i think it would be infinitely simpler to just ban the actions you don’t want people to do and a better mechanism to enforce it than to try and police the amorphous qualities of their character and behavior. Like, our problem here is that the executive branch has been granted too much power by congress, corporations are treated like people and can vote with their dollars, and congress + the supreme court have no mechanism to enforce laws against the executive branch. If the system was actually segregated enough in duties and insulated from capital, it would be immune to the effects of someone even as bad as trump. It would also prevent all of the false positives and the mechanisms for abuse that would open when we start calling people ineligible for innate and immeasurable qualities.

the bigger thing right now is people being purposefully obtuse and treating “punk” as the same thing as “counter culture.”

conservatives are using this argument to state that they are the REAL punks because they are anti-establishment (while somehow holding all branches of the government but whatever)

in their mind punk people change their political ideologies to whatever is the opposite of who is in power, and so clearly all existing punks had to flip to the other side the second obama was elected or something.

(I’m a second generation punk on both sides and my whole family would curb stomp these asshats)

i think the second we open up the avenue for certain character traits to be banned from public office, it opens up a new avenue and mechanism for oppressive government bodies to prevent their opponents from gaining power against them. Who gets to decide what traits count as disqualifying? what measures do we use to identify who has met this threshold? where and how could someone be treated for these in order to gain back eligibility? how difficult would it be to change these rules if they were incorrect? how hard would it be for a bad actor to change these rules for their own gain? how much money would be spent on this and the lawsuits that return from it?

i don’t love the implication here that politicians are corrupt due to mental illness. they can be perfectly average mentally and still be corrupt because corruption is an innate and ever-present exploit of human psychology. empathetic people can be mistaken of where to place their empathy. mentally ill people can be a better option for a public office than someone else who is neurotypical, it all comes down to their platform and record of reliability. disability should not be mutually exclusive with ability to govern.

This set of fraudulent sales happened in January and before inauguration more importantly, so I doubt this was due to beefing car sales. Most had not called for a boycott at this point, not enough at least to justify this massive scale of car sales.

The sales DID begin immediately the day the canadian government announced the rebate program was running out of money and could only fund a few more weeks. It lasted exactly three days, which were a friday, saturday, and sunday. Most car dealerships in canada are closed on weekends. Tesla registered enough sales at exactly four dealerships that, assuming each was open for 12 hours, they would be selling 100 cars per hour per location. By the time monday rolled around, the government confirmed they had entirely run out of money for their rebate program and closed it early. Car dealerships from around the country that had already paid customers the credit but hadn’t yet submitted the sale to the government for rebate then had to eat that cost themselves because they thought they had a couple weeks left.

Tesla doesn’t have any dealerships not owned by them so it’s not a case of some rogue resaler, and the dates are so damning that i can’t see any other motivation for it.

I think you (past you at least) would have identified as a libertarian socialist and those other idiots are libertarian anarchists.