3 ms·

Well this certainly is an interesting piece. I really dont know what to believe, especially considering I dont really know if I trust the source (salon.com? Nev

Well this certainly is an interesting piece. I really dont know what to believe, especially considering I dont really know if I trust the source (salon.com? Never heard of em). I cant really say Im a huge Musk fan, considering I agree that the whole cave stunt was likely nothing more than a PR campaign for him, but this seems quite silly for him to do, if true.

erric 8y ago
Not defending him, but I would imagine people in his position play and pay to both parties.
- stuaxo 8y ago
  I think it came out his payments are about 2 to 1 in favour of the R side.
  - kalleboo 8y ago
    Maybe because Democrat opinion is already on his side and needs less "persuasion"?
    - squarefoot 8y ago
      "Keep your friends close to you, but keep your enemies even closer." As much as I generally like him, he denied being a top donor, which is not like denying any donation. He should clarify that.
eesmith 8y ago
I don't understand your concern about Salon.com. It's a synthesis from several different sources, and it provides links to the sources. The donation information comes from ProPublica. Musk's $33,900 donation is at https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/filing/1246378/schedule/sa#AD58122C40CC343FFA20 https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/filing/1246378/sche... . That in turn links to the primary information at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00669622/1246378/sa/ALL http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00669622/1246378/sa/A... , where you can see an entry for 33900.00. (The aggregate donation is 38900.00.) Why did you need to trust Salon.com when the official information is so readily available for verification? Or is there something else from the piece that you are hesitant about?
- Ancalagon 8y ago
  I stand corrected, I did not give my due diligence to following the source trail and verifying the veracity of the website.
tenpies 8y ago
Salon has been around for a while and they're not quite what you would call "fake news", but they are very Left leaning and "progressive". They also tend to focus a lot more opinion and analysis, so while the facts are probably correct, the context is entirely speculative and about as biased as you can get from the that end of the spectrum.
DanAndersen 8y ago
Why would it be quite silly for him to do? CEOs donate to political parties and PACs all the time.
perilunar 8y ago
> (salon.com? Never heard of em) Salon was pretty popular in the early days of the web. I used to read it in the mid-late 90s.

erric 8y ago

Not defending him, but I would imagine people in his position play and pay to both parties.

stuaxo 8y ago
I think it came out his payments are about 2 to 1 in favour of the R side.
- kalleboo 8y ago
  Maybe because Democrat opinion is already on his side and needs less "persuasion"?
  - squarefoot 8y ago
    "Keep your friends close to you, but keep your enemies even closer." As much as I generally like him, he denied being a top donor, which is not like denying any donation. He should clarify that.

eesmith 8y ago

I don't understand your concern about Salon.com. It's a synthesis from several different sources, and it provides links to the sources. The donation information comes from ProPublica. Musk's $33,900 donation is at https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/filing/1246378/schedule/sa#AD58122C40CC343FFA20 https://projects.propublica.org/itemizer/filing/1246378/sche... . That in turn links to the primary information at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00669622/1246378/sa/ALL http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00669622/1246378/sa/A... , where you can see an entry for 33900.00. (The aggregate donation is 38900.00.) Why did you need to trust Salon.com when the official information is so readily available for verification? Or is there something else from the piece that you are hesitant about?

Ancalagon 8y ago
I stand corrected, I did not give my due diligence to following the source trail and verifying the veracity of the website.

tenpies 8y ago

Salon has been around for a while and they're not quite what you would call "fake news", but they are very Left leaning and "progressive". They also tend to focus a lot more opinion and analysis, so while the facts are probably correct, the context is entirely speculative and about as biased as you can get from the that end of the spectrum.

DanAndersen 8y ago

Why would it be quite silly for him to do? CEOs donate to political parties and PACs all the time.

perilunar 8y ago

> (salon.com? Never heard of em) Salon was pretty popular in the early days of the web. I used to read it in the mid-late 90s.