Elon got a Wisconsin Civics lesson yesterday. While throwing tons of money into the state Supreme Court Race. He announced he was going to give away two one million dollar checks to two people who would attend his get out the vote rally today. but the state attorney general intervened and told him it is against Wisconsin law to give anyone something of value to either vote or refrain from voting in Wisconsin.
Actually, what the attorney general did was file a lawsuit against Musk, seeking an injunction from the court. Musk then promptly redefined who would be eligible to win the money, changing it from people who voted to people who signed a petition against “activist” judges.
I think I essentially said that in my last response @Nick Tamen . I also put up a link to the whole story.
Well actually, in that last post, you said “I hope the AG takes [Musk’s] ass to court.” The headline of the article to which you linked clearly stated the AG had already done that.
In any event, anyone got any predictions about the Wisconsin vote on April 1st? I vaguely recall reading that it looks good for Crawford, the prefered candidate of Democrats, but I really don't know.
To me, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court vote as a referendum on Musk. He poured 22.6 million into the race, and it was used against him. Of course, he denied the one million dollar checks were to influence the vote, but there is one video that seems to say differently. See here.. That's what I would call "a smoking gun." I think the state A.G. should take a look at the issue again.
Rumor has it Muskrat may be leaving the Trump partnership in government shortly. By law, he would have to leave after 130 days anyway.
I'm hesitant to believe anything based on "three Trump insiders who were granted anonymity to describe the evolving relationship". This kind of anonymous sourcing has gotten way out of hand.
Rumor has it Muskrat may be leaving the Trump partnership in government shortly. By law, he would have to leave after 130 days anyway.
I'm hesitant to believe anything based on "three Trump insiders who were granted anonymity to describe the evolving relationship". This kind of anonymous sourcing has gotten way out of hand.
Granted. That is why I stated it was a rumor.
We know Trump hates losers. The bet is Musk's failure to turn the Wisconsin court election could give the small hands guy reason enough to fire Muskrat. Story here.
The deal of it is when major news outlets run a story, they usually try to verify their information through secondary sources. But, then, sometimes in a rush to get information out there, they cut corners and do make mistakes. If they are wrong, they will print retractions. In this case, multiple outlets are saying the same thing. Still, it needs to be taken with some salt until it happens.
Now that Elon Musk has officially departed Washington DC as a special government employee of the federal government, I think he deserves a final exit evaluation. I know I would give him a DNrH (Do Not Rehire) for him.
He promised to cut 2 trillion from the federal government. The most he got was $150 billion. His cuts to USAID resulted in an estimated 300,000 childhood deaths in the three months since the funds were cut. And this will continue to grow until Congress restores the program. He was known to have used some heavy drugs while under the employ of the Trump administration. Even his private enterprises have suffered. Tesla stock plummeted. How many rockets has he lost in the past three months? Seems like the only Musk venture that has fared well is Starlink.
Last Friday, Musk appeared in the White House with a black eye. How appropriate.
Starlink? You mean that unmaintainable nightmare that is trashing the skies, polluting the atmosphere and requiring thousands of rocket launches to attempt to support it?
Starlink? You mean that unmaintainable nightmare that is trashing the skies, polluting the atmosphere and requiring thousands of rocket launches to attempt to support it?
I cannot access the Economist article, so my apologies if the answer to my following question is in it.
Originally posted by Gramps49:
His cuts to USAID resulted in an estimated 300,000 childhood deaths in the three months since the funds were cut.
100,000 childhood deaths a month, for three months? Where has this figure come from?
I believe an American professor in some relevant field, at a New York university.
I myself did wonder how such a calamity could go so under-reported, since even if we assume the US media is in Trump's pocket, lots of other countries are involved in Africa, and I woulda thought 300, 000 dead kids would get on the radar.
If you click on the link, it will take you to a break down of that estimate at ImpactCounter.com. There, it says approximately 210 thousand children and approximately 101 thousand adults have died as a result of funding discontinuation.
Okay, my error concerning the number of deaths. However, the Boston study Nick cited says it is a rough estimate. Could be less, could be more. It also estimates around 100 people an hour are dying because of the USAID cuts.
... if we assume the US media is in Trump's pocket ...
Even as a conditional statement, this is stupidly broad.
I actually agree. But I didn't wanna go down the rabbit hole of someone saying "You're so fucking naive, Stetson, if you think that the US media reports anything bad about its government", and then I gotta waste time digging up examples of the US media doing that. So I used the standard debators' technique of conceding the most extreme version of the anticipated rebuttals before showing why they wouldn't matter anyway.
If you click on the link, it will take you to a break down of that estimate at ImpactCounter.com. There, it says approximately 210 thousand children and approximately 101 thousand adults have died as a result of funding discontinuation.
Unless I've missed something, the link doesn't say how many countries are involved (not that that makes much difference to the appalling figures).
Thing is, even if that estimate is significantly high - 10 times - that is still 30000 people who have died unnecessarily because of the actions of Musk and trump.
That unnecessarily is important - because USAID would have helped these people. There was a system in place to help them, and it was taken away.
Thing is, even if that estimate is significantly high - 10 times - that is still 30000 people who have died unnecessarily because of the actions of Musk and trump.
That unnecessarily is important - because USAID would have helped these people. There was a system in place to help them, and it was taken away.
And, just as importantly, taken away in an abrupt and disorganised fashion, like the difference between being made redundant through formal processes and just showing up at your place of work one morning to find it vacant and all the phones disconnected, and discovering your last pay cheque bounced.
*I say appears, because people like Musk stick around, and make themselves known again, in the same way that dog-shit behaves when you inadvertently tread in it...
Well no not really. Only in the "my enemy's enemy" sense. Musk would like to balance the budget by cutting spending. The Democrats would probably prefer to keep the spending but not have tax cuts. I would not say there is a meeting of minds there.
Well no not really. Only in the "my enemy's enemy" sense. Musk would like to balance the budget by cutting spending. The Democrats would probably prefer to keep the spending but not have tax cuts. I would not say there is a meeting of minds there.
Musk called the bill "a disgusting abomination", and then Hakeem Jeffries picked up on that term, and said Musk's comments were the "stone cold truth", because the bill is indeed "a disgusting abomination", but the reasons he gave were the opposite of what Musk said, ie. Jeffries thinks it cuts too much.
It wasn't clear to me from the quotes whether Jeffries was acknowledging the radical difference between Musk's criticism and his own. I think he just liked the fact that Republicans were attacking each other, since it gave him the chance to talk about a "Republican Civil War".
Looks like Musk and Trump are having a tiff, with Musk digging up old tweets by Trump, Trump telling the media that Musk turned on the bill when it affected EV subsidies, and Trump taking to Truth Social to suggest that the best way to save 'billions and billions' of dollars is to take away all Musk's subsidies and contracts.
Looks like Musk and Trump are having a tiff, with Musk digging up old tweets by Trump, Trump telling the media that Musk turned on the bill when it affected EV subsidies, and Trump taking to Truth Social to suggest that the best way to save 'billions and billions' of dollars is to take away all Musk's subsidies and contracts.
Some group of "centrist Democrats" called WelcomeFest are saying they'd "welcome" Musk back into the Democrats, though they don't want him "distorting their politics".
Yeah, no. Obviously, Democrats can't stop Musk from registering as a Democrat, but they should bolt like mad from any perceived association with him. He was already the most unpopular member of the administration, and his recent criticisms of the BBB are coming from the Right.
I'm harkening back to school days when two kids would start pummeling each other at recess or lunch and everyone else would circle around them shouting "Fight! Fight!"
What I find particularly enjoyable is that these two idiots both think they are so cool to go around wearing old-fashioned school uniform caps. It makes them look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee - no surprise that acting out the roles comes quite naturally to them.
The cat fight between Trump and Musk is getting interesting.
Musk: The big, beautiful bill is an abomination etc, etc.
Trump: Musk is upset the tax credits for EVs are going away
Musk: No, I am upset you are undoing everything I was doing.
Trump: Maybe we should end all the government contracts Musk has.
Musk, I guess we will discontinue the Dragon space capsule which NASA uses to transport astronauts to the space station.
Musk: Oh, BTW, I dare you to release the Epstein files, might have some very tantalizing information on Trump's alleged sexcapades.
Comments
"For want of a nail..." vibes.
Meanwhile, Tesla sales continue to slump.
And see Chesterton's poem on Smith and the Welsh Disestsblishment Bill.
Basically, he pumped money into an election in which the money itself became an issue working against his side. The ultimate own-goal.
As if anything he's done so far has been lawful.
History has many examples of that sort of relationship ending in tears...
We're back to the optimist and the pessimist:
The pessimist says "things are terrible, they can't possibly get any worse". The optimist says "oh yes they can!"
I'm hesitant to believe anything based on "three Trump insiders who were granted anonymity to describe the evolving relationship". This kind of anonymous sourcing has gotten way out of hand.
Granted. That is why I stated it was a rumor.
We know Trump hates losers. The bet is Musk's failure to turn the Wisconsin court election could give the small hands guy reason enough to fire Muskrat. Story here.
The deal of it is when major news outlets run a story, they usually try to verify their information through secondary sources. But, then, sometimes in a rush to get information out there, they cut corners and do make mistakes. If they are wrong, they will print retractions. In this case, multiple outlets are saying the same thing. Still, it needs to be taken with some salt until it happens.
He promised to cut 2 trillion from the federal government. The most he got was $150 billion. His cuts to USAID resulted in an estimated 300,000 childhood deaths in the three months since the funds were cut. And this will continue to grow until Congress restores the program. He was known to have used some heavy drugs while under the employ of the Trump administration. Even his private enterprises have suffered. Tesla stock plummeted. How many rockets has he lost in the past three months? Seems like the only Musk venture that has fared well is Starlink.
Last Friday, Musk appeared in the White House with a black eye. How appropriate.
I do think once there is a regime change, the new government should start a criminal investigation on Musk and his DOGE people.
Here is The Economist evaluation of Musk failure in government.
That is another unmitigated disaster.
Yep. Thinks he's indestructible.
The one that countries are stopping using?
Originally posted by Gramps49:
His cuts to USAID resulted in an estimated 300,000 childhood deaths in the three months since the funds were cut.
100,000 childhood deaths a month, for three months? Where has this figure come from?
I believe an American professor in some relevant field, at a New York university.
I myself did wonder how such a calamity could go so under-reported, since even if we assume the US media is in Trump's pocket, lots of other countries are involved in Africa, and I woulda thought 300, 000 dead kids would get on the radar.
Even as a conditional statement, this is stupidly broad.
I actually agree. But I didn't wanna go down the rabbit hole of someone saying "You're so fucking naive, Stetson, if you think that the US media reports anything bad about its government", and then I gotta waste time digging up examples of the US media doing that. So I used the standard debators' technique of conceding the most extreme version of the anticipated rebuttals before showing why they wouldn't matter anyway.
Unless I've missed something, the link doesn't say how many countries are involved (not that that makes much difference to the appalling figures).
That unnecessarily is important - because USAID would have helped these people. There was a system in place to help them, and it was taken away.
And, just as importantly, taken away in an abrupt and disorganised fashion, like the difference between being made redundant through formal processes and just showing up at your place of work one morning to find it vacant and all the phones disconnected, and discovering your last pay cheque bounced.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/may/30/elon-musk-tesla-investors-doge
*I say appears, because people like Musk stick around, and make themselves known again, in the same way that dog-shit behaves when you inadvertently tread in it...
Musk called the bill "a disgusting abomination", and then Hakeem Jeffries picked up on that term, and said Musk's comments were the "stone cold truth", because the bill is indeed "a disgusting abomination", but the reasons he gave were the opposite of what Musk said, ie. Jeffries thinks it cuts too much.
It wasn't clear to me from the quotes whether Jeffries was acknowledging the radical difference between Musk's criticism and his own. I think he just liked the fact that Republicans were attacking each other, since it gave him the chance to talk about a "Republican Civil War".
Some group of "centrist Democrats" called WelcomeFest are saying they'd "welcome" Musk back into the Democrats, though they don't want him "distorting their politics".
Yeah, no. Obviously, Democrats can't stop Musk from registering as a Democrat, but they should bolt like mad from any perceived association with him. He was already the most unpopular member of the administration, and his recent criticisms of the BBB are coming from the Right.
I'm harkening back to school days when two kids would start pummeling each other at recess or lunch and everyone else would circle around them shouting "Fight! Fight!"
Seen on another platform today: "UPS* just dropped off a bushel of popcorn and a firkin of Schadenfreude '05."
*UPS = United Parcel Service (not sure if it's just a US thing)
Musk: The big, beautiful bill is an abomination etc, etc.
Trump: Musk is upset the tax credits for EVs are going away
Musk: No, I am upset you are undoing everything I was doing.
Trump: Maybe we should end all the government contracts Musk has.
Musk, I guess we will discontinue the Dragon space capsule which NASA uses to transport astronauts to the space station.
Musk: Oh, BTW, I dare you to release the Epstein files, might have some very tantalizing information on Trump's alleged sexcapades.
And the beat goes on.
Musk: Trump should be impeached.
Steve Bannon (Trump lackey): Maybe Musk should be deported.
And have a talk about how to deal with their Big Feelings.