Saying despite Elon is delusional. You probably watched some left wing propaganda at some point to come to that conclusion. Just because he supported Trump doesn’t take away from all his achievements.
You have to realize that’s not how it works right? First of all “idiots” aka voters don’t need to be convinced because these people are hired not elected. You mention them being “unelected arbiters” already. However while unelected they are not arbiters. They report to the president who is the arbiter and was elected. Lastly, the president can decide how to implement lanes until his control. If the govt was buying a hammer for $100,000 instead of Home Depot for $10 then yes it can buy the hammer at Home Depot instead.
I dont know if people are lying and/or intentionally gaslighting. DOGE brings information to Trump, Trump acts on it. The illegal part is made up by their political opponents who have apparently being using governmental agencies use to influence other countries to also influence the US - that’s where they went wrong.
You are completely and utterly wrong. The US constitution gives Congress and ONLY congress the power to spend tax money. Musk has absolutely no legal authority to unilaterally stop payments approved by congress. What Musk is doing is a very intentional effort to usurp this authority illegally. Musk should really end up in prison or deported for what he is doing right now.
In the federal government of the United States, the power of the purse is vested in the Congress as laid down in the Constitution of the United States, Article I, Section 9, Clause 7 (the Appropriations Clause) and Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (the Taxing and Spending Clause).
The power of the purse plays a critical role in the relationship of the United States Congress and the President of the United States, and has been the main historic tool by which Congress has limited executive power.
Not confident Trump will prevail: Scholar on his attempts to take Congress' power of the purse Professor Deborah Pearlstein joins Morning Joe to discuss her column for the NYT outlining some of Trump’s actions implemented in his first few days in office and why she says Trump is hardly the first president to claim broad executive power, but the difference is not just the enormity of his claims, it's that the administration mostly doesn't try to craft legal justifications for its actions.
You keep saying Musk and you are right Musk has no power, he just reports information to the President Trump who makes any call. So that part is irrelevant. The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer. If the president finds you can buy a hammer for $10 then he can direct to 100,000 of them there instead. Also, if he finds government agencies are not performing on their obligations he can get rid of them. And lastly, a lot of changes are going to take effect until the next budget, which will be ratified by congress. Just because he says “we’re cancelling X” it doesn’t mean he’s stopping it now but once a new budget it passed.
If congress passes a law to give X dollars to Y department or organization than it is blatantly and utterly illegal for the Executive branch to just say "Nah" and not do so.
"The government can say we want to spend $1,000,000 on hammers but it doesn’t mean you have to spend $1,000,000 on one hammer."
This isn't the level of detail we are concerned with. Congress says that USAID gets $5 billion a year then the Executive branch HAS to transfer that money or else it is in direct violation of the US constitution. Your entire argument is nonsensical and irrelevant.
There must be some confusion because they aren’t cutting programs approved by congress. They are literally cutting funds that were NOT explicitly approved by congress only.
You must realize attacks made by political opponents are always exaggerated and many times false. First of all doge can’t close USAID. What “they” aka Trump did was pause payments for review.
If you are finding the government is sending money to terrorists as they have indicated and need to stop it there are quite a few emergency powers. Pausing is the first step.
A foreign citizen or foreign corporation does not have first amendment rights so this is constitutional. However they should not ban TikTok if they want to hold any moral high ground over China.
There are a crazy number of charging companies out there. They literally just install a charger at any parking spot anywhere and connect electricity. It’s the simplest thing in the world, there is no ploy to be a monopoly in the space. The issue is there is not enough EVs on the road. Think cell towers in the middle of no where, sure you wish they were there but they just are not useful or profitable to many people.
This. I think because NACS is becoming the standard is exactly why they don't want to invest in EV Charging. When Superchargers were Tesla-only, they were a way to promote and market Tesla cars. Now that every car will be able to use them, that's gone. Let someone else run EV charging networks.
Additionally, EV Charging is not going to be a high-margin, disruptive industry that is a darling of wall street. Can you imagine investors getting excited about investing in the largest operator of Gas Stations? I don't think so. It's going to end up being a tight, competitive business where people pick where to charge based on prices down to the penny. No one's going to end up as a billionaire running that business.
It’s hard to claim the launch was anything but a disaster. It’s an expensive toy, one that doesn’t offer much benefit, if any, over its much cheaper counterpart which is 1/10th the price, which also isn’t blowing up in sales either. Should have waited to enter this market until it could at least double the features of the cheaper counter part at this price.
reply