6 ms·

Musk is a republican, he sent spacex dishes to Ukraine, no way he is going to say no.

by albertopv 5y ago

cloutchaser 5y ago
Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians?
- Melting_Harps 5y ago
  > Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians? I think what was said was used to denote that he will comply with State mandates in regards to what the DoD may need; moreover SpaceX and Tesla are big proponents of hiring Veterans and have several in key positions. It's sad reality, but people need to realize that aerospsace has and will likely remain an appendage of the military; it's an incredibly patriotic, borderline nationalistic, Industry: ITAR compliance of any and all workers in aerospace being critical for weeding out possible threats to the Industry is one critical reason why it's there. With that said, Musk is doing business with the CCP in China. I'm wondering that if in time it will be a bigger threat that they demand they breach his security in order to retain his company and not be nationalized. My opinion: The US DoD can just use continue to use Raytheon or Boeing to make all the murder-devices they need, there is really no need to have SpaceX involved at this point.
  - willnonya 5y ago
    You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance.
    - Melting_Harps 5y ago
      > You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance. Then why don't you clarify things?
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
> Musk is a republican Mr Musk is a multi-billionaire. In the US system that class does not pledge allegiance to a political party, rather the other way around. Russian Oligarchs are "made" by the ruling party, and owe their wealth entirely to that. The US system is, however, more flexible in which way the loyalty flows.
- zardo 5y ago
  Wouldn't that make Musk the oligarch and the Russian counterpart more like a vassal?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    "Russian Oligarchs" is the common usage, and definitions are descriptive as much as they are prescriptive. For "Oligarch" outside of the compound "Russian Oligarch" - you tell me who matches, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say above.
    - zardo 5y ago
      That would be someone in a position of power in an oligarchy. If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        > If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs This _describes_ how the term is used. As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want. This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares. Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition. You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic. 1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/ https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...

Musk is a republican, he sent spacex dishes to Ukraine, no way he is going to say no.

cloutchaser 5y ago

Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians?

Melting_Harps 5y ago
> Do democrats disapprove of creating internet access for Ukrainians? I think what was said was used to denote that he will comply with State mandates in regards to what the DoD may need; moreover SpaceX and Tesla are big proponents of hiring Veterans and have several in key positions. It's sad reality, but people need to realize that aerospsace has and will likely remain an appendage of the military; it's an incredibly patriotic, borderline nationalistic, Industry: ITAR compliance of any and all workers in aerospace being critical for weeding out possible threats to the Industry is one critical reason why it's there. With that said, Musk is doing business with the CCP in China. I'm wondering that if in time it will be a bigger threat that they demand they breach his security in order to retain his company and not be nationalized. My opinion: The US DoD can just use continue to use Raytheon or Boeing to make all the murder-devices they need, there is really no need to have SpaceX involved at this point.
- willnonya 5y ago
  You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance.
  - Melting_Harps 5y ago
    > You're misrepresenting both the aviation industry and ITAR compliance. Then why don't you clarify things?

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago

> Musk is a republican Mr Musk is a multi-billionaire. In the US system that class does not pledge allegiance to a political party, rather the other way around. Russian Oligarchs are "made" by the ruling party, and owe their wealth entirely to that. The US system is, however, more flexible in which way the loyalty flows.

zardo 5y ago
Wouldn't that make Musk the oligarch and the Russian counterpart more like a vassal?
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  "Russian Oligarchs" is the common usage, and definitions are descriptive as much as they are prescriptive. For "Oligarch" outside of the compound "Russian Oligarch" - you tell me who matches, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say above.
  - zardo 5y ago
    That would be someone in a position of power in an oligarchy. If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      > If "Russian Oligarchs" aren't directing policy, they aren't oligarchs Look, if the question is "is Roman Abramovich a Russian Oligarch" then the obvious answer is "of course, yes" Check the list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_oligarchs This _describes_ how the term is used. As I understand it, the "Russian Oligarchs" aren't allowed to question the power of Mr Putin and his circle. Outside of that, they're free to do what they want. This doesn't meet your prescriptive technical definition?: Ok, well done. Cool. No-one cares. Also as I understand it, definitions are as much descriptive of common language usage as they are prescriptive of what you can "really call" that (1). Perhaps more descriptive than prescriptive: You know what I mean by "Russian Oligarchs", so does everyone else. Nit-picking otherwise is pointless, the agreed usage us not captured by the definition. You may say "they aren't _really_ oligarchs" and I shrug. Sure, it seem that you care about that distinction. I know I don't. Again, it's a moot point to what I wanted to say. Do not derail the topic. 1) https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials/understanding-prescriptive-vs-descriptive-grammar/ https://amyrey.web.unc.edu/classes/ling-101-online/tutorials...