Clinton was undecided, when she was Secretary of State it was her job to support whatever trade deals her boss, the President, was having negotiated. The deal was not yet actually negotiated though. Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a political role; they are not even supposed to be providing their opinions, they provide the official US Government opinions, because they're not elected they're appointed.
Post Secretary of State, when she is giving her own opinions, she started out undecided but hopeful, and as soon as the details of the agreement started leaking, she was opposed. She's been solidly opposed to it.
"You know, take the trade deal. I did say, when I was secretary of state, three years ago, that I hoped it would be the gold standard. It was just finally negotiated last week, and in looking at it, it didn't meet my standards. My standards for more new, good jobs for Americans, for raising wages for Americans. And I want to make sure that I can look into the eyes of any middle-class American and say, `this will help raise your wages.' And I concluded I could not." --Hillary Clinton, during the Democatic Party debates
She didn't change her position for the primary, that is a silly accusation. Was she supporting it during the TPA debate? No, she was already opposing it. When she was Secretary of State and made statements in support, she had also been told that they were going to include strong worker rights protections, and environmental protections, neither of which are included. None of the people who supported the idea of the deal before it was negotiated were told the deal would be as it actually is; they were told it would have the worker and environmental protections that past trade agreements lacked. Lots and lots of people would have supported a deal that had the right sort of protections, because trade barriers are often bad. The deal that was negotiated does a lot of other things, and almost none of those hopeful early supporters are supporting the deal.
Clinton has opposed the deal consistently since it was actually negotiated and existed as a thing with known details.
I did get my facts straight. He did a bunch of work promoting the TPP, and the TPA last year.
He obfuscated his TPA support by voting yes to stop debate and override the filibuster, but then he let it pass without even voting, so he could mask his support since. That is the facts of his record on this, he talks out both sides of his mouth, but he does support it.
If he wants to change his opinion, it takes more than saying so at a campaign stop in Iowa during a contentious primary. He needs to do like he did in support, and make a formal statement that retracts his support. Then he'll change columns on lists. Right now the best you can argue is that, "Cruz flip-flopped on that, I promise!"
But look, even after flip-flopping on TPA, he still said he might support TPP. He was never opposed to it. He said at a couple campaign stops recently that he was against it, but he had said both things prior to TPA, and his votes in the Senate when TPA was passed were to assist it in passing without even voting on it in the end, even though he was there and helping it overcome the filibuster. That is after he claimed to oppose it, after having supported it.
No, Congress gave the President "fast-track trade promotion authority" which allows the President improved power to negotiate because it ties Congress' hands so that they can only ratify or reject a trade agreement; they can't modify it, and in the Senate they can't filibuster. They still have to vote "yes" for it to be ratified.;)
Congress improved the likelihood of passing a trade agreement in general by preventing themselves from getting in the way with parliamentary procedure. As somebody who dislikes the agreement I think that is great, they've backed themselves into a corner and they're going to have to have public debate on the actual subject being decided! I don't think that leads to passage of this thing. If it was popular, this would aid passage; since it is unpopular, it harms passage.
The main reason for it was so that the negotiators could tell the other countries, "this is the real deal that Congress is going to ratify." In past rounds of negotiation, Congress has often passed bills changing the details of the American implementation of trade deals. That possibility meant that other countries weren't believing that the details would hold up, and so not wanting to compromise. It is hard to do a compromise on specific issues if the other side might change the rules later.
The fast-track trade rules are not bad law, and they don't prevent Congress from fulfilling its role. It just prevents them from bungling around and exceeding it on this issue. Don't assume that because you're against this or other specific trade agreements that the "trade promotion authority" bill was automatically bad. Congress sucking less is good, even where you still want them to vote no.
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States
Even many who are opposed agree with that statement. The thing is, it also might not.;) So, not really good financial planning. "You know, this deal doesn't look too bad; you might not even lose your shirt! It is possible you would come out ahead."
How does enriching corporations with my money not have anything to do with "trade?" It seems to have a bit too much to do with trade if you ask me!
We have a lot of people opposing this, but if the signal/noise isn't favorable it might not help. We have to get enough rational people not only to oppose the rational paid supporters on the other side, but also to counter-act the irrational nutcases who make us look bad.
You're just shouting, without checking the positions. What if it really is a partisan issue, and Obama is the only high profile Democrat supporting it? Then what?
Clinton and Sanders are both against the TPP. Not sure why you're spewing anti-Hillary stuff here. Trump is also opposed. Rubio says he is undecided.
Cruz supports the TPP, but doesn't think that Congress should vote in a lame duck session.
Even counting withdrawn Democratic candidates, you'll find that Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb both opposed it.
Presidential candidates supporting the TPP are only: Bush(R), Cruz(R), Kasich(R), Rick Perry(R), Rick Santorum(R), Scott Walker(R) Maybe yes are: Rubio(R)(maybe; supported before now says undecided), Rand Paul(R)(opposes Presidential authority to negotiate it, but open to voting for the actual deal)
It is a silly headline. The 12 countries that agreed to have their negotiators, whose only authority is to negotiate the text, sign what they negotiated. This is not an approval step in any of these countries, or intended to be. It is just a signing ceremony. The news was months ago when they agreed to a text; countries that didn't agree then were not on the list they're using here. They make it sound like all the countries that negotiated signed. Not true at all. The countries that came to a deal, signed the deal as the first step towards referring it to their respective national processes.
Republicans in the US House have suggested that the only chance they'll have enough votes is if they pass it during the "lame duck" session after this year's Nov election. I agree that is their one chance, but I think they might have a hard time selling it to voters this year and if it is a major election issue then it won't pass the Senate. Elected Republicans mostly like it, but most Republican voters don't.
No, you just never read a philosophy or physics book.;)
It is the standard intellectual device for a truly neutral third party without an identifiable cultural bias.
In physics it takes the form of discussing the quality of explanations; how would you explain an objective scientific concept to a visiting Martian anthropologist? It is used as a thought experiment to try to uncover assumptions. Often when people first try to phrase things without assumptions, they leave a bunch in that they assume are general enough, so the Martian exercise is necessary to try to bridge that gap and get them to agree to make less cultural assumptions in the explanation.
In philosophy it takes a similar form, but is more often used to challenge negative assumptions; you can't prove negatives, so when somebody tries to, it is normal to say, "Well you can't even prove that the Martians aren't going to invade tomorrow. They could have an invasion fleet parked behind the moon right now and nobody would know! Prove they don't!"
Nobody in America would think that our government doesn't have the authority to give that permission, or claim that the local town councilors need "transparent" access to the government's approval process for military overflights by major allies.
Details are important, try to pay attention to the details you're responding to.
If it was too long to read it all, just skip over it without replying please.
Right, you're intentionally misrepresenting who it was. By saying "a person" in a general way, as if you don't know she is an involved party in their government, you make it sound like she must have been a paid actor.
Principles who lie about what they saw in order to enhance or restore their power are not "actors."
You're playing word games to make it sound like a different thing than it was, and then oddly you keep trying to do it even after I make it clear to anybody who has ever read the details that I already looked into it and won't be led astray. It makes no sense to keep trying to twist the words. Just look it up, it wasn't an actor, it was an involved principle. The goal in choosing words is to choose the most correct word, not any word that has a fringe literary use that could apply.
"Working class" Americans often get one week of vacation per year, starting the first calendar year after the first complete year. And most of those jobs are not lifelong jobs. Plus, many workers will have temporary status for their first year or so, which doesn't count towards vacation.
It was more fact than hyperbole, though to be fair most of the people camping outside like that work mid-level office jobs and get two weeks of vacation a year, prorated from when they're officially hired which is usually three months after starting the job as a temporary worker.
In China only 14% of workers took a paid vacation at all in the past three years, regardless of rules that purport to require five days per year.
The US economy isn't stronger and more resilient than Europe's just because we have a pretty flag. We have the highest worker productivity in the world, and we don't even have the newest or most updated machinery. We just work harder, and more hours.
Right, but your reply right here? It does not show that you read the post you're replying to. Instead of just waving your hands as if I hadn't said anything, and presuming I would consider that, you need to alter your words to take into consideration what I said. Show enough theory of mind so that I think you understood my point, and I might consider whatever your opposing view is. If I can't even tell that you read my words, I'm not going to attempt to identify your ideas.
He's not doing anything to try to "control" anybody. Control is before you do something. If you're an asshole to him, he might be an asshole back; there is no attempt at control there.
If you say nasty things, he won't want you around. That isn't control, that is natural consequences of your speech. That is him being free, not him trying to control you.
The implication that he should alter his behavior is the only attempt at control. Nobody else is trying to control anybody. Both sides are exercising freedom in this. The only control freaks are among the pundits.
Sorry Mr Coward, but back in the olden days on Slashdot Radio they always liked to make references to MC Hawking. Check him out on youtube, he's still around.
Nerdcore never died.
Me, I'm still listening to the Netslaves book soundtrack, with classics like "In the Server Cages" and "Your Boss is an Idiot."
I'll bet I'm not the only one still listening to Hampsterdance, either.
Or the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins by Leonard Nimoy and the Pixie Chicks.
Indeed, being the most deserving of some vapid frivolity is not a high aspiration.
But what does that say about those who are offended at not having been treated as being even more deserving of said vapid frivolity?
The good honest hayseed who camps out for 2 weeks using up 4 years of vacation time... good for them. I wouldn't want them to vacation in the same place as me anyways, it would get crowded. Freedom isn't only important for people doing something important. It reminds me of the song Graceland.
It is just silly nonsense that misunderstands rights and prerogatives.
If a restaurant kicks you out for saying [REDACTED] in their business in front of other customers, that is not censorship. It is them choosing the speech they endorse or appear to endorse. There is no censorship, because Tesla doesn't have an obligation to provide a platform for anybody to speak. Them responding to negative speech by exercising their own prerogatives, that isn't censorship; that is in fact the value of speech that is protected when free speech is protected!
This idea that consequences for your speech in your relationships in the community somehow implies that speech isn't free, it is just wrong and stupid.
Nobody is controlling anybody's speech or actions here. You're free to say whatever you want, and enter into any business relationships with other people who are willing to do business with you. Likewise, others are free not to do business with you. And you are free not to do business with them. Nobody is being controlled; nobody is being forced to buy a Tesla; nobody is being put in a situation where having a Tesla is a de-facto necessity.
If somebody on the pre-order list is made uncomfortable, it is their own darn fault. They should have already canceled their order. They can still go now and cancel; any continued discomfort is totally on them. And any censorship is self-censorship that nobody asked them to engage in.
The funny part of the conflict is that most of the people who are ready to defend Tesla really don't care if Elon Musk is an arrogant jerk, or not.
The CEOs that aren't arrogant jerks are mostly just greedy bastards, or incompetent nincompoops.
The complaints are funny; who do you expect to be at a "product launch event?" Why would that be on a tight schedule? Most of the people there are from out of town, aren't actually in a hurry to leave the event, are interested enough in it to actually be there in person, and are going to be nearby drinking afterwards with other participants.
Has he ever been to an auto show? Or a rock concert? Those are the types of events that are similar. It is not a serious event, it is a type of party that is put on for the company to interact with the most dedicated fan-customers. Have you ever been to a sports "fan appreciation event?" Casual fans that only want to attend if they can meet a celebrity with an under 2 hour wait... maybe they should have better things to do, right? These events are for people who want to spend their day waiting around to maybe get an autograph. If you're not willing to wait in line for 2 hours to NOT get to the front of the line before the celebrity leaves, you're in the wrong place. People that get to the front of that line often are putting their whole day into the event, and liking it. They might have slept outside the door last night.
You can do a high quality DIY conversion with similar range for under 15K, using all new parts. No, they don't have $30k in batteries. But yes, the batteries cost more than a brand new Kia.
In the US we have specific rules for pre-orders. They're not generic contracts. They're the same as custom made-to-order products. It isn't a sale until delivery, and it isn't a contract separately from the sale unless the customer is paying more for the right of pre-order. If they get bumped from a discount list, then they haven't paid extra for anything, and they never became a customer by buying the product.
In your link, he didn't have a pre-order. He had a deposit for sale of an existing product that the store had not yet received delivery of. He paid the deposit to the local dealer, not to a company actually making the product. And the company doesn't custom-make products to the dealer's specification. The dealer can only sell products that exist; they can't pre-sell a product that is not for sale yet, by definition. The manufacterer is who can sell a product that doesn't yet exist; except they can't sell it, they can only pre-sell it. It isn't sold until delivery though. And the product in question was also not being made-to-order, it was just supposed to be the first one they received. Basically, that situation would be a "back order" legally in the US, regardless of what words the customer and dealer use. Back orders can't always be canceled without cause, if a payment has been accepted.
Back orders are different than pre-orders, because mail order has been a big thing for a long time, and it is a traditional avenue of consumer abuse. So there are detailed extant rules.
It shows. If Tesla refunds the money somebody paid, then they have not received any "consideration" (pay, or equivalent) and any presumed contract under which you believe you have been harmed is invalid, and not enforceable anyways.
You would have to have a contract provision already in place when you made the pre-order that says they can't refund it. Nobody offers pre-orders with that type of condition. What if a natural disaster destroys their factory, or a war breaks out and they can't source rubber for a few years? Pre-orders are always cancelable. If there is a penalty, it is almost always only the customer that would pay a penalty for canceling. That is the privilege of pre-ordering; you could also just wait until the item is actually for sale.
Pre-order in the US also has special rules, similar to custom made-to-order products, and are not regulated under the same types of expectations that available-for-order products are. The type of claim you presume is not going to fly. It is the customer that takes on that sort of risk before delivery in the case of both pre-order and made-to-order. Pre-made, ready to order products create legal obligations when you accept the money, or in the case of credit card payments, when you finalize the payment. But custom and pre-order those obligations don't kick in until delivery. It is worth understanding if you ever plan to pre-order something. There is no need to go through the mental anguish of (incorrectly) thinking your rights have been trampled, when you can instead just learn the rules and read the fine print and not have inflated expectations.
It is an important business principle to understand. If you're willing to give back all of what was given to you, you can usually end the relationship. If you want to give back part, you can't. If you want to keep the part that is the same as your expenses, then the other party might sue you on some weird harm theory like you present. But giving back the whole payment, so that you have received no consideration, that frees you from the asshole completely.
A proper Princess would never have attempted to receive a place in line, or associated a number handed to an assistant with herself in order to get mad about getting the wrong number. Or expected to need to be at the event at a time that some underling had liked and written in a book titled "schedule." And if Elon Musk isn't the Monarch, then who would ask what time he had said he intended to arrive? It isn't like they have a battle planned together, or something. Maybe he was late by having arrived after the Princess, but that would be a different complaint and she wouldn't need to invoke a fake schedule to enforce it.
He has a lot to learn, he might even need to re-attend Finishing School.
Microsoft even tries to punish non-customers. Back in `99 they sent me a free pre-release copy of Windows 2000 Advanced Server blahblah, trying to get me to sell it to my clients. (I was a linux/unix database consultant at the time)
Awesomest coffee coaster I ever had, it lasted years. Those cheap AOL cds start flaking after just a couple years. Windows Server provided a stable platform for my coffee for almost a decade, with no downtime.
The one time I'm really glad I didn't read the manual, I just dove in and implemented the solution in the most obvious way. Disaster averted!
You must be pretty douchey if you keep taking a test to check the level. Even worse, you were trying to get into a BMW!
I don't like seeing BMWs on the road; they drive 20MPH faster than everybody else on the freeway, on the highway they'll pass me and slow down to 5 MPH slower than I was going when they passed, because they realized they don't know the road and get nervous in the front position, and then in town they drive 10MPH slower than everybody else, because they're not going anywhere they're just driving around hoping somebody will see them driving a BMW.
Slashdot Mirror
Clinton was undecided, when she was Secretary of State it was her job to support whatever trade deals her boss, the President, was having negotiated. The deal was not yet actually negotiated though. Secretary of State is a diplomatic role, not a political role; they are not even supposed to be providing their opinions, they provide the official US Government opinions, because they're not elected they're appointed.
Post Secretary of State, when she is giving her own opinions, she started out undecided but hopeful, and as soon as the details of the agreement started leaking, she was opposed. She's been solidly opposed to it.
Fact-checking isn't even hard. https://ballotpedia.org/2016_p...
She didn't change her position for the primary, that is a silly accusation. Was she supporting it during the TPA debate? No, she was already opposing it. When she was Secretary of State and made statements in support, she had also been told that they were going to include strong worker rights protections, and environmental protections, neither of which are included. None of the people who supported the idea of the deal before it was negotiated were told the deal would be as it actually is; they were told it would have the worker and environmental protections that past trade agreements lacked. Lots and lots of people would have supported a deal that had the right sort of protections, because trade barriers are often bad. The deal that was negotiated does a lot of other things, and almost none of those hopeful early supporters are supporting the deal.
Clinton has opposed the deal consistently since it was actually negotiated and existed as a thing with known details.
I did get my facts straight. He did a bunch of work promoting the TPP, and the TPA last year.
He obfuscated his TPA support by voting yes to stop debate and override the filibuster, but then he let it pass without even voting, so he could mask his support since. That is the facts of his record on this, he talks out both sides of his mouth, but he does support it.
If he wants to change his opinion, it takes more than saying so at a campaign stop in Iowa during a contentious primary. He needs to do like he did in support, and make a formal statement that retracts his support. Then he'll change columns on lists. Right now the best you can argue is that, "Cruz flip-flopped on that, I promise!"
But look, even after flip-flopping on TPA, he still said he might support TPP. He was never opposed to it. He said at a couple campaign stops recently that he was against it, but he had said both things prior to TPA, and his votes in the Senate when TPA was passed were to assist it in passing without even voting on it in the end, even though he was there and helping it overcome the filibuster. That is after he claimed to oppose it, after having supported it.
So, no. Get your facts straight.
No, Congress gave the President "fast-track trade promotion authority" which allows the President improved power to negotiate because it ties Congress' hands so that they can only ratify or reject a trade agreement; they can't modify it, and in the Senate they can't filibuster. They still have to vote "yes" for it to be ratified. ;)
Congress improved the likelihood of passing a trade agreement in general by preventing themselves from getting in the way with parliamentary procedure. As somebody who dislikes the agreement I think that is great, they've backed themselves into a corner and they're going to have to have public debate on the actual subject being decided! I don't think that leads to passage of this thing. If it was popular, this would aid passage; since it is unpopular, it harms passage.
The main reason for it was so that the negotiators could tell the other countries, "this is the real deal that Congress is going to ratify." In past rounds of negotiation, Congress has often passed bills changing the details of the American implementation of trade deals. That possibility meant that other countries weren't believing that the details would hold up, and so not wanting to compromise. It is hard to do a compromise on specific issues if the other side might change the rules later.
The fast-track trade rules are not bad law, and they don't prevent Congress from fulfilling its role. It just prevents them from bungling around and exceeding it on this issue. Don't assume that because you're against this or other specific trade agreements that the "trade promotion authority" bill was automatically bad. Congress sucking less is good, even where you still want them to vote no.
The TPP might actually be a net financial gain for the United States
Even many who are opposed agree with that statement. The thing is, it also might not. ;) So, not really good financial planning. "You know, this deal doesn't look too bad; you might not even lose your shirt! It is possible you would come out ahead."
How does enriching corporations with my money not have anything to do with "trade?" It seems to have a bit too much to do with trade if you ask me!
We have a lot of people opposing this, but if the signal/noise isn't favorable it might not help. We have to get enough rational people not only to oppose the rational paid supporters on the other side, but also to counter-act the irrational nutcases who make us look bad.
You're just shouting, without checking the positions. What if it really is a partisan issue, and Obama is the only high profile Democrat supporting it? Then what?
Clinton and Sanders are both against the TPP. Not sure why you're spewing anti-Hillary stuff here. Trump is also opposed. Rubio says he is undecided.
Cruz supports the TPP, but doesn't think that Congress should vote in a lame duck session.
Even counting withdrawn Democratic candidates, you'll find that Martin O'Malley and Jim Webb both opposed it.
Presidential candidates supporting the TPP are only: Bush(R), Cruz(R), Kasich(R), Rick Perry(R), Rick Santorum(R), Scott Walker(R)
Maybe yes are: Rubio(R)(maybe; supported before now says undecided), Rand Paul(R)(opposes Presidential authority to negotiate it, but open to voting for the actual deal)
No, only Malaysia has ratified.
It is a silly headline. The 12 countries that agreed to have their negotiators, whose only authority is to negotiate the text, sign what they negotiated. This is not an approval step in any of these countries, or intended to be. It is just a signing ceremony. The news was months ago when they agreed to a text; countries that didn't agree then were not on the list they're using here. They make it sound like all the countries that negotiated signed. Not true at all. The countries that came to a deal, signed the deal as the first step towards referring it to their respective national processes.
Republicans in the US House have suggested that the only chance they'll have enough votes is if they pass it during the "lame duck" session after this year's Nov election. I agree that is their one chance, but I think they might have a hard time selling it to voters this year and if it is a major election issue then it won't pass the Senate. Elected Republicans mostly like it, but most Republican voters don't.
No, you just never read a philosophy or physics book. ;)
It is the standard intellectual device for a truly neutral third party without an identifiable cultural bias.
In physics it takes the form of discussing the quality of explanations; how would you explain an objective scientific concept to a visiting Martian anthropologist? It is used as a thought experiment to try to uncover assumptions. Often when people first try to phrase things without assumptions, they leave a bunch in that they assume are general enough, so the Martian exercise is necessary to try to bridge that gap and get them to agree to make less cultural assumptions in the explanation.
In philosophy it takes a similar form, but is more often used to challenge negative assumptions; you can't prove negatives, so when somebody tries to, it is normal to say, "Well you can't even prove that the Martians aren't going to invade tomorrow. They could have an invasion fleet parked behind the moon right now and nobody would know! Prove they don't!"
Nobody in America would think that our government doesn't have the authority to give that permission, or claim that the local town councilors need "transparent" access to the government's approval process for military overflights by major allies.
Details are important, try to pay attention to the details you're responding to.
If it was too long to read it all, just skip over it without replying please.
Right, you're intentionally misrepresenting who it was. By saying "a person" in a general way, as if you don't know she is an involved party in their government, you make it sound like she must have been a paid actor.
Principles who lie about what they saw in order to enhance or restore their power are not "actors."
You're playing word games to make it sound like a different thing than it was, and then oddly you keep trying to do it even after I make it clear to anybody who has ever read the details that I already looked into it and won't be led astray. It makes no sense to keep trying to twist the words. Just look it up, it wasn't an actor, it was an involved principle. The goal in choosing words is to choose the most correct word, not any word that has a fringe literary use that could apply.
"Working class" Americans often get one week of vacation per year, starting the first calendar year after the first complete year. And most of those jobs are not lifelong jobs. Plus, many workers will have temporary status for their first year or so, which doesn't count towards vacation.
It was more fact than hyperbole, though to be fair most of the people camping outside like that work mid-level office jobs and get two weeks of vacation a year, prorated from when they're officially hired which is usually three months after starting the job as a temporary worker.
In China only 14% of workers took a paid vacation at all in the past three years, regardless of rules that purport to require five days per year.
The US economy isn't stronger and more resilient than Europe's just because we have a pretty flag. We have the highest worker productivity in the world, and we don't even have the newest or most updated machinery. We just work harder, and more hours.
Right, but your reply right here? It does not show that you read the post you're replying to. Instead of just waving your hands as if I hadn't said anything, and presuming I would consider that, you need to alter your words to take into consideration what I said. Show enough theory of mind so that I think you understood my point, and I might consider whatever your opposing view is. If I can't even tell that you read my words, I'm not going to attempt to identify your ideas.
He's not doing anything to try to "control" anybody. Control is before you do something. If you're an asshole to him, he might be an asshole back; there is no attempt at control there.
If you say nasty things, he won't want you around. That isn't control, that is natural consequences of your speech. That is him being free, not him trying to control you.
The implication that he should alter his behavior is the only attempt at control. Nobody else is trying to control anybody. Both sides are exercising freedom in this. The only control freaks are among the pundits.
Sorry Mr Coward, but back in the olden days on Slashdot Radio they always liked to make references to MC Hawking. Check him out on youtube, he's still around.
Nerdcore never died.
Me, I'm still listening to the Netslaves book soundtrack, with classics like "In the Server Cages" and "Your Boss is an Idiot."
I'll bet I'm not the only one still listening to Hampsterdance, either.
Or the Ballad of Bilbo Baggins by Leonard Nimoy and the Pixie Chicks.
Indeed, being the most deserving of some vapid frivolity is not a high aspiration.
But what does that say about those who are offended at not having been treated as being even more deserving of said vapid frivolity?
The good honest hayseed who camps out for 2 weeks using up 4 years of vacation time... good for them. I wouldn't want them to vacation in the same place as me anyways, it would get crowded. Freedom isn't only important for people doing something important. It reminds me of the song Graceland.
It is just silly nonsense that misunderstands rights and prerogatives.
If a restaurant kicks you out for saying [REDACTED] in their business in front of other customers, that is not censorship. It is them choosing the speech they endorse or appear to endorse. There is no censorship, because Tesla doesn't have an obligation to provide a platform for anybody to speak. Them responding to negative speech by exercising their own prerogatives, that isn't censorship; that is in fact the value of speech that is protected when free speech is protected!
This idea that consequences for your speech in your relationships in the community somehow implies that speech isn't free, it is just wrong and stupid.
Nobody is controlling anybody's speech or actions here. You're free to say whatever you want, and enter into any business relationships with other people who are willing to do business with you. Likewise, others are free not to do business with you. And you are free not to do business with them. Nobody is being controlled; nobody is being forced to buy a Tesla; nobody is being put in a situation where having a Tesla is a de-facto necessity.
If somebody on the pre-order list is made uncomfortable, it is their own darn fault. They should have already canceled their order. They can still go now and cancel; any continued discomfort is totally on them. And any censorship is self-censorship that nobody asked them to engage in.
The funny part of the conflict is that most of the people who are ready to defend Tesla really don't care if Elon Musk is an arrogant jerk, or not.
The CEOs that aren't arrogant jerks are mostly just greedy bastards, or incompetent nincompoops.
The complaints are funny; who do you expect to be at a "product launch event?" Why would that be on a tight schedule? Most of the people there are from out of town, aren't actually in a hurry to leave the event, are interested enough in it to actually be there in person, and are going to be nearby drinking afterwards with other participants.
Has he ever been to an auto show? Or a rock concert? Those are the types of events that are similar. It is not a serious event, it is a type of party that is put on for the company to interact with the most dedicated fan-customers. Have you ever been to a sports "fan appreciation event?" Casual fans that only want to attend if they can meet a celebrity with an under 2 hour wait... maybe they should have better things to do, right? These events are for people who want to spend their day waiting around to maybe get an autograph. If you're not willing to wait in line for 2 hours to NOT get to the front of the line before the celebrity leaves, you're in the wrong place. People that get to the front of that line often are putting their whole day into the event, and liking it. They might have slept outside the door last night.
You can do a high quality DIY conversion with similar range for under 15K, using all new parts. No, they don't have $30k in batteries. But yes, the batteries cost more than a brand new Kia.
In the US we have specific rules for pre-orders. They're not generic contracts. They're the same as custom made-to-order products. It isn't a sale until delivery, and it isn't a contract separately from the sale unless the customer is paying more for the right of pre-order. If they get bumped from a discount list, then they haven't paid extra for anything, and they never became a customer by buying the product.
In your link, he didn't have a pre-order. He had a deposit for sale of an existing product that the store had not yet received delivery of. He paid the deposit to the local dealer, not to a company actually making the product. And the company doesn't custom-make products to the dealer's specification. The dealer can only sell products that exist; they can't pre-sell a product that is not for sale yet, by definition. The manufacterer is who can sell a product that doesn't yet exist; except they can't sell it, they can only pre-sell it. It isn't sold until delivery though. And the product in question was also not being made-to-order, it was just supposed to be the first one they received. Basically, that situation would be a "back order" legally in the US, regardless of what words the customer and dealer use. Back orders can't always be canceled without cause, if a payment has been accepted.
Back orders are different than pre-orders, because mail order has been a big thing for a long time, and it is a traditional avenue of consumer abuse. So there are detailed extant rules.
I'm not a lawyer
It shows. If Tesla refunds the money somebody paid, then they have not received any "consideration" (pay, or equivalent) and any presumed contract under which you believe you have been harmed is invalid, and not enforceable anyways.
You would have to have a contract provision already in place when you made the pre-order that says they can't refund it. Nobody offers pre-orders with that type of condition. What if a natural disaster destroys their factory, or a war breaks out and they can't source rubber for a few years? Pre-orders are always cancelable. If there is a penalty, it is almost always only the customer that would pay a penalty for canceling. That is the privilege of pre-ordering; you could also just wait until the item is actually for sale.
Pre-order in the US also has special rules, similar to custom made-to-order products, and are not regulated under the same types of expectations that available-for-order products are. The type of claim you presume is not going to fly. It is the customer that takes on that sort of risk before delivery in the case of both pre-order and made-to-order. Pre-made, ready to order products create legal obligations when you accept the money, or in the case of credit card payments, when you finalize the payment. But custom and pre-order those obligations don't kick in until delivery. It is worth understanding if you ever plan to pre-order something. There is no need to go through the mental anguish of (incorrectly) thinking your rights have been trampled, when you can instead just learn the rules and read the fine print and not have inflated expectations.
It is an important business principle to understand. If you're willing to give back all of what was given to you, you can usually end the relationship. If you want to give back part, you can't. If you want to keep the part that is the same as your expenses, then the other party might sue you on some weird harm theory like you present. But giving back the whole payment, so that you have received no consideration, that frees you from the asshole completely.
A proper Princess would never have attempted to receive a place in line, or associated a number handed to an assistant with herself in order to get mad about getting the wrong number. Or expected to need to be at the event at a time that some underling had liked and written in a book titled "schedule." And if Elon Musk isn't the Monarch, then who would ask what time he had said he intended to arrive? It isn't like they have a battle planned together, or something. Maybe he was late by having arrived after the Princess, but that would be a different complaint and she wouldn't need to invoke a fake schedule to enforce it.
He has a lot to learn, he might even need to re-attend Finishing School.
Microsoft even tries to punish non-customers. Back in `99 they sent me a free pre-release copy of Windows 2000 Advanced Server blahblah, trying to get me to sell it to my clients. (I was a linux/unix database consultant at the time)
Awesomest coffee coaster I ever had, it lasted years. Those cheap AOL cds start flaking after just a couple years. Windows Server provided a stable platform for my coffee for almost a decade, with no downtime.
The one time I'm really glad I didn't read the manual, I just dove in and implemented the solution in the most obvious way. Disaster averted!
My Nissan was assembled by Ford, and they did a great job as far as I can tell.
I'm just glad it was engineered in Japan.
Yeah, and I never heard of Ford having a waiting list to get one of their cars, either.
If Ford refused to sell you a car, they would sell one less car.
If Tesla refuses to sell you a car, they still sell the exact same number of cars.
You must be pretty douchey if you keep taking a test to check the level. Even worse, you were trying to get into a BMW!
I don't like seeing BMWs on the road; they drive 20MPH faster than everybody else on the freeway, on the highway they'll pass me and slow down to 5 MPH slower than I was going when they passed, because they realized they don't know the road and get nervous in the front position, and then in town they drive 10MPH slower than everybody else, because they're not going anywhere they're just driving around hoping somebody will see them driving a BMW.