Where Do Things End With Vlad? (h/t romad1)

[romad1]

Getting a little sick of billionaires having their own set of rules. 

[romad1]

Couldn't happen to a nicer submarine

[romad1]

context

[Because space Karen said I couldn't post this tweet]

Regardless of how extensive the damage, that reduces the amount of improved Kilo-Class submarines operating in the Black Sea by 25%. There’s only four of them in the BS counting the Rostov-on-Don. And they’re the only subs that can fire Kalibr cruise missiles

[ewsieg]

8 minutes ago, romad1 said:

he's a defense contractor.  He's gonna need to abide by the rules.  

 

8 minutes ago, romad1 said:

Getting a little sick of billionaires having their own set of rules. 

While I agree that i'm sick of billionaires setting their own rules and there is a lot on Musk I don't like, I still don't understand what appears to be a narrative built on falsehoods being pushed here.

You claim he needs to abide by the rules.  Regardless of his personal reason on not turning on Starlink in Crimea, his position is that he would need the US Gov to authorize that.  That does not seem unreasonable to me.  

[romad1]

 

[gehringer_2]

Just now, romad1 said:

 

Jeepers!

[pfife]

41 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

How was he conducting foreign policy?  He agreed to provide them a service within their pre 2022 boundaries and he did it for free for awhile at that.  To my understanding the service he is providing is not breaking US laws nor am I aware of the US demanding any regulation of that service.   He has provided the service he stated he would provide, Ukraine just wanted more and per Musk, he believes providing that would have in fact been illegal.  Maybe he is wrong, but it is not illegal to be wrong and/or error on the side of caution when it comes to the law.

https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-joe-biden-us-government-responsible-for-starlink-debacle-2023-9#:~:text=Starlink is not allowed to,No such request came through."

 

Your second sentence is an example of what you ask for in the first sentence.

[pfife]

Him agreeing to that is foreign policy.   So is him disagreeing with it.

[pfife]

You have actually argued 2 different things now.    Your post quoting rolling stone argued Musk didnt allow this because he thought, correctly, per your post, it was a major escalation of the war. 

Then  less than an hour later, you argued he didn't allow it because the government needed to approve it.

[ewsieg]

7 minutes ago, pfife said:

Him agreeing to that is foreign policy.   So is him disagreeing with it.

Isn't every US based company that provides goods or services in violation to the Logan Act by that definition?  From major corporations like GM that chooses to sell their vehicles to other countries to small mom and pop shops that choose to service locally and not sell/service internationally?

[pfife]

6 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Isn't every US based company that provides goods or services in violation to the Logan Act by that definition?  From major corporations like GM that chooses to sell their vehicles to other countries to small mom and pop shops that choose to service locally and not sell/service internationally?

No

[ewsieg]

5 minutes ago, pfife said:

You have actually argued 2 different things now.    Your post quoting rolling stone argued Musk didnt allow this because he thought, correctly, per your post, it was a major escalation of the war. 

Then  less than an hour later, you argued he didn't allow it because the government needed to approve it.

I found additional information which appears to pass the smell taste and I provided it.  Everyone here has been posting information that Musk turned it off and no one has been able to provide any information to indicate he did that outside of tweets of people saying he did.

As for the reasoning why he didn't turn it on, I provided what he said was his personal reason, clarification on an established policy that he enforced when requested by a foreign government to provide anyway,  and what he said was the legal reason for doing so.  Those don't have to align perfectly.  In fact I provided another quote from him that stated that if the request came from the US, he would have turned it on.

As of right now, I am not aware of any request by the US government for him to turn on Starlink in Crimea.  

 

[pfife]

So he had personal reasons for his foreign policy decision?

[pfife]

Furthermore, multiple times you've stated that people are posting that he shut it off but actually no one said anything about it here since Friday then you brought it up again today.

[romad1]

its very hard to argue with Musk fans.  I happen to know some.   They want him to be a god-emperor. 

[pfife]

Also there are tweets posted in this thread where elon himself is saying he's thinking of every way he can to deescalate the war within discussion of starlink with that cheong dip****.    That's foreign policy, he admitted it.

[ewsieg]

Just now, pfife said:

So he had personal reasons for his foreign policy decision?

I suspect you're just trolling me, but I truly want to understand the reasoning on why this particular issue can be viewed as a private citizen determining foreign policy.  

He is providing a service in Ukraine of which I have never heard any government response indicating that it's illegal for him to do so.  In fact they, along with other countries we have aligned ourselves with, are actually paying Starlink to provide this service on behalf of Ukraine at this time.  Ukraine asked for him to expand that service outside of the original scope, he provided his personal reasons, which frankly who cares about, he stated his company policy, which likely is predicated on legal regulations, and provided a legal reason why he wouldn't expand his service.  

 

 

[ewsieg]

11 minutes ago, pfife said:

Furthermore, multiple times you've stated that people are posting that he shut it off but actually no one said anything about it here since Friday then you brought it up again today.

 

[pfife]

14 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

I suspect you're just trolling me, but I truly want to understand the reasoning on why this particular issue can be viewed as a private citizen determining foreign policy.  

He is providing a service in Ukraine of which I have never heard any government response indicating that it's illegal for him to do so.  In fact they, along with other countries we have aligned ourselves with, are actually paying Starlink to provide this service on behalf of Ukraine at this time.  Ukraine asked for him to expand that service outside of the original scope, he provided his personal reasons, which frankly who cares about, he stated his company policy, which likely is predicated on legal regulations, and provided a legal reason why he wouldn't expand his service.  

 

 

Well you cared about his personal reasons, you posted them here multiple times.  In addition, you posted a Krassenstein take on Musk's personal reasons.   Furthermore, the government allowing stuff only came up after it was obvious he walked himself into a violation of the Logan act.   Conveniently. 

Determining foreign policy is your phrase.   I said conducting foreign policy.

Hes a private citizen.   That's factual.   He's admitted to conducting foreign policy.   Multiple times.   That's factual as well.    Seems like a you issue.

Edited September 13, 2023 by pfife

[pfife]

4 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

 

Touche except now you hate ROMADs free speech rights

[romad1]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

Touche except now you hate ROMADs free speech rights

Except ROMAD don't care

[romad1]

Elon is a big asshat drug addict but whatever

 

[ewsieg]

27 minutes ago, pfife said:

Well you cared about his personal reasons, you posted them here multiple times.  In addition, you posted a Krassenstein take on Musk's personal reasons.   Furthermore, the government allowing stuff only came up after it was obvious he walked himself into a violation of the Logan act.   Conveniently. 

Determining foreign policy is your phrase.   I said conducting foreign policy.

Hes a private citizen.   That's factual.   He's admitted to conducting foreign policy.   Multiple times.   That's factual as well.    Seems like a you issue.

Thinking about something is not against the law, at least not yet.  Show me an action he has made which shows he was conducting foreign policy?   I'll wait.

[pfife]

He didn't turn on Skylink because it was a pearl harbor attack being planned. 

[romad1]

8 minutes ago, pfife said:

He didn't turn on Skylink because it was a pearl harbor attack being planned. 

He didn't want Russia to be hurt because he thinks the quickest way to his dream of martian domination is to get the war over with a Ukrainian defeat and Russia ascendant over Europe. 

Edited September 13, 2023 by romad1