That’s the difference, other manufacturers try to sell you a name and an image with that name.
You’ll find that it’s pretty easy to spend other peoples money especially when you’ll never be held accountable for it.
www.cbsnews.com
The thing is we don’t all agree on how the money should be spent. We will never have full agreement on what is best to do. So instead we have to try our best to elect people who have some wisdom and perhaps aren’t completely self-absorbed and actually have the overall community’s interests in mind, even if those interests are counter to some of our individual personal interests. The point that one party isn’t interested in governing is a huge issue. We need everyone in elected office engaged in running our huge, complex country. Instead, we have a lot of politicians who would rather troll on Twitter than govern or even attempt to govern. Both parties manage to increase our deficit. We can argue about why that is — one side predictably says it’s from spending while the other says it’s from low taxation — but bills have to be paid and the government has to keep functioning. At the end of the day, we all rely on government, no matter how self-reliant we think we are. Right now we have a lot of people in positions of power and influence who aren’t wise. They don’t even seem to aspire to be wise. They aspire to be popular, it seems. They are driven by numbers of thumbs up and retweets. That’s not great for our society.
A universal problem in that field. The solution is to ban corporate donors.
If you can’t make yourself known and heard on grassroots efforts with enthusiastic support from your constituents, You don’t belong in public office.
I think extremes & hate are the enemy. I think once one party (in any relationship, business included) gets too much power - things go bad & monopoly on power in the relationship should be changed. From my own country, monopolies of power lead to bad decision making & the ordinary suffer - extremes are reinforced, corruption & other criminality thrives. Vote to balance out incumbents seems reasonable to me.
egad... I didn't realize James Murdoch was on the board at Tesla. Never mind. Faux News rubber-stamp all over this behavior.
How departure of James laid bare the Murdoch family rifts
The younger son has quit the family firm, but the question of who eventually inherits Rupert’s media empire remains a cliffhangerwww.theguardian.com
James’s dislike of his father’s view on climate change – in short, that we don’t need to worry unduly – has become increasingly evident, as have his own leanings towards progressive politics.
For veteran media expert Roy Greenslade, who has charted every turn in the patriarch’s career, this weekend’s episode was no bolt from the blue. “It has been obvious for a couple of years that James has been unhappy about his father’s – and therefore the company’s – stance on climate change,” he said. “He and his wife have been vocal critics of Rupert’s belief that the change is not the result of human activity.”
The bushfires that ravaged Australia at the beginning of the year are ostensibly at the centre of James’s decision. In January, he and his wife, Kathryn, an environmental campaigner, issued a statement expressing disappointment at coverage by Fox News and other News Corp outlets.
An anonymous former colleague described how her initial scepticism about James’s talents proved unfounded. Speaking this weekend from LA, she said: “My hope is that James will now use his resources to create antidotes to Fox News,” adding that his faith that he could change the views of his father and brother may well have just run out.
James’s views on American politics are also a factor. The most liberal Murdoch donated to Unite America and to the Anti-Defamation League, both liberal causes. He has given cash to Joe Biden’s presidential campaign, while, in contrast, the family’s broadcast news outlet helped to elect the current incumbent
