.

If you and others have time, it'd be worth it to do a deep dive on Bannon using his own sources (YouTube speeches, his own documentaries, interviews, etc). Bannon is a complex guy with quite a deep and intricate ideology. His ideology is also matched with political savvy and strategy. Bannon was pretty much the only one who Trump trusted to tell him how to win the election. I'd rather not get into the full details of Bannon's strategy here, but it was crafty and very effective. Trump is relying on Bannon to help him win the next election in 4 years, and currently there's no one in Trump's view that is a better political strategist and ideologue than Bannon. When Bannon says if they fulfill their campaign promises then they can rule for 50 years, he means it.

Most people underestimate Bannon because they don't understand him.

 

[Sparky]

...So a few ideologues cancel their orders, how many on the other side are now taking a second look at Tesla because of Trump's support?

I figure Tesla will washout with the "other side" unless they intro an F150 killer in 2018.

On top of what others have already said I simply feel that the extremists on the left are a small minority, and an even smaller minority of that group are in a position to do anything directly affecting Tesla. Many of us here are left leaning and few, if any, are upset enough to cancel orders. Add that to my aforementioned belief that Elon's actions and efforts working with Trump will pull in additional support from the right. Obviously Elon's thinking is in line with my own, which has historically worked out well for both of us

My thinking was inline with Mr. Musk's until he started Tweeting politics. As an owner, investor (since the IPO) and 3/31 Model 3 reservation holder, I'm hoping Elon puts the Advisory Council thing on the down-low soon. Trump's approval ratings are not good.
I support Musk participating but politics is toxic. Hoping my wife doesn't learn much of this Musk-Trump sideshow. She's no extremist ideologue; just cannot stand the Bannon/Trump regime and will cancel the M3 and buy a Jag, Bolt, i3 EV if she feels Tesla is part of any Trump agenda. We'll see how this plays out in 6 months. So far, few I know are aware of this advisory council. I hope it stays that way. Trump likes big buildings... please please no Whitehouse GF tours before 2018, Elon.

 

[DaveT]

You're missing the point. Of course many are disturbed by Trump/Bannon, including myself. That doesn't mean we aren't supportive and understanding of what Elon is trying to do. If someone is about to bash you over the head with a club would you want a friend involved trying to stop it or would you rather they stayed out of the fight in protest? I'll take the former.

I think your example is incomplete/flawed in the sense you're providing only two options: 1) get involved trying to prevent harm, or 2) stay out of the fight in protest.

However, many that are protesting and organizing are not doing so to "stay out of the fight". Rather, protesting and organizing can be a very important and effective tool in enacting and catalyzing change. Senators and House of Representatives face elections and large organizing and expressions of dissatisfaction can and often does influence their stance.

Also, in just a year and half time we're going to be having another election. All 435 house of representatives are up for vote, as well as 33 Senate seats. Organizing protest against the current admin is not "staying out of the fight"... rather it might be the most important and effective tool in the fight. Currently Trump/Bannon has little checks and balances due to the Republicans controlling both house and senate. But if the house goes to the Democrats, then this will provide a systemic check and balance to Trump/Bannon. Efforts toward this shouldn't be minimized or discounted.

 

[DaveT]

Hoping my wife doesn't learn much of this Musk-Trump sideshow. She's no extremist ideologue; just cannot stand the Bannon/Trump regime and will cancel the M3 and buy a Jag, Bolt, i3 EV if she feels Tesla is part of any Trump agenda. We'll see how this plays out in 6 months.

I think there's quite a few people like your wife who aren't extremists but are repulsed by the Trump/Bannon regime enough so that is impacts which companies they support with their purchases. It definitely will be interesting to see how this plays out in 6 months and how Elon navigates his role.

 

[Turing]

As a shareholder, I'm very concerned about Elon's involvement in the Trump admin. It appears Elon's participation in Trump's advisory councils is being seen by some as lending credibility to and legitimizing the Trump admin. While we don't know the exact numbers, it's clearly aggravating and alienating some of Tesla's core customers, even to the point of some cancelling reservations.

While the exact number of people cancelling reservations might not be that high (or it might be, we just don't know), I'm more concerned about the loss of affinity toward the Tesla brand by some of Tesla's core constituency if Elon continues to be involved in Trump's advisory councils. This loss of affinity is extremely difficult to quantify, but could have a deep impact if the trend continues.

Is it really essential that Elon stay officially involved in Trump's admin via advisory councils? Or can Elon accomplish most of his objectives via private lobbying or even funding (or even starting) a private lobbying organization.

If Elon resigns from the advisory councils, perhaps Elon can avoid alienating an increasing number of Tesla's core customers. And further, I don't see much negative if Elon resigns. Trump does not have much leverage over Tesla, since Tesla's cars are manufactured in the U.S. and Trump is not able to place tariffs on Tesla's cars. Trump could possibly remove the federal tax credit for EVs, but that would hurt competitors more than it will Tesla. Trump could possibly remove solar subsidies (ITC) but solar revenue isn't a major revenue generator for Tesla, especially after Model 3 ramps, and Tesla will still have the rest of the world as a market for its solar products.

Now, I know it's difficult to have an online discussion about politics without some person or persons interfering with pushing political beliefs. So, if you're going to reply to this or in this thread, please do not push political views. Rather, only contribute if you have something substantial to share that will add value to the discussion.

At this point i would reason that Elon's advisory roles have more to do with Spacex than Telsa. As you noted Tesla is fairly inoculated and there isn't much new support Elon could hope to get from the Trump administration or congress vis a vis tesla. But that isn't true of spacex and Mars, where congress and new administration could make a significant difference over the next 4-8 years. Trump's penchant for bigly displays of grandeur could mean we get a JFK style Mars space race push, something the US could clearly lead the world in again.

 

[dc_h]

Protests can be effective in raising awareness, but often seem to encourage people to talk past each other and further harden their stance. I know the politics and Trump fear factor in NY and California is huge. I didn't vote for the guy, but better I think to have dissenting voices being heard in person then shouting and yelling from the streets. I think it takes some guts to go in there, not be intimidated and speak to issues Trump might not otherwise hear, except as filtered by bannon or other insiders.

 

[DaveT]

At this point i would reason that Elon's advisory roles have more to do with Spacex than Telsa. As you noted Tesla is fairly inoculated and there isn't much new support Elon could hope to get from the Trump administration or congress vis a vis tesla. But that isn't true of spacex and Mars, where congress and new administration could make a significant difference over the next 4-8 years. Trump's penchant for bigly displays of grandeur could mean we get a JFK style Mars space race push, something the US could clearly lead the world in again.

This is definitely true that SpaceX is more affected by the government than is Tesla right now. However, one needs to ask if similar objectives can be reached without Elon formally being involved in advisory councils. More specifically, it's possible Elon can engage in aggressive private lobbying, not just using SpaceX money but also his own to gain government support and funding.

 

[dc_h]

This is definitely true that SpaceX is more affected by the government than is Tesla right now. However, one needs to ask if similar objectives can be reached without Elon formally being involved in advisory councils. More specifically, it's possible Elon can engage in aggressive private lobbying, not just using SpaceX money but also his own to gain government support and funding.

Sounds circular. Don't be on council, but pay lobbyists to impact council?

 

[DaveT]

Sounds circular. Don't be on council, but pay lobbyists to impact council?

I don't think it's circular. Just saying there's a public way and a private way to do things such as influencing/lobbying government. Elon/SpaceX has typically chosen the private way via private lobbying. And they've seen good results from this manner. The question being does he really need to change this approach and go public (via being on official advisory councils and tweetstorms defending his involvement) if it's just for the sake of SpaceX.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

This is definitely true that SpaceX is more affected by the government than is Tesla right now. However, one needs to ask if similar objectives can be reached without Elon formally being involved in advisory councils. More specifically, it's possible Elon can engage in aggressive private lobbying, not just using SpaceX money but also his own to gain government support and funding.

Finally understood what was bothering me with your attitude. I feel you've already made decision that Trump/Bannon are evil (not just bad, but truly evil), you're horrified, and you are rallying the troops. I am in a 'wait and see' mode
With all due respects:
1. I don't know that you have enough data to make that('evil') determination. Closing border is new and ugly step, but is so-so compared to stuff that USA already routinely does, like sending soldiers to intervene on the foreign soil, acting without UN council, bombarding/executing etc. This may be a new thought for many, but huge majority of other countries don't do that. Extremist yes, but countries, no.
2. if T/B truly are who you think they are, protest won't help; it will just help them radicalize their own followers. Demagogues are very good at rallying followers against 'common enemies', which protesters may become. You can imagine the spin: "those hippy, spoiled, rich Californians', line that would work with economically challenged, small town people

Now for a good thing: This too shell pass. Probably in 8 years though. Demagogues are very good at staying in power, once they get it.

Finally, I've lived under Milosevic, participated in over 100 days of student protests in 90's(500K+ people on the streets every day!), and that did noting.
Yet, in the end it all comes and goes. Trump is downright moderate , compared to some of the real characters. So I stay in 'wait and see' mode on Trump, and we should hope he listens, at least a bit. He is your president after all, (though I was a bit shocked at that fact , I think you owe him some time before making harsh judgments.

 

[palmer_md]

Mark Cuban Verified account ‏@mcuban
Mark Cuban Retweeted Elon Musk

Agree. Keep your friends close, your President closer.
Mark Cuban added,

Elon Musk @elonmusk
Activists should be pushing for more moderates to advise President, not fewer. How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?

I saw this retweet from Mark Cuban and Elon that sums up my thoughts on this pretty well. Advising him from the inside is far more influential than being an activist on the outside. If people cant understand that, and think that being on his advisory board simply means that your a Trump fanboy, then were in more trouble than I thought.

 

[DaveT]

Finally understood what was bothering me with your attitude. I feel you've already made decision that Trump/Bannon are evil (not just bad, but truly evil), you're horrified, and you are rallying the troops.

Actually, would love to see you show me some quotes of mine where I say Trump/Bannon are truly evil. I think that's your assumption... perhaps you're grouping me into some kind of group you have in mind. For the sake of the record, I think labelling Trump/Bannon as "truly evil" is over-simplifying the matter and does injustice to productive discussion.

 

[DaveT]

Earlier today Elon tweeted the following, "Activists should be pushing for more moderates to advise President, not fewer. How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?" (Elon Musk on Twitter)

Well, let's look at this from different angles.

First, should activists really be pushing for more moderates to advise the President? I think it really depends of a few factors. First, their view on the President and his admin. Second, their view on how to enact the most effective change.

I think for some activists perhaps they would advocate for more moderates to advise the President. However, I think those type of activists would be more accommodating of the Trump admin... meaning they think that the Trump admin can be redeemed somehow. However, for other activists who think that the Trump admin can't be redeemed and is a detriment to world peace and democracy, they will likely think that a more effective avenue of change would be to advocate for two things, 1) a systemic check and balance on the current regime and 2) a change in regime at the first opportunity possible.

Rather than trying to get more moderates to advise the President, these activists would much rather spend their time and effort organizing resistance and trying to win a majority of the 435 seats up for grabs in the House of Reps in just a year and half. These activists likely assert that Trump/Bannon needs a systemic check and balance and that's of far greater importance than trying to get a few moderate advisors on a council of sort. In the view of these activists... pushing for moderate advisors would only condone, legitimize and lend credibility to the Trump admin and would be counter-productive to their efforts to raise up a counter-movement and win the House of Reps next year, and also win the Presidency in 4 years.

Now let's look at the second part of Elon's tweet where he asks, "How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?" In another tweet Elon says, "A lot of terrible things could happen in four years of extremism. Do you really want another war? That's where extremism leads."

So now Elon is bringing up some interesting assertions, namely 1) the Trump admin is full of extremists, and 2) this extremism could lead us to war. Thus the assertion is that Elon is trying to combat this extremism by being a "moderate" voice to Trump.

Very, very interesting stuff here.

I think implied in Elon's tweets is limited choice: 1) try to save the Trump admin by engaging, or 2) stand by and do nothing.

However, there's also a third choice (and other choices as well). 3) do everything you can to limit his power now and get him out of office as quick as possible.

Now if there are only choices #1 and #2, then surely choice #1 prevails over doing nothing if the assertions are true (that Trump's admin is full of extremists and could lead us to war).

However, let's see how choice #1 stands up against choice #3.

I'm going to go into some hypothetical situations but please entertain these possibilities as it will come together into a rationale argument.

Let's say Elon chooses choice #1, and let's say he sways others to adopt his view and to become more hopeful of the Trump admin than they might otherwise have been. In that case, let's say in 18 months, the Democrats lose the House of Reps by one seat. And that one seat is determined by 1000 votes. It's possible that Elon's stance of engagement (note: he has 7M twitter followers) could have made a difference in people's voting for Republicans over the Democrats. But then we have a President with both house/senate under his party control, and little legislative check and balance.

Contrast this to if Elon chose choice #3, and publicly campaigned and aggressively contributed financially to an opposition movement. And let's say in this case the Democrats win the House of Reps by one seat next year. Now there is a stronger legislative check and balance to the President. A huge win if you believe the above assertions are true (that Trump admin if full of extremists and could lead us to war).

The point being here is that when you compare choice #1 and choice #3, they are somewhat mutually exclusive and if you participate in one choice, you're not able to participate in the other. So, Elon participating in choice #1 takes away the possibility of him participating in choice #3.

So the question is then what's more effective in taming a dangerous Trump admin full of extremists (following Elon's line of assertions) - a house of reps controlled by the Democrats providing a legislative check and balance, or some more moderate advisors to Trump?

Now, I'm not going to say that this is a straightforward question. Obviously people will have starkly different views on this. And I think it's healthy to think through this on a deep level and ask the right questions.

If I had to choose one - either a legislative check and balance, or more moderate advisors - I would choose the legislative check and balance. The legislative check and balance (ie., house of reps) is a systemic check and balance, and I believe it's far more lasting and powerful than a few advisors that the President can fire at will. Further, one needs to ask why is the President's cabinet filled with so many extremists? Some might think it's possible it's because the President himself is an extremist... and having moderate advisors might not do any good. That's why if I had to choose, I'd choose the legislative check and balance.

However, I understand there are further complexities to all of this. In order to choose choice #3, one really needs to be not only alarmed but have lost hope in the current admin. I personally think Elon has not reached this point. Rather, it appears that Elon still has some optimism for the Trump admin and that optimism is another reason why choice #1 makes more sense to him at this time.

Now, it's entirely possible that Elon is correct and that with the help of some moderate advisors Trump will turn around his administration and become a force of good, or let's say a force of less evil than if he didn't have those moderate advisors. But it's also possible that Elon is wrong on this matter and that it's much more effective and wiser to choose choice #3 and get some legislative check and balance as soon as possible.

All of this is not static... it's all moving and changing and evolving, everything. So, rather than trying to draw a conclusion, I think it's important to keep an eye out on this. I share this post in hopes that we have a deeper and clearer discussion of the issues at hand.

 

[Bgarret]

I guess we'll choose to disagree here. First, I'm not sure how you know for sure it's only been a few Model 3 cancellations, unless you're privy to more data than the rest of us. The cancellations we're aware of are those that have been made public via media outlets but the chances are there are far more cancellations than just a few. Second, I think it's a worthwhile discussion to have to dive into the various risk factors of Elon being perceived as siding with Trump/Bannon and how that can impact Tesla brand and demand. I don't think it's hubris... rather it's being diligent and responsible as an investor.

Dave, No other data than everyone else....hence, why I say it is too soon with too little data to extrapolate to large numbers of Model III cancellations and to surmise that Elon is causing the deterioration of Tesla employees morale. Not sure how you arrive at "far more" cancellations....how many is "far more"? A hundred? A thousand? How material is "far more"? How many cancellations have been offset by new Model III reservations from the 60% of people who are unaware of electric cars and that Tesla is one of the fastest growing US manufacturers, that see Elon walking into the White House regularly?

As for your "engage" or "actively campaign against" dichotomy.....option #3 (actively campaign against) has been done - a few months ago during the election. There were 6 Senate seats that were either toss-up or projected to go democratic (Wisconsin) and the Dems only won 2, which is why they are in the minority in both houses. It would take a forum much larger than this to list the national (including Elon) and local figures that actively campaigned for Hillary and Democratic Senate candidates and against Trump....to no avail. Elon, nor any other quasi-celebrity is going to change the course of this polarized nation, not sure what will, but quality candidates would be a start.

As a CEO, I would choose "engaging" and troubling or alienating a small portion of your current supporters over actively campaigning against the person that just won (almost) 50% of the vote and his ardent supporters. How many of your supporters will you alienate?....Well, it will be a number less than 50% of the voting population. That's a business decision.

I appreciate your analysis, but this feels less like diligence and more like a goose chase. As far as alienating those who don't like Bannon/Trump, I think you are overestimating the association between Musk's participation on national councils and impact on the Tesla brand. I have been in the middle of numerous anti-Bannon/Trump circles and people know my affinity and support of all things Musk and I haven't heard a word. There are members of my family that have organized protests and letter writing campaigns and have said nothing negative related to Tesla. I'm with Zhelko (that should be a button) in cautioning patience, maybe that will make me a Neville Chamberlain, but I'm not yet ready to go all Winston Churchill on Trump/Bannon.

 

[JRP3]

I think implied in Elon's tweets is limited choice: 1) try to save the Trump admin by engaging, or 2) stand by and do nothing.

However, there's also a third choice (and other choices as well). 3) do everything you can to limit his power now and get him out of office as quick as possible.

I think you mis-characterize what Elon is attempting with your number 1. He's not trying to save the Trump administration, he's trying to reduce the harm it will do while it's in power. In that sense 1 and 3 are not mutually exclusive. It seems you want Trump to do his absolute worst, to help bring about number 3, but there is no guarantee that will happen.

 

[JRP3]

She's no extremist ideologue; just cannot stand the Bannon/Trump regime and will cancel the M3 and buy a Jag, Bolt, i3 EV if she feels Tesla is part of any Trump agenda.

Not to attack your wife but I'd say that is the very definition of an extremist ideologue. Tesla is the only company truly committed to sustainable energy use, so such a move on her part would be supporting the existing ICE industry, who are actively working against Tesla.

 

[SBenson]

Earlier today Elon tweeted the following, "Activists should be pushing for more moderates to advise President, not fewer. How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?" (Elon Musk on Twitter)

Well, let's look at this from different angles.

First, should activists really be pushing for more moderates to advise the President? I think it really depends of a few factors. First, their view on the President and his admin. Second, their view on how to enact the most effective change.

I think for some activists perhaps they would advocate for more moderates to advise the President. However, I think those type of activists would be more accommodating of the Trump admin... meaning they think that the Trump admin can be redeemed somehow. However, for other activists who think that the Trump admin can't be redeemed and is a detriment to world peace and democracy, they will likely think that a more effective avenue of change would be to advocate for two things, 1) a systemic check and balance on the current regime and 2) a change in regime at the first opportunity possible.

Rather than trying to get more moderates to advise the President, these activists would much rather spend their time and effort organizing resistance and trying to win a majority of the 435 seats up for grabs in the House of Reps in just a year and half. These activists likely assert that Trump/Bannon needs a systemic check and balance and that's of far greater importance than trying to get a few moderate advisors on a council of sort. In the view of these activists... pushing for moderate advisors would only condone, legitimize and lend credibility to the Trump admin and would be counter-productive to their efforts to raise up a counter-movement and win the House of Reps next year, and also win the Presidency in 4 years.

Now let's look at the second part of Elon's tweet where he asks, "How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?" In another tweet Elon says, "A lot of terrible things could happen in four years of extremism. Do you really want another war? That's where extremism leads."

So now Elon is bringing up some interesting assertions, namely 1) the Trump admin is full of extremists, and 2) this extremism could lead us to war. Thus the assertion is that Elon is trying to combat this extremism by being a "moderate" voice to Trump.

Very, very interesting stuff here.

I think implied in Elon's tweets is limited choice: 1) try to save the Trump admin by engaging, or 2) stand by and do nothing.

However, there's also a third choice (and other choices as well). 3) do everything you can to limit his power now and get him out of office as quick as possible.

Now if there are only choices #1 and #2, then surely choice #1 prevails over doing nothing if the assertions are true (that Trump's admin is full of extremists and could lead us to war).

However, let's see how choice #1 stands up against choice #3.

I'm going to go into some hypothetical situations but please entertain these possibilities as it will come together into a rationale argument.

Let's say Elon chooses choice #1, and let's say he sways others to adopt his view and to become more hopeful of the Trump admin than they might otherwise have been. In that case, let's say in 18 months, the Democrats lose the House of Reps by one seat. And that one seat is determined by 1000 votes. It's possible that Elon's stance of engagement (note: he has 7M twitter followers) could have made a difference in people's voting for Republicans over the Democrats. But then we have a President with both house/senate under his party control, and little legislative check and balance.

Contrast this to if Elon chose choice #3, and publicly campaigned and aggressively contributed financially to an opposition movement. And let's say in this case the Democrats win the House of Reps by one seat next year. Now there is a stronger legislative check and balance to the President. A huge win if you believe the above assertions are true (that Trump admin if full of extremists and could lead us to war).

The point being here is that when you compare choice #1 and choice #3, they are somewhat mutually exclusive and if you participate in one choice, you're not able to participate in the other. So, Elon participating in choice #1 takes away the possibility of him participating in choice #3.

So the question is then what's more effective in taming a dangerous Trump admin full of extremists (following Elon's line of assertions) - a house of reps controlled by the Democrats providing a legislative check and balance, or some more moderate advisors to Trump?

Now, I'm not going to say that this is a straightforward question. Obviously people will have starkly different views on this. And I think it's healthy to think through this on a deep level and ask the right questions.

If I had to choose one - either a legislative check and balance, or more moderate advisors - I would choose the legislative check and balance. The legislative check and balance (ie., house of reps) is a systemic check and balance, and I believe it's far more lasting and powerful than a few advisors that the President can fire at will. Further, one needs to ask why is the President's cabinet filled with so many extremists? Some might think it's possible it's because the President himself is an extremist... and having moderate advisors might not do any good. That's why if I had to choose, I'd choose the legislative check and balance.

However, I understand there are further complexities to all of this. In order to choose choice #3, one really needs to be not only alarmed but have lost hope in the current admin. I personally think Elon has not reached this point. Rather, it appears that Elon still has some optimism for the Trump admin and that optimism is another reason why choice #1 makes more sense to him at this time.

Now, it's entirely possible that Elon is correct and that with the help of some moderate advisors Trump will turn around his administration and become a force of good, or let's say a force of less evil than if he didn't have those moderate advisors. But it's also possible that Elon is wrong on this matter and that it's much more effective and wiser to choose choice #3 and get some legislative check and balance as soon as possible.

All of this is not static... it's all moving and changing and evolving, everything. So, rather than trying to draw a conclusion, I think it's important to keep an eye out on this. I share this post in hopes that we have a deeper and clearer discussion of the issues at hand.

This entire hypothesis is based on the assumption that there is a reasonable chance that Democrats could win the House next year.

Lets evaluate that bit first.

Just like you, I live in heavily leftist coast. My twitter and facebook feeds are filled with complete meltdown, hysteria and calls for resistance. This gives the impression that the anti-trump movement is strong. But consider this, all the hysteria existed even before Trump won the election! Despite all this hysteria, he not only won the election, he even got the Senate. .

The point is you and I simply live in a bubble that is oblivious to how and why Trump is winning... Not just social networks, but even mainstream media has full deluded itself into the same anti-trump bubble... You think there is an anti-trump movement. But there maybe a bigger movement going on outside of our bubbles, which is a pro-trump movement.

As we discussing hypotheticals, ok, lets say there is no pro-trump movement at all. Maybe the election was entirely won through corruption or rigging or gaming it. What's to say the same phenomena won't happen again when the House is up for election next year?

Ultimately, how do we know that what ever got Trump to win is no longer active?

In my view, the assumption that there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will win the House is flat out wrong.

You ask for an open mind when presenting new ideas. Now I ask you for the same as I present a new idea:

NYC had a two term limit on Mayors, much the same way presidency has. When Mike Bloomberg was to finish his second term, for what ever reason, he wanted to continue to stay as mayor. Guess what happened? He got the laws to change such that he could run for election again. He not only got the laws changed but he even won the third election and became the first time third-term mayor!

There is a distinct chance that Trump will not only be a two term president but he will actually be the president as long as he lives!
(Who knows after that, maybe some blood relative will take up the dynasty. This is OT)

In fact probability of that is more than the Democrats winning the House next year!

Coming back to Musk. I believe he evaluated the ground reality through first-principles and he chose to take the position that he did. I don't know what will happen to the markets (let alone Tesla and TSLA) but Musk is trying his best for a meaningful impact for greater good. In my view, Uber CEO just merely coward-ed out. Do you think he will do actually do something after resigning? like leading a resistance of some sort? He won't do jack-*sugar*. He simply opportunistically quit giving into leftist bullying.

Finally, I don't think we should be concerned about public's perception of what Musk is doing. When he posted his reasoning (a few paragraphs in a picture), it got the more Like's than any of his other posts, by far. People overwhelmingly support his role. In fact more than any Tesla or SpaceX stuff that he does or announces.

 

[Jonathan Hewitt]

Just like you, I live in heavily leftist coast. My twitter and facebook feeds are filled with complete meltdown, hysteria and calls for resistance. This gives the impression that the anti-trump movement is strong. But consider this, all the hysteria existed even before Trump won the election! Despite all this hysteria, he not only won the election, he even got the Senate. .

I thought I would give a data point since I live in South Carolina, which is probably as close as opposite as you can get to California. The people I work with don't necessarily like Trump but the majority of them seemed to take utter delight in the complete meltdown of the left when Hillary lost the election. It is a completely different world than California it appears. This can't be written off as the opinion of "uneducated rural folks" as I work at a nuclear power plant. I think it's safe to say I work with people of above average intelligence. Take that for what it's worth.