Don't forget the nice side effect of destroying industries that are regulating Elon.
And yes, something like nearly every branch of Federal government with regulatory power is (well, was) investigating him.
Transportation, Justice, Labor, Interior, and Agriculture departments, as well as the National Labor Relations Board, EEOC, EPA, SEC, FCC, FTC.
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/20/us/politics/elon-musk-fed... or https://archive.is/x7chR
I seem to recall that Tesla alone has set the record for the largest number of active investigations with the NLRB and EEOC. The sheer number of incidents of blatant racism alone are shocking. At one point Telsa factory employees were spraying racial slurs on the walls and management ignored it.
Do I think the ripping apart of the federal government will further entrench the Oligarch class? Yeah. But honestly Musk seems to just be doing this because he's just getting vengeance on all the departments and people who he thinks won't let him be his very best genius self.
If you have Transportation, Justice, Labor, Interior, and Agriculture departments, as well as the National Labor Relations Board, EEOC, EPA, SEC, FCC, FTC to answer to, how do you do it?
How do you start a business in the US?
That fucking pisses me off. I know that's not the intent of your post, but that really does piss me the fuck off.
https://www.sos.ca.gov/business-programs/business-entities/s...
Otherwise, wait until fascists complete their takeover, it will certainly be much easier then.
My insisting you lose weight in your GUT is not the same as losing weight in your SKULL. Where, when, how fast determines whether fitness, torture, or murder.
BE MORE DISCERNING
Now when you do that while sucking up hundreds of billions of contracts... yeah, your contractor is gonna start asking questions.
Nope, it's simply impossible. Look at all the failures like Tesla, SpaceX, Meta, Rivian, Bluesky, etc.
Someone think of the CEOs!
There are no real checks and balances when it comes to launching investigations into your political rivals for political purposes.
Considering the barrage of regulatory, reputational and legal attacks Musk faced, it shouldn't be surprising that he seeks to neuter the ability of the bureaucracy to weaponise the government again in future.
Having presented no hard evidence for your claims, I can only assume the standard you demand is the scrupulous separation of interests, conflicts, and bias to demonstrate the absence of bias beyond a reasonable doubt which is a laudable standard.
Yet, you applaud to the clear, unabashed, unapologetic, intentionally biased application of the law to further individual interests. By an entity whose interests, conflicts, and bias are so thoroughly intertwined that the presence of bias is beyond a reasonable doubt.
Can you please explain why you apply diametrically opposed standards of evidence based on their alignment to your in-group?
In Elon's case, he is not a truthful person. He was recently caught lying and cheating about being good at video games of all things. Just for cred. Imagine what he's capable when the stakes were higher.
'Lawfare' is just a way for the out-of-power party to cry victim even when they fully and absolutely did the crime. It means that when they get back in power they not only get a free pass but also an excuse to crush anyone who had the gal to even try and hold them accountable.
Innocent people can be genuine victims of lawfare, just as easily as guilty people can claim to be victims of lawfare.
The previous administration is widely regarded to have engaged in lawfare, so I would prefer to assume that their political rivals are innocent until proven otherwise, rather than guilty by default.
Widely regarded? You're already dealing with a goofy subset of humanity when you're using words like "lawfare."
And for a hypothetical, if he was in fact guilty and the investigations were warranted. And then he used his presidential power to punish and fire everyone remotely associated with those cases. Would this be a good or bad thing in your opinion?
No, it wasn’t. That was claimed by a specific subset of people who wanted to evade consequences for the crimes they committed, but that wasn’t backed up by even a cursory review of the facts.
You can see a similar example with claims that Eric Adams suffered from “lawfare”, which might be an effective political tactic but are clearly contradicted by the evidence against him. Lots of criminals claim they’re innocent but that doesn’t mean they’re right.