You’re absolutely right to distrust power. You should be suspicious when politicians start cozying up to billionaires, especially ones like Musk who openly enable fascist rhetoric and build platforms for it. But what you’re doing here isn’t just holding people accountable—you’re flattening nuance and turning every complex strategic move into evidence of moral failure. That’s not political clarity, it’s just a hammer looking for nails.

You say I’m defending collaboration with Nazis. I’m not. I’m describing the reality that when someone like Musk controls huge pieces of national infrastructure—satellites, EV production, social media, and contracts with NASA and the Pentagon—governments can’t just ignore him. That sucks. I wish they could. But calling it collaboration when they try to regulate or rein in his influence is missing the forest for the flamethrower. If Democrats had any real power to dismantle Musk’s influence tomorrow, I’d be cheering. But you don’t dismantle entrenched oligarchic power by refusing to engage with it at all. That’s not moral courage, that’s political impotence dressed up as righteousness.

You’re also setting up this neat little trap where no matter what Democrats do, they’re evil. If they talk to Musk, they’re “quislings.” If they don’t and he continues to spread fascism unchecked, you’ll say they failed to do anything. If they compromise on a bill, they’re sellouts. If they refuse to compromise and the GOP steamrolls them, you’ll call them ineffective. There’s no outcome where you’d say, “Yeah, that was principled and strategic.” That tells me this isn’t really about policy, it’s about purity. And I get it—being betrayed over and over makes you stop believing in any middle ground. But writing off every engagement as proof of corruption is a recipe for endless cynicism and zero progress.

And by the way, I didn’t say I “trust” establishment Democrats. I said they’re navigating a system where guys like Musk have been allowed to accumulate dangerous levels of influence. I don’t trust them to resist selling out unless they’re pushed—hard—by people who don’t buy into the “let’s all be polite and civil” nonsense. We need pressure. We need protest. But we also need clarity about what we’re actually fighting, and it isn’t that Bob Garcia said a few sentences to Elon Musk while also calling him a right-wing extremist.

You’re swinging wildly at everything that moves, and in doing so, you’re weakening your own point. Rage is justified, but if you want to build something better, you’ve got to aim it precisely. Otherwise, you’re just another person screaming betrayal while the real fascists laugh and consolidate power.

Typical brain dead Nazi response

#BONK*!!*

Quite a thing to create the world’s most dire need for humanitarian aid in the history of the species and then criticize any aid as tiny in comparison to the need you’ve manufactured

The curved part has infinite angles

It looks like you’re trying to write in your diary, but you accidentally wrote this here in public. Whoopsie!

They should have included something about the count of angles in the name

Op reading your comment:

I can’t help that I was born a bot, you bigot.

Ah, so now we’ve arrived at the part of the conversation where you start yelling “quisling” like a drunk history major trying to sound profound in a Reddit flame war. Look, if you’re going to throw around World War II analogies, maybe at least get the dynamics right. No one’s defending collaboration with fascists—we’re pointing out that trying to get a powerful oligarch with control over key infrastructure to behave responsibly is not the same as praising or submitting to him. You can hate someone’s guts and still be forced to deal with them when they’ve wormed their way into controlling satellites, manufacturing, and public discourse. That’s not “toadyism,” that’s a sign of how broken and lopsided the system is.

What’s hilarious is how fast you flipped the script. First, you accuse Democrats of warming to Musk—then when I point out they actually see him as dangerous but are forced to deal with him, you spin that as betrayal anyway. So which is it? Do they love him, or are they spineless for working with someone they distrust? You can’t even hold your own narrative steady for five minutes.

And let’s not pretend you’re some paragon of ideological purity here, lobbing insults from the moral high ground. You’re doing the online version of smashing your toy soldiers together and declaring victory with a word like “quisling” while completely missing the point. No one here worships Elon. I literally said I’d laugh if Tesla crashed and Elon got roasted, and you still managed to accuse me of “defending” him. If you think that’s defending, maybe you need to reset your sarcasm meter—or just your whole personality.

Anyway, go ahead and shout into the void some more. I’m sure the ghosts of the Third Reich are super impressed with your vocabulary.

Right after I help him die in a fire and laugh about Tesla crashing.

You’re not very bright are you

That’s pretty ironic, because I’m not a Nazi so that’s why nothing you’re saying makes sense to me

I bet that means something in your head

🤣 you could just say you didn’t have the video of him striking his chest and doing it perfectly straight arm twice in a row.

Thanks for this, I needed a laugh

You’re misreading the article if you think it shows Democrats are “warming” to Elon Musk. No one quoted in the piece says they like him, trust him, or think he’s a decent person. In fact, what it shows is the exact opposite: many Democrats are still deeply skeptical of him and consider his behavior and politics dangerous. What’s happening here isn’t about admiration or trust—it’s about strategy and necessity. They’re engaging with him not because they want to, but because they feel they have to, given his immense influence over major technologies like EVs, space infrastructure, and social media.

Take Rep. Robert Garcia, for example. He doesn’t praise Musk or suggest he’s come around to liking him. He says, “Musk has clearly gone down a right-wing rabbit hole,” and openly criticizes his platforming of extremists. The article quotes him as seeing Musk as someone who “lets people say hateful, violent, racist things.” That doesn’t sound like someone warming to him—that’s someone holding their nose while trying to work with him for practical reasons.

The same goes for the White House. Yes, they’ve met with Musk and engaged him in policy discussions, but that’s because he controls major assets that intersect with government priorities: EV manufacturing, satellite internet, space tech. Musk is essentially a utility at this point—a problematic one, but one that’s too entangled with federal initiatives to ignore. It’s not about warming up to him. It’s about needing him to cooperate because of the role he’s carved out for himself, not because anyone thinks he’s a good actor.

This is politics, not personal affection. Democrats engaging with Musk doesn’t mean they like him—it means they’re being realistic. They’re dealing with a man they see as dangerous and ideologically aligned with Trump, but who unfortunately holds keys to several important doors. The article reflects that tension. If anything, it paints a picture of wariness and pragmatism, not warmth.

Whippersnapper.

It were a penalty for customers being late on something, this wouldn’t even be up for discussion.

I asked a Jewish person what about anti zionist Jews? I was informed they are self-hating Jews. I wonder if they know they hate themselves.

Lol okay grandpa. Nobody is fucking “warming to him”

Got a video of that, buddy, where he hits his chest and then goes to a straight arm with no wave, twice?

It’ll be funnier if this were written on a note dropped from a plane passing overhead