Articles/megaposts by DaveT

[kenliles]

Agree with Bgarret post (#1756) entirely; Adding a bit more color on that perspective, this not a digital multi-binary choice problem EM is dealing with here. It's an analogue problem with a long waveform and what he does at any point in time is less dependent on HIS behavior and decisions and more dependent on Trump/Bannon (and others). For example, @DaveT consider when the time is right, the power of influence a Musk withdrawal from the council would be most effective? Now? or after clear proof of giving it every attempt to moderate- That kind of leverage won't be lost on Trump/Bannon and it already isn't as Musk apparently changed the priority of the most recent meeting already.

Keep in mind this expressed position coming from someone who gave up on Trump/Bannon long ago and completely toxic to US/World. Also, keep in mind - even under a scenario of successful removal from office - how does that educate the underlying toxicity that put them there- It doesn't just go away- Engagement at all levels (including those you outline) are required and EM is the only one in a position currently to judge based on all fronts of this wave-form problem.

[the most recent activity- Trump-Putin equating to US; and Trump threats to 'de-fund California' an entire state. These and many future behaviors (we're only 2 weeks in unbelievably !) will shape the forces required.

(I also concur with much of SBenson post above that came in while writing) - I don't think Trump/Bannon will ever relinquish power without both external and internal forces- It's a fine line for EM to walk and it's only going to get worse from her Imo.
Here is an article just published accusing him of crony-capitalism - the more Trump/Bannon behave in ways I predict they will- the harder it will be for EM to maintain an inside effort.- But it's a timing issue only he can make Imo

Op-ed: Elon Musk is becoming Trump's 'crony capitalist'

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.

Some similar points of reference from Florida- Many though were not cognitive of the implications (Hoping Trump was just another Republican with a Business acumen) - 2 weeks in many now express that was perhaps a bridge too far.

Also, it's refreshing to be able to discuss the important implications to Tesla here- thanks for that DaveT as usual - good job

 

[JRP3]

Certainly some of the Trump vote was more anti Hillary than pro Trump.

 

[Sparky]

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.

Two things: No. she's not dogmatic nor uncompromising (ideologue) but I suppose some extremist tendencies have recently "blossomed" . People have to look themselves in the mirror every day and hope they like who they are.
If she's the "very definition of extremist ideologue" then they are not just a "few" nor does it make the risk to Tesla's success any lower.
My wife drives an EV. If she chooses to wait 2 years and buy another from an auto maker trying to get traction in the EV market (like Jag or Audi) she's still adhering to Musk's vision of sustainable transport. Your seeming purity test for an EV; Tesla or nothing, is a bit ideologically extreme, no?

Saying "Tesla is the only company truly committed".... gets to the point of DaveT's post. Such subjective descriptions can be altered quickly in the court of public opinion with our now fact-less debate and ruptured polity. These are the waters Tesla needs to navigate over the next year and Tesla sinks or swims on Model 3 success. At this juncture, I'd prefer Musk tweet far far less on political matters. He's in the room; good. Put the smart-phone down, perhaps be less impulsive on political tweets IMHO.

 

[JRP3]

My wife drives an EV. If she chooses to wait 2 years and buy from an auto maker trying to get traction in the EV market (like Jag or Audi) she's still adhering to Musk's vision of sustainable transport. Your seeming purity test for an EV; Tesla or nothing, seems a bit ideologically extreme, no?

Again, these are companies, (GM for example), actively working against Tesla to stop them from being able to sell their products. I don't see how that's an EV "purity" test. Sure any EV purchase helps the long term goal but purchasing a Tesla product has a greater impact because profits will only be used for EV/battery/solar advancement.

Saying "Tesla is the only company truly committed".... gets to the point of DaveT's post. Such subjective descriptions can be diminished quickly in the court of public opinion with our now fact-less debate and ruptured polity.

That doesn't make it less true.

These are the waters Tesla needs to navigate over the next year and Tesla sinks or swims on Model 3 success. At this juncture, I'd prefer Musk tweet far far less on political matters. He's in the room; good. Put the smart-phone down, perhaps be less impulsive on political tweets IMHO.

Fair enough, but the argument seems to be against his involvement with the administration at all. He was attacked for trying to work with Trump and felt the need to explain himself.

 

[kenliles]

For those wondering if Tesla or SpaceX is on the list of 97 tech companies that just filed the Amacus Brief in WA state (WA v. Donald Trump). The answer is no.

I've downloaded the brief (it's public domain)
Case: 17-35105, 02/05/2017, ID: 10302881, DktEntry: 19-1
State of Washington v. Donald J Trump

From the filing:
"
1. Amici are leading technology companies and leading businesses from other sectors of the U.S. economy. These companies’ operations are affected by the Executive Order issued on January 27, 2017, entitled “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States” (the “Order”).

2. The Order represents a significant departure from the principles of fairness and predictability that have governed the immigration system of the United States for more than fifty years—and the Order inflicts significant harm on American business, innovation, and growth as a result. The Order makes it more difficult and expensive for U.S. companies to recruit, hire, and retain some of the world’s best employees. It disrupts ongoing business operations. And it threatens companies’ ability to attract talent, business, and investment to the United States.

It's a total of about 30 pages- a veritable history lesson on immigration and effects on US companies - and the law preventing discrimination based on Nationality (the primary legal theme of it's declared Unconstitutionality). I highly recommend it's reading- see attached file for complete filing

Here are the companies filing the brief:
1. AdRoll, Inc.
2. Aeris Communications, Inc.
3. Airbnb, Inc.
4. AltSchool, PBC
5. Ancestry.com, LLC
6. Appboy, Inc.
7. Apple Inc.
8. AppNexus Inc.
9. Asana, Inc.
10. Atlassian Corp Plc
11. Autodesk, Inc.
12. Automattic Inc.
13. Box, Inc.
14. Brightcove Inc.
15. Brit + Co
16. CareZone Inc.
17. Castlight Health
18. Checkr, Inc.
19. Chobani, LLC
20. Citrix Systems, Inc.
21. Cloudera, Inc.
22. Cloudflare, Inc.
23. Copia Institute
24. DocuSign, Inc.
25. DoorDash, Inc.
26. Dropbox, Inc.
27. Dynatrace LLC
28. eBay Inc.
29. Engine Advocacy
30. Etsy Inc.
31. Facebook, Inc.
32. Fastly, Inc.
33. Flipboard, Inc.
34. Foursquare Labs, Inc.
35. Fuze, Inc.
36. General Assembly
37. GitHub
38. Glassdoor, Inc.
39. Google Inc.
40. GoPro, Inc.
41. Harmonic Inc.
42. Hipmunk, Inc.
43. Indiegogo, Inc.
44. Intel Corporation
45. JAND, Inc. d/b/a Warby Parker
46. Kargo Global, Inc.
47. Kickstarter, PBC
48. KIND, LLC
49. Knotel
50. Levi Strauss & Co.
51. LinkedIn Corporation
52. Lithium Technologies, Inc.
53. Lyft, Inc.
54. Mapbox, Inc.
55. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart
56. Marin Software Incorporated
57. Medallia, Inc.
58. A Medium Corporation
59. Meetup, Inc.
60. Microsoft Corporation
61. Motivate International Inc.
62. Mozilla Corporation
63. Netflix, Inc.
64. NETGEAR, Inc.
65. NewsCred, Inc.
66. Patreon, Inc.
67. PayPal Holdings, Inc.
68. Pinterest, Inc.
69. Quora, Inc.
70. Reddit, Inc.
71. Rocket Fuel Inc.
72. SaaStr Inc.
73. Salesforce.com, Inc.
74. Scopely, Inc.
75. Shutterstock, Inc.
76. Snap Inc.
77. Spokeo, Inc.
78. Spotify USA Inc.
79. Square, Inc.
80. Squarespace, Inc.
81. Strava, Inc.
82. Stripe, Inc.
83. SurveyMonkey Inc.
84. TaskRabbit, Inc
85. Tech:NYC
86. Thumbtack, Inc.
87. Turn Inc.
88. Twilio Inc.
89. Twitter Inc.
90. Turn Inc.
91. Uber Technologies, Inc.
92. Via
93. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
94. Workday
95. Y Combinator Management, LLC
96. Yelp Inc.
97. Zynga Inc.

 

[neroden]

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.

Trump absolutely would have lost the election if he'd continuously listened to Bannon -- 100% guaranteed. He had to switch to listening to Kellyanne Conway to win.

I'd also rather not go into Bannon's strategy vs. Conway's strategy, but Bannon's strategy was essentially ineffective. Bannon has absolutely no sense of PR and is making Trump look like Caligula -- incompetent and arrogant. Bannon is alienating powerbases who he cannot afford to alienate, and gaining nothing by doing so.

I'd rather not get into the full details of Bannon's strategy here, but it was crafty and very effective.

No, it was stupid. It was losing. Trump switched to Conway's strategy in order to win. There is a difference, although the difference may be subtle and non-obvious.

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.

Sure, because Bannon is both stupid and insane.

Hitler also thought he'd rule a 1000-year Reich -- which was delusional. Hitler had massive advantages over Trump, including the fact that it was *possible* to implement Hitler's campaign promises and several were good for the economy of Germany. Whereas Trump has promised stuff which is flatly impossible ("make Mexico pay for the wall", "bring back the coal industry") and would be bad for the economy even if he half-implemented them.

I've spent a disturbingly large amount of time analyzing the ways in which right-wing demogogues take over and subvert democratic institutions. Erdogan in Turkey is probably going to succeed. Orban in Hungary has already succeeded. Putin in Russia has already succeeded, and seems to know exactly how to stay in power, despite severe economic headwinds.

Forget for a moment the morality of this, and analyze it from a purely amoral Machiavellian point of view. Trump is *going about it wrong*, from a practical point of view, and it's Bannon's fault. That list of companies filing the amicus brief includes all the largest economic powerbases in the United States. By contrast, Hitler *buttered up* the big corporations in Germany and reassured them that they would do well under his administration.

The current extremely hostile political reaction to Trump's idiotic executive order on immigration from big business was *largely avoidable* by simply excluding green card holders from the order. And apparently DHS Secretary John Kelly said that green card holders would be excluded (Kelly isn't stupid) and Bannon attempted to *personally override* him (Bannon *is* stupid).

DHS Secretary John Kelly reportedly refused to comply with Stephen Bannon's plan for green card holders

Bannon is stupid and doesn't know when to back off. This was an unforced error. We'll see how quickly Trump figures this out, or whether he figures it out. I really see only two scenarios: Bannon is removed or Trump is removed.

 

[kenliles]

Resistance is NOT Futile
CNBC opEd in favor of DaveT's point regarding resistance -
[although not addressing who should be participating in that and at what point in time]:

It gives a pretty good run down on how the resistance has at least made specific difference to date and who has participated in that
Op-Ed: The big lesson of Trump's first 2 weeks: Resistance works

 

[neroden]

I will add that Trump/Bannon's decision to declare war on the *entire* legitimate media is downright stupid as well. Putin, Berlusconi, Orban, Mussolini, Franco, all had co-opted, cooperative media... and did their best to make their pet media appear legitimate by being honest brokers on topics which didn't directly affect the ruler. (Russia Today is still an excellent source of news on any topic where *Russia isn't involved* and *Putin doesn't care*. Al Jazeera is a great news source if *Qatar isn't involved*.)

Trump is weak. Very weak. All self-inflicted wounds, caused by making enemies unnecessarily. I must admit that I didn't expect this.

Who expected a Republican President to alienate his own cabinet members, the military brass, all of big business, right-wing journalists, and every single foreign leader in the world, simultaneously, in his first week in office? If you expected this, I bow down to your predictive power.

 

[JRP3]

Who expected a Republican President to alienate his own cabinet members, the military brass, all of big business, right-wing journalists, and every single foreign leader in the world, simultaneously, in his first week in office?

I'd say many of the Republicans and other people who knew Trump well and refused to support him saw this potential. The actual author of Trump's "autobiography" warned everyone

If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”

Donald Trump’s Ghostwriter Tells All

 

[kenliles]

According to Reuters. Tesla and SpaceX have now also joined the suit

Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX oppose Trump immigration order - Reuters
Elon Musk's Tesla and SpaceX oppose Trump immigration order

Edit:
Confirmed
"In a statement, a Tesla spokesperson said that “as soon as we saw the brief this morning, we insisted on being added.”

Elon Musk’s Tesla and SpaceX join immigration amicus brief

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

...
I've spent a disturbingly large amount of time analyzing the ways in which right-wing demogogues take over and subvert democratic institutions. Erdogan in Turkey is probably going to succeed. Orban in Hungary has already succeeded. Putin in Russia has already succeeded, and seems to know exactly how to stay in power, despite severe economic headwinds.
...

Oh, that's simple really, here is excerpts from 'How to be demagogue for dummies'

Play on people's anger and more importantly fears:
- you are the one that can protect them
- find common enemy
if common enemy is not scary enough, or economy goes downhill, start another war - scary one (naaah, not just flying high and dropping bombs), with body-bags and all, and then:
- there is scary enemy and you are the only one that can protect them
rinse and repeat as needed, change laws so you can stay in power forever.

Look at Milosevic (10-15 years of various unrest/wars), look at Putin...

 

[DaveT]

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.

Actually for choice #1 I probably should have phrased it as Elon trying to save the Trump administration from causing great harm by engaging/advising. The point I was making though is not necessarily what I want to see happen. Rather, that this isn't a simplistic matter. There are benefits/costs for choice #1, choice #2, choice #3, or another choice. It's a complicated decision that has deep implications in many ways. Regarding choice #1 and choice #3 co-existing, it's probably possible to do a hybrid of sorts. But these two choices: #1) to advise a President, and #3) to publicly oppose the President by being part of a counter-movement trying to remove him are in most instances not going to be mutually compatible. If trying to play both roles, at a certain point a person will likely have to galvanize their position in #1 or #3.

What Elon did yesterday morning with basically saying the Trump admin is full of extremists (and that extremism will lead to war)... this is somewhat of a hybrid position (meaning he's criticizing the Trump admin but at same time choosing to advise/engage). From what I can see, this is the strongest critique of the administration by Elon to date. And I don't think it's coincidence.

This morning Tesla/SpaceX joined the Amacus brief and this is another move toward criticizing the Trump admin.

I think it's possible that Elon can walk this difficult line (advising but criticizing) for a time, but I think there's a tension in doing so. Both sides want Elon to do better. The President wants his loyalty and for Elon to not publicly criticize him. And the opposition wants Elon to not lend credibility to the President by advising him. Tough spot to be in.

 

[neroden]

Oh, that's simple really, here is excerpts from 'How to be demagogue for dummies'

Play on people's anger and more importantly fears:
- you are the one that can protect them
- find common enemy
if common enemy is not scary enough, or economy goes downhill, start another war - scary one (naaah, not just flying high and dropping bombs), with body-bags and all, and then:
- there is scary enemy and you are the only one that can protect them
rinse and repeat as needed, change laws so you can stay in power forever.

Look at Milosevic (10-15 years of various unrest/wars), look at Putin...

It's harder than that. Johnson and Nixon tried this tactic in the US with the Vietnam War, and look where it got them. It helps if you can actually win the wars you start. If you lose them, it tends to not help. If the "scary" enemy is remarkably restrained and polite and sympathetic, it doesn't help either. If they seem to be living better than you, they're restrained and polite, *and* you're losing, it *really* doesn't help. If you're failing at basic competence of governance, that doesn't help either. If you manage to successfully pretend that you're not a dictator, that's very helpful.

If you want the ultimate example of pulling off a demogogic dictatorship successfully, look at Caesar Augustus, who is *still* remembered positively. If you want examples of how not to do it, look at the next 10 Emperors.

 

[Zhelko Dimic]

It's harder than that. Johnson and Nixon tried this tactic in the US with the Vietnam War, and look where it got them. It helps if you can actually win the wars you start. If you lose them, it tends to not help. If the "scary" enemy is remarkably restrained and polite and sympathetic, it doesn't help either. If they seem to be living better than you, they're restrained and polite, *and* you're losing, it *really* doesn't help. If you're failing at basic competence of governance, that doesn't help either. If you manage to successfully pretend that you're not a dictator, that's very helpful.

If you want the ultimate example of pulling off a demogogic dictatorship successfully, look at Caesar Augustus, who is *still* remembered positively. If you want examples of how not to do it, look at the next 10 Emperors.

I have no clue who Johnson and Nixon are (well, heard a bit about Nixon, just pointing that ppl outside of US don't care much about US presidents), but I'll bet you they were not real, proper demagogue in the venue of 'don't care about institutions, I'll do what I want, don't care about public opinion'

Now, when one is proper demagogue like Milosevic was, Putin is, Trump shows some talent to grow into, things are as simple as I described. Moving to dictatorship is a possibility. These figures are not shackled in respecting established standards of 'care about percentage of popularity, what majority think' and may eventually grow to feel above law. Sufficiently evolved demagogue doesn't care about anything but what he/his circle thinks. Losing war is easy-peasy, and explained by 'whole world is against us'; 'look it's Californians fault!' Every situation is solved with another war, losing of course. There is always someone else to blame

Ok, I started the whole series of comments to bring a bit of humor, but it turned into morbid diatribe. Unfortunatelly, everything I said has some basis in reality. I've observed decay of relatively civilized society (Yugoslavia in 90's, straddling West and East, darling of Western World because it broke up with Stalin) into third-world country.

Just like in stock market, everything is possible, but that would be real black swan, and I don't really see it happening - inertia of US political system is going to disarm Trump from doing a great damage, even if he chooses real bad path, and I don't think he will.

 

[JRP3]

I think it's possible that Elon can walk this difficult line (advising but criticizing) for a time, but I think there's a tension in doing so. Both sides want Elon to do better. The President wants his loyalty and for Elon to not publicly criticize him. And the opposition wants Elon to not lend credibility to the President by advising him. Tough spot to be in.

Certainly, and I don't know if he can pull it off, but I'm willing to support his attempt because I think it worthwhile.

 

[dc_h]

What Elon did yesterday morning with basically saying the Trump admin is full of extremists (and that extremism will lead to war)... t

Elon didn't say that. He asked if people thought only extremists should work with Trump? You seem to support the idea that only extremists should work with him and everyone who's not is compromised. Isn't that our problem? Everyone wanting intellectual party allegiance and not allegiance to your country? Sorry, but this moral purity thing is getting old. I'm not a Trump voter and I worry about the extremist elements and undertone, but it is imperative to bend the needle and influence outcomes. If you think occupy Trump street will do anything but harden his supporters and turn off mainstream America you are in a bubble.
I hope I don't get sucked into this conversation any further. My opinion I think I'm right. I'm sure other forms of dissent can help, but if done to the exclusion of personal dialog, it is born to fail.

 

[neroden]

I have no clue who Johnson and Nixon are (well, heard a bit about Nixon, just pointing that ppl outside of US don't care much about US presidents), but I'll bet you they were not real, proper demagogue in the venue of 'don't care about institutions, I'll do what I want, don't care about public opinion'

Well, demagogues do care about public opinion. If they don't they get removed.

Nixon most definitely didn't care about institutions and did what he wanted regardless of law or institution -- one of his most famous quotes is "when the President does it, that means it isn't illegal". Among other bizarre incidents, Nixon's aide Colson wanted to firebomb the Brookings Institution to try to destroy the Pentagon Papers (which weren't there).

Context of 'June 8-9, 1973: Colson Planned to Firebomb Brookings Institution, Post Reports'

Nixon kept an "enemies list" and engaged in a long sequence of shady and violent (but also incompetent) actions to retailate against his perceived enemies. There's a reason the Watergate crisis (uncovering of some of the burglaries, followed by Nixon firing the prosecutor who was investigating Nixon, and then threatening the courts) led to Nixon almost being impeached -- though he resigned first.

Nixon won election on a "secret plan to end the war". There was no such plan.

 

[DaveT]

Elon didn't say that. He asked if people thought only extremists should work with Trump?

The two tweets I was referring to were:
1. "Activists should be pushing for more moderates to advise President, not fewer. How could having only extremists advise him possibly be good?"
2. "A lot of terrible things could happen in four years of extremism. Do you really want another war? That's where extremism leads."

Tweet #1 is asserting that not enough moderates are advising Trump and that is dangerous. The implication (along with the second part of tweet) is that there are too many extremists advising Trump. In tweet #2, Elon talks about the consequences of such extremism.

You seem to support the idea that only extremists should work with him and everyone who's not is compromised. Isn't that our problem? Everyone wanting intellectual party allegiance and not allegiance to your country? Sorry, but this moral purity thing is getting old. I'm not a Trump voter and I worry about the extremist elements and undertone, but it is imperative to bend the needle and influence outcomes. If you think occupy Trump street will do anything but harden his supporters and turn off mainstream America you are in a bubble.
I hope I don't get sucked into this conversation any further. My opinion I think I'm right. I'm sure other forms of dissent can help, but if done to the exclusion of personal dialog, it is born to fail.

Actually, what I'm saying though my posts is not necessarily trying to push one idea of way. In fact, Elon could be correct with his approach of engagement and advising Trump. I labeled this as choice #1 in my previous post. But I also brought up the legitimacy of choice #3, which is opposing and organizing. I'm not using my posts to try to push this choice as the correct choice for Elon either. What am I saying is that whatever choice Elon makes, it's going to have costs and benefits as related to the Tesla brand and to people's affinity toward Tesla. I think it's a worthwhile topic to discuss and to think more deeply about.

 

[dc_h]

Thanks DaveT. It is an interesting time.

 

[DaveT]

I wanted to briefly address the concept that seems to be going around from some posts in this thread that protests have no good effect on change.

I think some people have this notion because they've seen protests, and the protests they've seen haven't led to much change. Or have been even counter-productive.

However, I would assert that there are various kinds of protests and it's incorrect to label all protests as unproductive. In other words, there are productive protests and unproductive protests.

Often, the most productive protests historically are those that are integrated into a larger organizing of resistance that is strategically working toward regime/office change (ie., voting out an elected official). Productive protests realize that the protests must be integrated into a larger realistic and strategic plan of changing and influencing the minds of the majority to embolden them to vote the elected official(s) out. Often the bulk of the work is not the protests themselves but rather it's the endless organizing, planning, fundraising, etc that goes on to support and organize a counter-movement so that it's effective enough to actually catalyze change.

Often times, these movements of change don't succeed... and thus the protests might be seen as done in vain. However, sometimes these movements for change do succeed... and their impact is profound. (ie., formation of U.S., Dr. Martin Luther King, etc)

Further, sometimes these movements of change are judged by history as positive... sometimes as negative, based on their impact to the country over a long period of time.

What we've seen with Trump/Bannon is actually an actualization of a movement of change (starting from Tea Party, Occupy WS, growing dissatisfaction in middle America, etc) where protests did play an important role in galvanizing support and legitimizing certain asserted beliefs, at least within the movement.

A counter-movement to Trump/Bannon is just another attempt for change. It could work, or it might not work. Nobody knows at this point. Just like a year ago nobody really knew if the counter-movement at that time headed by Trump/Bannon would succeed or not.

But the reason I bring up this notion of a counter-movement is because it appears that many of the posts here tend to discount, minimize or ignore the possibility that a counter-movement can achieve change. Lots of posts here claim that opposing Trump will do no good and just bolden Trump supporters, etc. Yes, that's a possibility but it's not the inevitable result of opposing Trump. There's also the possibility of change resulting not from mere shouting but from organizing a massive counter-movement that votes in new officials (whether it be in 2018 or 2020 or whenever).

The reason I bring this up is not to push or advocate for a counter-movement here (heck this is TMC and not a political forum), but rather if we as thread participants don't even recognize the possibility of change from a counter-movement then in my view our discussions on Elon's options to influence the Trump admin will be short-sighted and narrow-minded. Thus, for the sake of having a deeper and more productive discussion, I am merely bringing out legitimate options of engaging in political change or influence.