Hacker News Reader

Comment by _mlbt | Hacker News Reader

It's not the first time that California government officials have held Elon Musk's political beliefs against him and his companies...

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/10/california-reject-m...

It's absolutely disgusting whether you agree with his politics or not. As Americans we're better than this.

View on HN

But...you're not, this is entirely normal politics now. DeSantis has been waging open war on Disney for years, Cruz has gone after everyone from Blackrock to Target for political reasons. The incoming administration has made no secret it intends to use any and every lever to hurt any opposition. At some point you need to stop pretending to be surprised by entirely quotidien events and accept this is in fact precisely who you are.

There will also be exceptions for any general principle. Remember, Americans still allow TikTok despite mainland China banning almost every major US social network. Citing a few events and calling them "quotidien" doesn't make it so.

E.g, Twitter/X is still flourishing in the US while regulators in the EU frequently threaten it.

Correction: China has never banned any US social network. That said social network decided not to comply with local laws is their decision. Even Tiktok does not work in China

Yes, those examples you gave are also disgusting, but do not make politically motivated actions against Elon Musk right.

Is it right? That's endlessly debatable. But is it unusual, unexpected or 'not who we are'? No, that is clear and if anything this is at the mild end of recent weaponisation of political office against businesses.

no, but they do make them normal.

You've moved the goal post. You said "we're better than this". You got several instances where, clearly, we are not.

Take the L here. Acknowledge we're not better than this and arguably never have been. Next time consider, "we should aspire to be better than this".

And to be clear, I didn't vote Harris or Trump, both parties do this gross stuff.

In the examples you're listing, those actions were overwhelmingly supported by Floridians and Texans respectively, and worked to increase the overall support of those politicians.

Is this the sort of action that Californians would broadly support? If so, then more power to them. If not then this is the political class playing petty games to the detriment of the people they're supposed to be representing.

So you’re asking if the majority of Californians would gladly see Musk be excluded from these benefits? Seems like the recent election results would be a pretty good indicator of how that would go. And assuming that they would, then you’re okay with it, right?

Also, don’t confuse gerrymandered elections with overwhelming support. Texas turned disenfranchising people into an art form. What the voting lines say and what the people want are rarely aligned. The Texas government knows this. The people know this (ex Texan here). Its cleverly and not secretly crafted to make it nearly impossible for the state to go blue.

Musk makes $0 directly from these benefits. He only gains from those who buy a Tesla with the perk, but wouldn't otherwise, and that number is going to be quite small. The primary beneficiaries, by far, are normal citizens of California. And I really doubt they're thrilled about paying more because of petty political games.

Ted Cruz is a Senator - gerrymandering plays 0 role in his victory, which was far more dominant in 2024 than 2018.

> concerns that all SpaceX launches would be considered military activity, shielding the company from having to acquire its own permits, even if military payloads aren’t being carried.

If that's accurate then the way they're holding it against him is making him follow the existing rules. But maybe that's a smokescreen? I'm unsure how to judge that situation.

But for the topic article, if he's going to be inside the group of people that are cutting federal EV subsidies, I don't think he gets to complain about not getting EV subsidies.

EV subsidies were intended to backstop the EV supply chain buildup. EV subsidies should be retired when EVs are economically viable on their own merits. We have had EV subsidies for 16 years.

In my opinion 16 years is long enough for the experiment, and it is an appropriate time to discuss the usefulness of EV subsidies going forward.

I think tax rates should be higher. So does that mean I should have to pay extra taxes by myself and the rates for everyone else should stay the same?

Are you a billionaire?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com