Musk: "I don’t want to speak up against the administration, but... "

While highly inappropriate he could argue consequences mean a lot of different things. He could argue that if he supports Democrats then Republican consumers may boycott his goods.

It’s like a lot of things he does. The words imply something illegal but you can argue the context was more benign.

 

Right wingers have been groomed to protect pedos

 

As was the case in Russia when an oligarch tries to challenge the Dear Leader the Dear Leader always wins. Just ask Mikhail Khodorkovsky or the ghost of Yevgeny Prigozhin. While Elon wouldn't have ended up dead or in exile, Trump would have brought down the weight of the government on Elon's enterprises (the multiple investigations of Tesla and SpaceX would have resumed) it's not beyond the possibility that Trump may have even threatened "the nuclear option" i.e. seizure of SpaceX and Starlink.

 

Agree - Elon had a chance to cool down and assess the situation. I'm sure he came to the conclusion that Trump could make his life a lot more miserable in the short-term than Elon can to Trump. Elon can re-group in 2028 and throw his support behind whichever candidate he thinks will best help advance his personal goals.

 

ass kisser

 

Why do you want a president like that? Shouldn't we be able to rely on our president to be consistently honest?

 

democrats didnt put forward a viable candidate. Had they dont that, perhaps things would be different

 

I don't want to derail this thread to the same ole "are you kidding me" mantra, so I'm going to just move on.

 

Not seeing Kamala as viable is understandable. I think the trouble that some of us are having is wondering how a candidate whose rhetoric is only acceptable because it is known that his words can’t be trusted is viable.

 

There was NO other choice.

 

Ignoring that there certainly were other options, including the candidate that I voted for, this still doesn’t answer the question. If the problem with Kamala was that she didn’t pass the absolute bar of viable, the choice of Trump can’t be defended by a relative comparison. He too must pass the absolute bar. If the Republicans nominated Jeffrey Dahmer, would you still vote for him because there was no other choice? Of course not.

 

Trumps focus on America, on the Military, on border security is what got him elected. Does he say stupid things, sure...but he also says things that other people are afraid to say out loud. So thats why he was a more viable candidate than Kamala. If Kamala had won, there would be people saying there were 2 bad choices and they had to pick 1...same deal here.

 

I agree that if Kamala had won a bunch of people would be saying that. But then it isn’t really about whether Kamala is viable or unviable. It’s more just that you preferred Trump to Kamala.

 

If neither can pass the standard…
Then tie goes to the republican.

 

Which makes sense for a Republican supporter, but it effectively means that there is no standard. As long as the Democrats nominate someone unacceptable (which a Democrat basically is by definition), then there is no floor to the Republican candidate one is willing to support.

 

so you cant understand how someone would prefer Trump to Kamala? I just told you why: "America, Military, Border".

 

I'm not so sure about that. They'd just start making rationalizations and justifications for cannibalism.

 

I understand it, just like I understand why many people prefer dictatorship to democracy.