Comment by marcusverus
16 hours ago
Sure, the Biden admin actively targeted a publicly traded company[0] because their CEO was critical of the administration, but that's not fascism. Fascism is when the bad guys make spreadsheets.
[0] https://www.newsweek.com/ev-tax-credit-2024-tesla-model-3-ex...
Those battery sourcing provisions for the EV tax credit came from the Inflation Reduction Act which was enacted in August 2022. The administration did not ask for them to be put in. The came from a deal in July or August to get Senator Manchin to vote for the bill, which was critical for its passage.
Afterwards when it came to implementing them the administration implemented them as loosely as it could to try to minimize the number of EVs that would lose the tax credit. In particular it did not apply them to leases, which greatly upset Manchin who said that they were supposed to apply there too.
Do you have any evidence that the change in enforcement was targeted at Tesla or that the change was in response to Musk’s criticism?
Also, comparing the actions of Trump to anything any previous President (including Trump 1!) almost feels like you’re being disingenuous.
It's funny, actually. When an anonymous source says there's a scary spreadsheet in the Trump White House, progs are happy to believe the unsourced and unprovable claim on faith, imagine the worst possible implications, and assert those entirely imaginary implications are evidence of fascism. But when considering the fact that the Biden admin actually, actively did financial harm to one of their most prominent critics, progs instantaneously drop the concerned citizen schtick and are happy to assume that any and all real harm done to critics is accidental until proven beyond a reasonable doubt!
The thing is that this administration has repeatedly and openly punished, intervened, otherwise interfered directly the affairs of _specific_ private companies in a blatantly corrupt manner based on the opinion of the president. This is indisputable, and this spreadsheet would just be an extension of that.
Believing the anonymous source about (rather believing that Axios hires credible journalists who will investigate sources) is not a stretch based on what we’ve seen. The implications are not imaginary at all. These are things the president has done.
The previous administration changing some guidance that impacts a massive industry and for vague reasons _may_ be targeting a political adversary, is a much shakier case.
Frankly, this massive difference in scope is why I think comparisons are often disingenuous.