this post was submitted on 28 Apr 2025
1 points (100.0% liked)

politics

29435 readers
2085 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
1
New York moves to shutter Tesla dealerships in blow to Musk (www.thedailybeast.com)
submitted 11 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
72 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Lawmakers in New York state are moving to shut down Elon Musk’s Tesla dealerships in yet another blow to the billionaire CEO.

New York State Sen. Patricia Fahy and other lawmakers are fighting to remove a waiver that allows Tesla to operate five in-person dealerships in New York, instead forcing the company to sell their vehicles through dealer franchises, The New York Times reported Sunday.

“No matter what we do, we’ve got to take this from Elon Musk,” Fahy said in March when she first introduced the bill against Tesla. “He’s part of an effort to go backwards.”

She wants the company to relinquish its 5 licenses and instead distribute them to other EV manufacturers, such as Rivian, Scout Motors, and Lucid.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (5 children)

Agree with fucking the rat up, don’t agree with this method. The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s activities are totally unrelated.

I really, really want to cheer this on. But when I step back and look at the whole picture, I can’t justify it. If someone can break it down in a way that makes sense I am SUPER open to changing my mind because again, I want to cheer this on.

If it’s really about letting other ev companies in, then grant them licenses too or take some of Tesla’s when they expire/are up for renewal at least. But to just revoke them as retaliation for musk’s unrelated bullshit doesn’t sit right with me.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Dispite my comment below yours, I also disagree with what NY is doing here. I think the most innovating thing Tesla ever did was normalizing direct-selling to customers. It's part of the reason why I (regrettably) defended the company/cars so long even if I knew Musk was a POS for years. Dealerships are horrible for consumers.

This reads like auto dealer lobbyists getting what they want being passed off as "progress".

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago

Yeah bending the law/weaponizing bureaucracy like this to attack him so indirectly just doesn't seem appropriate and even if we want to ignore that, it sets a dangerous precedent. I don’t want Texas or Alabama taking notes.

[–] mriguy@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

She wants the company to relinquish its five licenses and instead distribute them to other EV manufacturers, such as Rivian, Scout Motors, and Lucid.

…

Fahy said that Musk is “part of an administration that is killing all the grant funding for electric vehicle infrastructure, killing wind energy, killing anything that might address climate change.”

“Why should we give them a monopoly?” she asked regarding Tesla, adding that this bill was her “making amends” with her previous support of the company.

They would transfer the licenses that were granted to them exclusively, not eliminate them.

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Seems like the right thing to do anyway. Why should Tesla have all 5. They get enough government help as is, why give them the monopoly?

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The obvious response would be that customers deserve to buy vehicles from the manufacturer without dealing with middleman stealership BS. Under your definition, American Eagle jeans has a "monopoly."

[–] danc4498@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They only have 5 licenses to give out. Why hide them all the Tesla?

Sure, the 5 number is artificial limit created by the government. But if they only have 5, give 1 to each company.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

? Forcing Tesla to sell through dealers instead of direct-to-customer would eliminate the licenses. I'm confused about what you think "transferring the licenses [to dealers]" means, if not "Tesla can no longer sell direct."

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Yes, this isn't a punshment for Musk as much as a revival of a subsidy for car assholes.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html

[–] Enkers@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

While I totally see where you're coming from, let me try and steelman the counterargument a bit:

There have been signs that Elon was a shit person for a very long time. Even some ten years ago when I personally thought "well he's kinda doing cool stuff in space" I had people telling me: "look at the way he treats workers".

If you did your due diligence, you should know the kind of person you're working for. So either these companies were negligent in their responsibilities, or they knew what they were signing up for and went ahead anyways.

The people who can afford to start a car dealership aren't exactly the ones struggling to know where their next meal is coming from, or how to pay rent. These are well off people that were carless or took a gamble, and it didn't pay out, and they deserve the hardship for their negligence or poor conduct.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I guess I just don’t understand what makes these dealerships different from any other others. They’re being singled out because of who he is and what he is doing right now. I don’t think the counter argument really says a whole lot to be honest.

Ultimately we have to look at their reasoning and it doesn’t feel very sound. It just feels like “we are retaliating because of the owner’s other activities,” nothing related to Tesla. That’s a very dodgy approach that opens a very wide, troubling door

Like what do we mean by “due diligence”? They wouldn’t have granted Tesla a license if they knew musk was a bigoted asshole back then? Fat chance.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] BeNotAfraid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Actually, unlike every other auto manufacturer in the world Tesla dealerships aren't franchised businesses. They're all privately owned by Musk. So, hurting the dealership directly effects his personal assets. Tesla own everyone of the buildings and the businesses themselves. Unlike, say Honda, Toyota and everyone else who just license their company name to the dealerships that are independently owned/operated.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I didn’t say they were franchised dealerships…?

The entire reason these licenses can even be revoked is because of how it is structured.

Are you responding to the wrong person?

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

But to just revoke them as retaliation for musk’s unrelated bullshit doesn’t sit right with me.

It should.

Rules and laws come from our values. If a company isn't moral or ethical, retaliation and consequences are exactly what needs to happen. And we should create new rules and laws to make sure they are forced out.

You do not normalize Nazis.

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You do not normalize Nazis.

Take a look in the mirror - that's literally what you're doing here whether you realize it or not; you're advocating for their methods of arbitrary punishment but giving it a pass because it's your side doing it.

As OC stated, "The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s [Musk's] activities are totally unrelated."

Also, like OC said, I agree with the sentiment but not with the method being used here.

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

As OC stated, "The shops haven’t done anything to warrant revoking their licenses and rat’s [Musk's] activities are totally unrelated."

Yes, but see, I disagree. Musk's activities are related. Sorry, but that's a dumb opinion, I just can't even see how anyone can believe that.

But trying to slide that in as an assumed proposition is very important to your argument, because otherwise you are allowing an open Nazi to run a large business unchecked.

I defend Musk's God given right to be a Nazi, but I don't think there shouldn't be a consequence for it. A civilization is allowed to respond to this information.

No, these two things are not morally equivalent. This is well studied, start here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[–] ptz@dubvee.org 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The paradox of tolerance doesn't apply here, and you're presenting it out of context. No one is saying we should tolerate Musk or his actions.

A civilization is allowed to respond to this information.

Yes, it is. We agree there. Where we disagree is how society responds. Refuse to do new business? Refuse to renew contracts/agreements? Sure. That's fine. No argument from me, and I do the same thing. Hell, I still won't fill up from BP because of how they tried to shirk responsibility for lubricating the Gulf of Mexico almost 20 years ago. That is to say I'm no stranger to "voting with my wallet" or "punishing" companies by refusing to do business with them.

But to arbitrarily revoke agreements with local businesses or legislate against one particular individual when their actions are not directly related to the legislation being drafted is not how a healthy society should handle things. "But we're clearly not a healthy society" is the response I always get when pointing out hypocritical takes. Well, society's not going to get any better if both sides are down in the mud.

What you're basically saying with your argument is "A little fascism is okay when it's my side doing it" and I say that is not okay.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Musk has done so many illegal and treasonous actions that we should be going after. Convict him, convict his minions, convict his pet judges and politicians, convict him again, make mango Mussolini go on record as pardoning him, over and over.

There is no reason to also violate the rule of law to go after him out of spite, no reason to abuse law for personal revenge

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

“The Trump administration has revoked the right to do business from Fairphone, Costco, etc. due to their spreading of dangerous WOKE ideology.”

Again I want this to happen but the justification as it stands is without precedent and is flimsy as hell

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Reverse cause and effect. Wake up. They are already dismantling DEI. Now it's your move.

They have gotten this far precisely because of the lack of spine in their opponents. They are absolutely leveraging tolerance and a rules based ordered retreat from people who don't believe what they believe.

If you aren't a bigot, racist or Nazi, they expect passivism, banging law books and some nasty bumper stickers as a response.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Dude there are so many better ways to attack Musk than risking terrible optics/precedent to close five Tesla dealerships.

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

But why do you want to attack Musk though?

Are you mad because he cheats on his taxes or his wives? We should probably broadcast that our only problem is with his taxes. That would be a better way, right?

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Because he’s a bigoted piece of shit dismantling our government and stealing info on US citizens to enrich himself as he needlessly persecutes marginalized groups with his rhetoric and actions.

Flimsy attempts to shut down a few dealerships that will have little to no impact on his life does nothing to solve the above.

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

So how come you think it wouldn't be a very good piece of public policy to be crystal clear and honest about that?

Like why can't the state say: "we are not subsidizing this business with taxpayer money any more, because of their ethics"?

You can make a legal case against Tesla for accounting or SEC violations or tax fraud...but that's not taking a moral stand.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Because that is not a legally protected reason like religious beliefs. He hasn't been convicted of a crime, he hasn't taken an explicitly anti-religious stance, etc.

Again, they should say "due to the growing concern of Tesla's alleged fraudulent behavior with EV tax incentives/government subsidies both domestically and abroad, we are reassessing the status of currently operating Tesla dealerships" (or something to that effect). That is related to Tesla. It's way more legitimate than a vague gesture to "he's a piece of shit." You can't refuse to let people do business because they're bigoted assholes. That's the sad reality.

[–] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I think you’re trapped by the Paradox of tolerance.

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We could tolerate everything except intolerance itself.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

I know what that is and it’s not relevant. I’m not preaching tolerance. I’m talking strategy. I even provided what i believe to be a way better strategy using the same channels to get the same result.

How am I being tolerant of muskrat?

[–] LilB0kChoy@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (6 children)

I know what that is and it’s not relevant.

I disagree and think that it is. By explicitly stating that they are targeting Tesla within New York because of Elon Musk and his connection to the company there is a statement being made that they will no longer tolerate that behavior and the attempts to harm the country and the democracy by Elon Musk and that they will defend against his intolerance with whatever means they can.

When you've tried to use reason, when you've tried to work within the systems that are in place to deal with a bully and those systems have failed you and the bully is refusing to listen to reason then you reach a point where you just have to punch them in the nose.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You and I completely agree, it seems.

[–] LandedGentry@lemmy.zip 0 points 11 months ago

Love it when it happens! Been getting harassed by hexbear/lemmygrad fuckwits lately

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

There is no "spine" in subsidizing car dealers. It's just another handout to MAGA.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html

[–] oyo@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

By publicly stating that this is revenge, they've opened themselves to all different kinds of legal pushback.

[–] fake_meows@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If Shitler isn't angry and thinking of suing you for what you did to him, you're openly doing things wrong. They precisely should state that it's revenge so that he knows he can never prevail no matter if he wins in court. Like, the door must be closed for all time. It must be a clearly sent message that it is a personal sanction.

[–] AA5B@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Revenge only plays their game, further devalues the rule of law and fair markets.

Personally I like the compromise that any manufacturer without dealerships shouldn’t require them. Dealerships are some of the scammiest businesses we have but it’s unfair to allow a manufacturer to compete with a dealer when that manufacturer controls the market. But if there are no dealers why should one be required? Good riddance: they’re not a social good

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

If a company isn’t moral or ethical, retaliation and consequences are exactly what needs to happen. And we should create new rules and laws to make sure they are forced out.

There is nothing moral or ethical about car dependency. This is not retaliation or consequences or evena new law. It's the return of a subsidy for other car dealers. These dealers are complete garbage. Just as bad as Elon. Fuck cars.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago

If someone can break it down in a way that makes sense

Politicians are phony assholes at best.

[–] PP_BOY_@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Imagine being such a dumb power-hungry Nazi you tank your entire EV company, the highest valued auto brand in history, bankrolling the guy/movement who promised to get rid of EVs. Seemingly very little "6D chess" comments about Musk because his actions are that indefensibly stupid.

[–] FlexibleToast@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

To be fair, it was incredibly overvalued. Its value was driven by one of the most successful conmen of all time. I just can't figure out if Trump or Musk is the most successful conman of all time. One has the most wealth in the world, one has the most power.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] j0ester@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

What do you expect? What do men with power want? More power.

[–] neukenindekeuken@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Not stupid, just very selfish and short sighted. Hubris is the fall of many powerful men throughout history. We're witnessing one falling right now.

[–] BassTurd@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Also stupid

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] demizerone@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Dealer franchises can suck my balls, but Elon can go fuck himself.

[–] nooneescapesthelaw@mander.xyz 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Never should have gotten an exclusion in the first place. It's a shitty rule but he shouldn't have gotten special treatment

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

It's worth emphasizing that cars are a dead for humanity and a foundation for fascism. There's nothing to be gained by favoring different chuds. It's political theatre.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/05/rich-republicans-party-car-dealers-2024-desantis.html

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Absolutely disgusted with musk.

However, I also wish we could somehow break the dealer networks as well, original reason I was rooting for the waivers.

[–] skozzii@lemmy.ca 0 points 11 months ago

Unless you can fix your tesla yourself , you should not buy one..

[–] jumjummy@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

The entire dealership model is stupidly outdated. They add no value, and if they truly did, remove the law mandating it and let the market sort itself out.

Car salespeople at these dealerships are the prime example of leeches.

[–] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (2 children)

This is not the right answer, yeah sure you will upvote it because fuck musk, but the forced middlemen of dealerships needs to go the fuck away

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›