Let's talk about Elon Musk

[Rage Against the McKee]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1889062581848944961

Whoa, could this be the tweet that does it? Holy crap

edit- my bad, I thought this was recent. lol, of course no-one cared about it. What the hell have we become?

It's only two days old. But yeah, pretty much anyone who knows anything about any topic Elon tweets about already knows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

[cfbandyman]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1889062581848944961

Whoa, could this be the tweet that does it? Holy crap

edit- my bad, I thought this was recent. lol, of course no-one cared about it. What the hell have we become?

It's only two days old. But yeah, pretty much anyone who knows anything about any topic Elon tweets about already knows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He rarely does. All the actual hard work of anything is done by actually smart people. Now that is not to say he's dumb, but like he's not even close to even Steve Jobs' understanding how how things work. Let alone the Woz's of the world that actually do crap.

[Stupid Fitz]

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1889062581848944961

Whoa, could this be the tweet that does it? Holy crap

edit- my bad, I thought this was recent. lol, of course no-one cared about it. What the hell have we become?

It's only two days old. But yeah, pretty much anyone who knows anything about any topic Elon tweets about already knows he doesn't know what he's talking about.

He rarely does. All the actual hard work of anything is done by actually smart people. Now that is not to say he's dumb, but like he's not even close to even Steve Jobs' understanding how how things work. Let alone the Woz's of the world that actually do crap.

I mean yeah, any non idiot knows this is how it has always been with him and his companies. I'm also referring to the fact that the defacto president of the US called someone a "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" publicly on the largest SM platform in the world for everyone to see. He also did this and was wrong and no one seems to care. Its all just bonkers to me.

[chum1]

As someone very familiar with DBs and SQL, Musk's comments just make no sense. 100% sounds like someone who doesn't know what he's talking about pretending that he does.

[Kat Kid]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

[chum1]

[Pete]

https://apple.news/AAXKnCi_FQ8eUz6TH3ghROg

Wall Street Journal Editorial Board


Is There a Constitutional Crisis?

Trump’s actions are aggressive, but they aren’t an executive coup.


Well, that was fast. The same people who predicted Donald Trump would be a dictator now say a “constitutional crisis” has already arrived, barely three weeks into his Presidency. They’re overwrought as usual, and readers may appreciate a less apocalyptic breakdown about Mr. Trump’s actions and whether they do or don’t breach the normal checks and balances.
Mr. Trump’s domestic-policy decisions so far strike us as falling into three categories. Most rest on strong legal ground. Some are legally debatable and could go either way in court. In still others Mr. Trump appears to be breaking current law deliberately to tee up cases that will go to the Supreme Court to restore what he considers to be constitutional norms. None of these is a constitutional crisis.

The first category includes the Administration’s decision to pause discretionary spending to ensure it complies with the President’s priorities. Democratic state Attorneys General say this is illegal, and Judge John McConnell on Monday agreed. The Administration is appealing, and judges can’t force a President to spend money that Congress has left to his discretion.

M ost of these spending programs don’t include concrete disbursement deadlines. If Mr. Trump is violating the law, so was the Biden Administration, which delayed disbursing grants under the 2021 infrastructure bill and 2022 Inflation Reduction Act to review applications and attach conditions. What Mr. Trump is doing is no different.
Government unions are challenging Mr. Trump’s buyout offers for federal workers on grounds that Congress hasn’t funded them, but this doesn’t make them illegal per se. If Mr. Trump later doesn’t pay these workers, they could sue in federal claims court.
Unions are also challenging Mr. Trump’s Schedule F reform, which removes civil-service protections for some high-ranking career employees. Here, too, Mr. Trump is on strong legal ground. The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 exempts positions “determined to be of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making or policy-advocating character.”
Mr. Trump has expanded these exempt positions to employees who supervise investigations, develop regulations and exercise power under an agency’s discretion. Congress has expanded the discretion of agencies such that federal workers now boast far more power than they did 50 years ago. A President should be able to hold them accountable for performance to ensure

A second category are decisions on more debatable legal ground, such as effectively dismantling the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress established these agencies and it would have to act to eliminate them. Less clear is whether a President can order employees to cease doing their jobs.
Harvard law professor Hal Scott recently argued in these pages that the CFPB is operating illegally because Congress funded the agency with earnings from the Federal Reserve. Because the Fed has incurred losses since September 2022, Mr. Scott says the bureau should close unless Congress appropriates money for it. This argument is plausible.

As for USAID, a federal judge has temporarily blocked the Administration’s plans to wind down its operations to have more time to consider the merits. Many Administration actions raise novel legal questions. This bucket also includes whether employees with Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency can obtain access to Treasury payment systems.
Mr. Trump is stretching laws to see what he can get away with, but so have other recent Presidents. Barack Obama touted his pen-and-a-phone strategy of ruling by decree. “So sue me,” he taunted House Republicans. The Supreme Court blocked his Clean Power Plan and DAPA, which protected millions of undocumented immigrants from deportation.
Joe Biden exceeded his power by canceling student loans, mandating vaccines and banning evictions, among other overreaches. After the Supreme Court blocked his first loan write-off, he declared “that didn’t stop me” and used other illegal means. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals last year rebuked his Administration for turning a lower-court injunction on his SAVE plan into a “nullity.”

The third category of Trump actions are clear violations of current law with a goal of inviting legal challenges to get to the Supreme Court. This includes his order

Mr. Trump may be wrong, but there is no constitutional crisis as the cases make their way through the courts. Liberals are flogging a recent tweet by JD Vance that “judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” But even liberal judges agree with this in principle as they interpret the proper separation of constitutional powers.
The real crisis would come if Mr. Trump defies a Supreme Court ruling. If that happens, and it could, the left may wish it hadn’t squandered its credibility by crying wolf so often about crises that didn’t exist. Readers can relax in the meantime.

The article argues that concerns about a “constitutional crisis” under Donald Trump’s presidency are exaggerated. It categorizes Trump’s domestic policy actions into three groups:

   1.   Legally Sound Actions – These include pausing discretionary spending, offering buyouts to federal workers, and expanding Schedule F reforms to remove civil-service protections for certain employees. The article argues that these actions have legal precedent and are similar to past administrations’ decisions.

   2.   Legally Debatable Actions – These include attempts to dismantle the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The legality of these moves is uncertain, but similar executive overreach has occurred under previous presidents, such as Obama and Biden.

   3.   Deliberate Legal Violations Aimed at Supreme Court Review – Some of Trump’s actions may openly challenge existing law in order to provoke legal battles that could redefine constitutional norms.

The article asserts that while Trump is testing legal boundaries, this is not a constitutional crisis. Instead, it argues that a true crisis would only arise if Trump defied a Supreme Court ruling—something that has not yet happened. The piece criticizes the left for frequently declaring crises prematurely, suggesting this weakens their credibility.

[Pete]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

GM signed one last year with state department for 300 million, but it’s a longer contract.

Direct comparisons between the GM Defense and Tesla contracts in terms of the number of vehicles to be provided are not explicitly available from public sources. Here's what we can infer based on the information at hand:

- **GM Defense - State Department Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: Up to $300 million over 10 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Next-generation heavy-duty armored SUVs based on the Chevrolet Suburban platform.
  - **Purpose**: To replace the aging fleet of armored vehicles for diplomatic security.
  - **Specifics**: The contract is an IDIQ type, which means the exact number of vehicles can vary based on need and funding. However, given the contract's scope and the need for fleet replacement, one can estimate a significant number of vehicles, potentially in the hundreds over the contract period, but without precise numbers.

- **Tesla - State Department Forecasted Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: $400 million over 5 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Armored electric vehicles.
  - **Purpose**: Also for diplomatic security, introducing electric vehicle technology into the fleet.
  - **Specifics**: This contract is also under an IDIQ framework, meaning the number of vehicles isn't set but will depend on the State Department's requirements. Given the contract's higher total value and shorter duration than GM's, one might speculate that either the vehicles are more expensive per unit or a larger quantity is anticipated, or perhaps a combination of both. However, without explicit details, this remains speculative.

**Comparative Points:**
- **Value per Year**: Tesla's contract, at $400 million over 5 years, averages to $80 million per year, while GM's is $30 million per year over 10 years. This disparity might suggest different vehicle costs, different quantities, or different scopes of modifications for security purposes.
- **Vehicle Type and Technology**: GM's vehicles are traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) based, while Tesla's are electric, which might affect costs, maintenance, and the number of vehicles supplied due to different operational considerations like range and security features in electric vehicles.

**Conclusion**:
Without specific numbers disclosed, direct comparisons on quantities are speculative. Both contracts will likely involve supplying vehicles in batches as needed over their respective terms, with Tesla's potentially involving fewer but more technologically advanced units or simply more units due to the higher annual contract value. To get precise numbers, one would need access to the detailed procurement plans or contract modifications which are not publicly detailed in this context.

[cfbandyman]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

Have to save those pennies to throw it over to himself.

So not surprised by this at all.

[bucket]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

Here's a NYT's gift article about all of the lawsuits the government has against Musk. FWIW, I thought it was boring but it basically highlights all of the lawsuits and how this administration will essentially let him off completely or with a slap on the wrist for most.

All things considered,  it's a massive conflict of interest for a multitude of reasons at the highest levels and we just throw our hands up like it's no big deal.

In fact, today or yesterday, I realized the country is representing companies and not the people. I also realized that has been going on for a long time, since Citizens United? But it's never been more apparent.

https://bsky.app/profile/ericlipton.nytimes.com/post/3lhwxqjh7ps23

[Rage Against the McKee]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

GM signed one last year with state department for 300 million, but it’s a longer contract.

Direct comparisons between the GM Defense and Tesla contracts in terms of the number of vehicles to be provided are not explicitly available from public sources. Here's what we can infer based on the information at hand:

- **GM Defense - State Department Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: Up to $300 million over 10 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Next-generation heavy-duty armored SUVs based on the Chevrolet Suburban platform.
  - **Purpose**: To replace the aging fleet of armored vehicles for diplomatic security.
  - **Specifics**: The contract is an IDIQ type, which means the exact number of vehicles can vary based on need and funding. However, given the contract's scope and the need for fleet replacement, one can estimate a significant number of vehicles, potentially in the hundreds over the contract period, but without precise numbers.

- **Tesla - State Department Forecasted Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: $400 million over 5 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Armored electric vehicles.
  - **Purpose**: Also for diplomatic security, introducing electric vehicle technology into the fleet.
  - **Specifics**: This contract is also under an IDIQ framework, meaning the number of vehicles isn't set but will depend on the State Department's requirements. Given the contract's higher total value and shorter duration than GM's, one might speculate that either the vehicles are more expensive per unit or a larger quantity is anticipated, or perhaps a combination of both. However, without explicit details, this remains speculative.

**Comparative Points:**
- **Value per Year**: Tesla's contract, at $400 million over 5 years, averages to $80 million per year, while GM's is $30 million per year over 10 years. This disparity might suggest different vehicle costs, different quantities, or different scopes of modifications for security purposes.
- **Vehicle Type and Technology**: GM's vehicles are traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) based, while Tesla's are electric, which might affect costs, maintenance, and the number of vehicles supplied due to different operational considerations like range and security features in electric vehicles.

**Conclusion**:
Without specific numbers disclosed, direct comparisons on quantities are speculative. Both contracts will likely involve supplying vehicles in batches as needed over their respective terms, with Tesla's potentially involving fewer but more technologically advanced units or simply more units due to the higher annual contract value. To get precise numbers, one would need access to the detailed procurement plans or contract modifications which are not publicly detailed in this context.

Did GM's CEO have an office in the white house and shut down several government agencies while that decision was being made?

[wetwillie]

The White House logs got scrubbed so we will never know

[michigancat]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

GM signed one last year with state department for 300 million, but it’s a longer contract.

Direct comparisons between the GM Defense and Tesla contracts in terms of the number of vehicles to be provided are not explicitly available from public sources. Here's what we can infer based on the information at hand:

- **GM Defense - State Department Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: Up to $300 million over 10 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Next-generation heavy-duty armored SUVs based on the Chevrolet Suburban platform.
  - **Purpose**: To replace the aging fleet of armored vehicles for diplomatic security.
  - **Specifics**: The contract is an IDIQ type, which means the exact number of vehicles can vary based on need and funding. However, given the contract's scope and the need for fleet replacement, one can estimate a significant number of vehicles, potentially in the hundreds over the contract period, but without precise numbers.

- **Tesla - State Department Forecasted Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: $400 million over 5 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Armored electric vehicles.
  - **Purpose**: Also for diplomatic security, introducing electric vehicle technology into the fleet.
  - **Specifics**: This contract is also under an IDIQ framework, meaning the number of vehicles isn't set but will depend on the State Department's requirements. Given the contract's higher total value and shorter duration than GM's, one might speculate that either the vehicles are more expensive per unit or a larger quantity is anticipated, or perhaps a combination of both. However, without explicit details, this remains speculative.

**Comparative Points:**
- **Value per Year**: Tesla's contract, at $400 million over 5 years, averages to $80 million per year, while GM's is $30 million per year over 10 years. This disparity might suggest different vehicle costs, different quantities, or different scopes of modifications for security purposes.
- **Vehicle Type and Technology**: GM's vehicles are traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) based, while Tesla's are electric, which might affect costs, maintenance, and the number of vehicles supplied due to different operational considerations like range and security features in electric vehicles.

**Conclusion**:
Without specific numbers disclosed, direct comparisons on quantities are speculative. Both contracts will likely involve supplying vehicles in batches as needed over their respective terms, with Tesla's potentially involving fewer but more technologically advanced units or simply more units due to the higher annual contract value. To get precise numbers, one would need access to the detailed procurement plans or contract modifications which are not publicly detailed in this context.

Is this from grok

[sonofdaxjones]

https://twitter.com/repthomasmassie/status/1889680735130263747?s=46&t=-jwPwnR3rKHM9sk9hA7h8g


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[sonofdaxjones]

LMAO at the lawsuits against Musk - walk us through the timeline of some of those suits.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mocat]

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comptroller-lander-on-the-trump-administrations-illegal-reversal-of-fema-funding/

[michigancat]

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comptroller-lander-on-the-trump-administrations-illegal-reversal-of-fema-funding/

So blatantly criminal. They would probably get caught but I'm guessing Adams learned something about doing crimes over text.

[mocat]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/climate-and-people/us-aid-freeze-claims-first-victims-as-oxygen-supplies-cut/

[mocat]

Elon just got a $400 million contract for armored teslas. Siap but you can just click the first link and sort by largest contract value. It's the largest one.

https://www.state.gov/procurement-forecast

[Pete]

Can everyone stop pretending this is about Government Efficiency?

https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/elon-musk-armored-tesla-forecast-400-million-state-department-contracts

GM signed one last year with state department for 300 million, but it’s a longer contract.

Direct comparisons between the GM Defense and Tesla contracts in terms of the number of vehicles to be provided are not explicitly available from public sources. Here's what we can infer based on the information at hand:

- **GM Defense - State Department Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: Up to $300 million over 10 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Next-generation heavy-duty armored SUVs based on the Chevrolet Suburban platform.
  - **Purpose**: To replace the aging fleet of armored vehicles for diplomatic security.
  - **Specifics**: The contract is an IDIQ type, which means the exact number of vehicles can vary based on need and funding. However, given the contract's scope and the need for fleet replacement, one can estimate a significant number of vehicles, potentially in the hundreds over the contract period, but without precise numbers.

- **Tesla - State Department Forecasted Contract:**
  - **Contract Amount**: $400 million over 5 years.
  - **Vehicle Type**: Armored electric vehicles.
  - **Purpose**: Also for diplomatic security, introducing electric vehicle technology into the fleet.
  - **Specifics**: This contract is also under an IDIQ framework, meaning the number of vehicles isn't set but will depend on the State Department's requirements. Given the contract's higher total value and shorter duration than GM's, one might speculate that either the vehicles are more expensive per unit or a larger quantity is anticipated, or perhaps a combination of both. However, without explicit details, this remains speculative.

**Comparative Points:**
- **Value per Year**: Tesla's contract, at $400 million over 5 years, averages to $80 million per year, while GM's is $30 million per year over 10 years. This disparity might suggest different vehicle costs, different quantities, or different scopes of modifications for security purposes.
- **Vehicle Type and Technology**: GM's vehicles are traditional ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) based, while Tesla's are electric, which might affect costs, maintenance, and the number of vehicles supplied due to different operational considerations like range and security features in electric vehicles.

**Conclusion**:
Without specific numbers disclosed, direct comparisons on quantities are speculative. Both contracts will likely involve supplying vehicles in batches as needed over their respective terms, with Tesla's potentially involving fewer but more technologically advanced units or simply more units due to the higher annual contract value. To get precise numbers, one would need access to the detailed procurement plans or contract modifications which are not publicly detailed in this context.

Is this from grok

It is! I like to check it first because I like finding things critical of Elon by Grok.

Below is ChatGPT

The U.S. Department of State has engaged in several significant contracts for non-military armored vehicles to enhance the safety of its personnel. Notable examples include:
   •   GM Defense LLC Contract: In late 2023, the Department awarded GM Defense a 10-year Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract to supply next-generation heavy-duty armored SUVs for the Diplomatic Security Service. The initial task order under this contract was valued at $25 million, covering vehicles, training, and engineering services. ?
   •   Alpine Armoring Inc.: Over the past 30 years, Alpine Armoring has been a key provider of non-military armored vehicles to various U.S. government agencies, including the Department of State. While specific contract values are not publicly disclosed, the company’s longstanding relationship with the government underscores its significant role in supplying armored vehicles for diplomatic and security purposes. ?

These contracts, while substantial, are generally smaller in scale compared to the recently projected $400 million contract with Tesla for armored electric vehicles. This indicates a growing investment in advanced armored vehicle solutions for non-military applications.


In contrast, military contracts for armored vehicles often reach higher values. For example, in March 2022, the U.S. Army awarded Lockheed Martin a $3.2 billion contract for the production of AN/TPQ-53 radar systems.

[Pete]

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comptroller-lander-on-the-trump-administrations-illegal-reversal-of-fema-funding/

So blatantly criminal. They would probably get caught but I'm guessing Adams learned something about doing crimes over text.

What is the crime?

[michigancat]

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comptroller-lander-on-the-trump-administrations-illegal-reversal-of-fema-funding/

So blatantly criminal. They would probably get caught but I'm guessing Adams learned something about doing crimes over text.

What is the crime?

It looks very much like a quid pro quo situation with Adams allowing the money to be taken back in exchange for dropping his corruption charges.

[Pete]

https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-nyc-comptroller-lander-on-the-trump-administrations-illegal-reversal-of-fema-funding/

So blatantly criminal. They would probably get caught but I'm guessing Adams learned something about doing crimes over text.

What is the crime?

It looks very much like a quid pro quo situation with Adams allowing the money to be taken back in exchange for dropping his corruption charges.

Ah, I agree. I mistakenly thought you were talking about the Tesla state department deal which is shameless pork barrel crap, but probably not illegal.

[steve dave]

a fun thing about what's going on in the most powerful country on earth is that now a (rascist/austistic/silver spoon/psuedo-intellectual) is now in charge. all good things we want in a leader for sure.

[Pete]

It does kind of resemble when the Czars were advised by Rasputin.