By on April 21, 2022

Dan O’Dowd, the billionaire founder and CEO of Green Hills Software, has announced he’s running for the U.S. Senate and his campaign has a single platform — destroy Tesla Inc.

“Today I launched my campaign for U.S. Senate to make computers safe for humanity. The first danger I am tackling is @ElonMusk‘s reckless deployment of unsafe @Tesla Full Self-Driving cars on our roads,” O’Dowd tweeted on April 19th.

The tweet was accompanied by a 60-second advertisement that showed clips of various Tesla vehicles equipped with the contentious software nearly striking pedestrians and making other mistakes in traffic while a disembodied voice explains does its utmost to make you feel like Tesla is an evil company that wants its cars to kill people. 

While the company’s Full Self-Driving (FSD) suite has often been the source of ridicule here, this is pretty ridiculous. Though I suppose that can be said of most campaign ads. O’Dowd is, perhaps unsurprisingly, the founder of a political action committee campaigning to ban unsafe software from safety-critical systems, which it claims could be targeted by military-style hackers to cause chaos. Known as The Dawn Project, Tesla has become its Public Enemy Number One.

However, I would argue this has less to do with problems with FSD and more to do with how often the EV manufacturer has been able to dunk on legacy automakers. Let’s not kid ourselves, the automotive industry has a long and illustrious history of engaging in union corruption, dumping garbage parts into cars to save money, skirting regulators, and lobbying Congress to back them up. In the modern era, the latter component seems to be best represented by the aggressive way in which government regulators have handled Tesla Inc’s semi-autonomous features while giving legacy automakers carte blanche. Some of this, like chiding the company for using erroneous names for those features, feels valid. But the rest of it looks to be little more than a backdoor way of hampering the competition via the National Highway Traffic Safety Association (NHTSA).

Elon Musk’s decision to buy out Twitter in order to convert it into a free-speech platform has also placed him on the radar of political groups that would rather see content censored and/or curated. Following the CEO’s purchasing a majority stake in the social media entity, he refused a seat on the board that would have prohibited him from purchasing additional shares. However, he was met with opposition as the website’s other majority shareholders — Vanguard, Morgan Stanley, BlackRock, and State Street — have threatened to increase their collective ownership. This was something the Tesla CEO claimed as problematic, saying that Twitter’s individual board members technically have a very minor stake in the company’s financial wellbeing.

Last week, Musk offered to buy Twitter for $54.20 per share, or more than $43 billion, around a 16-percent premium on the company’s share price at the time. Since then, there have been rolling criticisms of what is now a hostile takeover and it’s all coming down along political lines. Already unpopular with the Biden administration, at least based on how it has treated Tesla vs legacy manufacturers, Musk has become a pariah among establishment Democrats after souring on California and voicing his opinions on Twitter.

“Elon Musk is pushing Tesla’s defective Full Self-Driving technology, and it’s threatening people across the country. The government continues to allow Tesla to put unregulated, dangerous, and defective software on the street in the hands of 60,000 untrained drivers,” O’Dowd, who is running as a Democrat, said during his campaign launch. “This is a public safety threat and Congress must take immediate action.”

According to the Sacramento Bee, O’Dowd will be challenging incumbent Sen. Alex Padilla — California’s former secretary of state who was tasked by Gov. Gavin Newsom to fill Vice President Kamala Harris’ seat when headed to the White House.

From SacBee:

Padilla is favored to win heavily. But an intra-party rival in a flush billionaire could cost Padilla some needed votes in a crowded field of candidates.

Padilla will appear on the ballot twice this year: The first time is for a special election to finish this term. The second is for another six-year term starting in 2023. He has about $7.1 million on hand for his campaign, according to his most recent Federal Election Commission filing on March 31, 2022. O’Dowd founded Green Hills Software with Carl Rosenberg in 1982 and has served as its president and CEO since.

Through Green Hills Software, O’Dowd has helped build operating systems for the likes of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Boeing, his campaign said. He founded The Dawn Project in 2021 to push for reliability and security in safety-critical computer systems. Its goal is to replace software in critical infrastructure to ensure it can neither fail nor be hacked.

It seems like a worthy cause on the surface. But, again, the group seems to exist almost entirely to cause trouble for Tesla. The Dawn Project repeatedly makes assertions that Musk’s company uses systems that could be leveraged by hackers to cause trouble for the United States. Though that line of reasoning is never extended to other manufacturers that are utilizing similar systems or the rampant harvesting of customer data that only gets worse every year.

Listen, I dislike the farce that is Tesla’s FSD as much as the next guy. However, it seems implausible that one automaker has the market cornered on vulnerabilities when we’ve already seen what hackers can do with other models. Every manufacturer needs to be held to a similarly high standard if I’m to believe O’Dowd’s goals are based on legitimate concerns for the wellbeing of the nation, rather than industrial or political warfare.

[Image: Virrage Images/Shutterstock]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

95 Comments on “California Tech Mogul Launches Senate Run to Destroy Tesla...”


  • avatar
    Fred

    Yea because homeless, climate change, economics and possible WW3 are not an issue.

    • 0 avatar
      probert

      Other billionaires have made sure those things are permanent – no need to duplicate efforts. So many billionaires, so little country left.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Billionaires ain’t the problem – contrary to popular opinion, the super-wealthy give away a TON of their money.

        Not giving a s**t about anything or anyone that’s not you is the problem.

        • 0 avatar
          tonycd

          Freed, you’re missing the forest for the trees. The reason we have 650 plutocrats hoarding as much wealth as 50% of the country combined is precisely because they’ve gotten away with hoarding the wealth created by others’ work. If they gain an additional tax advantage by then donating a small percentage of it — and I recently encountered a Facebook page from a billioniares’ front group scheming to keep control of even that pittance, even AFTER they’ve ostensibly given it away — that doesn’t offset the mammoth bottom-line inequality to any meaningful degree.

          Not giving a s*** about anyone but themselves is the bottom line behind their very existence. If Elon Musk wasn’t an obvious and flagrant sociopath, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation.

          • 0 avatar
            Art Vandelay

            “because they’ve gotten away with hoarding the wealth created by others’ work”

            If it’s so easy, you should start up a company, exploit the works of others and become a billionaire.

            And most of that work can be done.by anyone. The risk to start it all up is the hard part…it’s the risk taken to get it all going.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        Well that’s the dumbest thing I’ve read in some time. Thanks @Probert.

  • avatar
    Lynchenstein

    The question I have is: are vehicles using FSD less prone to collisions than ones under a human’s control, given the same driving conditions? I seem to recall the statistics, but I’m unable to find the link. Anyone?

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      FSD is basically vaporware at this point, so I don’t think you’ll find stats.

      • 0 avatar
        brn

        Agree, but the question is still valid for Level 2.

        • 0 avatar
          DenverMike

          Like any driver’s aid, it should enhance attentive driving, not replace it.

          It shouldn’t be one or the other, as if they’re competing.

          Except it’s how the tech/gadget is marketed that’s a crime.

          • 0 avatar
            Rick T.

            The paradox is that every moment FSD drives it leaves the human driver just a bit more deskilled. As FSD becomes more and more capable, the human driver becomes less and able to handle the situations FSD cannot.

          • 0 avatar
            DenverMike

            I give up.

            But no matter. In 50 years we’ll all be chicks. I’ll be dust in the wind hopefully.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            If we all have to be chicks, can I be Scarlett Johansson? ‘Cause, damn…

            Besides, I wouldn’t even have to convert.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    May I ask where the idea that this guy wants to “destroy Tesla” came from? His campaign website says he wants to ban FSD…that’s it. Seems to me that can be done without destroying the company.

    https://odowdforsenate.com/

    Having said that, though…I doubt the guy gets anywhere with this single-issue campaign, but he’s right to want FSD done away with. The tech clearly isn’t ready.

    • 0 avatar
      brn

      You get attention by creating hate. Getting people to hate a smart-arse trillionaire is pretty easy.

    • 0 avatar
      tonycd

      Freed, I agree with you about this part. The tech isn’t ready, and innocent people are being killed by someone who sees incremental profit in pretending that it is — right dowo to insisting on still giving it the “full self-driving” name even while admitting it’s a lie.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “Every manufacturer needs to be held to a similarly high standard”

    I agree, but if Tesla is the worst offender (and I’m willing to hear arguments that they aren’t) then I don’t think it is a huge problem to use them as the example. Tesla is also a very visible example in CA. If the overall idea is to make a law specifically and exclusively banning Tesla Inc’s FSD system then that is a problem, but I’m guessing any hypothetical legislation wouldn’t be so narrow.

  • avatar
    olddavid

    To dump the established automakers with Tesla is a disservice to their legacy. Yes, they were dragged kicking and screaming into the postwar era, but do not forget the middle class they essentially subsidized until economic growth caught up. I will never forget Henry and Harry Bennett and his goons, but I will also never forget the $5 wage promise, even if he was a wildly bigoted human. Also, Tesla would have never survived without the huge subsidy granted on each car. Wasn’t he literally waiting on US money to make payroll and other ancillary payments? Now that his roll of the dice has shown to be sevens, he is idolized as a visionary genius. Talk about revisionist history. Much needs to change and the migration to Mexico has me blaming everybody, including the UAW. But, the America of 2022 would not be here had the US auto industry not been the dollar generator it used to be – and can be again.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “Tesla would have never survived without the huge subsidy granted on each car.”

      That might be true if Tesla was selling $30k Leafs, but I don’t think the $7500 Federal subsidy made much difference to people paying $57-87k for a 2012 Model S.

      After Tesla’s subsidy expired, their sales didn’t miss a beat.

      • 0 avatar
        olddavid

        You’re not thinking overall. I would agree if it was contingent per sale, but didn’t he get many dollars just for manufacturing “green” transportation? Also, didn’t the Fremont plant come at a subsidized price, like $1? Every person that I know who purchased a Tesla (ok, only 3) bragged about their $7500, or more depending on state money? I think maybe my view is slanted as I do not see the buzz on the cars. They are a parody of an automobile to my eyes. Just because there are half a million people saying the earth is flat doesn’t make it true.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      “Wasn’t he literally waiting on US money to make payroll…”

      Think you’ve confused Tesla with General Motors pal…which gets the same subsidy as does every other automaker on EVs.

      Sadly, GM squandered it on bad products and now has their hand out again wanting more.

  • avatar
    indi500fan

    Back in the 70s, a black engineer I worked with at GM ran for a US Congressional seat on a single issue, which was converting the country to the metric system. That wasn’t successful. But he didn’t have big money to spend so who knows.

    • 0 avatar
      jalop1991

      “Back in the 70s, a black engineer I worked with at GM ran for a US Congressional seat on a single issue, which was converting the country to the metric system. That wasn’t successful. ”

      There are two types of countries in the world: those who use the metric system, and those who have sent men to walk on the moon and landed them safely back on the earth.

    • 0 avatar
      Jeff S

      I remember in the 70’s the push to convert to metric and GM combining metric with SAE on their vehicles. At the time I had to get metric tools to supplement my existing tools to work on my 77 Monte Carlo. Adam from Rare Classic Cars commented that GM cars during the 70s painted all the metric bolts blue. Might not have been an entirely bad idea to go metric from a scientific and engineering standpoint but it didn’t happen except in a few instances like car engines for many years now are measured in liters instead of cubic inches and wine is milliliter (ml).

  • avatar
    brn

    OK, now lets see how he debates on other issues.

    • 0 avatar
      RHD

      If we could get rid of the cause of ALL traffic infractions, nearly-hit pedestrians and incidents of vehicular manslaughter, we would have no humans driving cars.
      O’Dowd might as well be trying to ban green-eyed drivers of Icelandic extraction born in Rhode Island, which would be equally significant as achieving his single platform issue.

      Actually, this guy’s goal is to get elected. This is just a gimmick to get his name some recognition. What he would actually do in office is anyone’s guess.

  • avatar
    KOKing

    Just what we need, more tech bro penis fighting. They just all should get castrated or something.

  • avatar

    Who? Dan? He is the well known local village idiot. Never was able to get elected because…who will elect idiot? Even Californians will not do that and Californians love Tesla. Some people have more money that brains and Dan is one of them.

  • avatar
    EBFlex

    Oh this is a quandary that will make the liberals wet their diapers.

    On the one hand, they hate Musk because he is an African American immigrant who wants to turn Twitter into a non-biased platform where people are not banned simply because they go against the state propaganda.

    On the other hand, this guy would do damage to Tesla, the appliance company that liberals think is going to save the planet, one EV fire and lithium mine at a time.

    Yikes

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      Well, you’re not too wrong here. :)

      In-party fights are pretty entertaining.

    • 0 avatar
      la834

      LOL about libs trying to censor free speech. This as Republicans everywhere try to forbid schools from teaching that racism happened and still does, that gay people exist, and that “season’s greetings” and “dreamers of all ages” are offensive phrases worth boycotting Disney for daring to utter…

      • 0 avatar
        redapple

        LA>
        Once again libs, as in your example, twist the facts just a little in order to twist the story.
        1- CRT is not a history of the 1950s or the slave trade. If it were- i m all for it.
        2- Gay – Trans and so forth- that story. We conservatives object to this topic being reviewed with 1 to 3rd graders. I dont think this a crazy hate filled belief.
        3- Season greetings. Is Merry Christmas that triggering? Really? So upset you cant get out of bed in the morning huh.
        4- Believers all ages…. greeting. This replaced, ladies and gents – boys and girls. So, you want to fight over this too, huh. The change was made to placate the trans community. Trans are 0.4% of the population. I d venture to guess that much less than half of the trans community is offended old greeting. So, no we are talking about 0.15-0.2% of the us population.
        If we need to appease 0.2% of the population, I would say we are a Balkans style society. In fighting – cold or hot is on the horizon.

        • 0 avatar
          haze3

          1: CRT is a grad school academic topic recast as a conservative bumper sticker to frighten insecure white folks into a belief that their country will crumble if they acknowledge missteps in their history.
          2: Gay is a fact of life and it’s not a learned trait. More fearful folks worried that a story including Daddy and Daddy vs. Daddy and Mommy will damage kids.
          3: Merry Christmas, Sir… and Happy Kwanzaa.
          4: Pronouns are a challenge, when you don’t know what someone prefers. Once you know, just be kind and use them. Sure, them/they is really scary but you can get through it.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        “This as Republicans everywhere try to forbid schools from teaching that racism happened and still does, that gay people exist, and that “season’s greetings” and “dreamers of all ages” are offensive phrases worth boycotting Disney for daring to utter…”

        None of that is true.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          Got it thanks. So there never was racism, gay people don’t exist, Disney is evil, and Putin is a good guy liberating the Ukrainians from Nazis. “Then all I’ve got to say God didn’t make little green apples and it don’t rain in Indianapolis in the summertime and there’s no such thing as Doctor Seuss or Disneyland, and Mother Goose, no nursery rhyme God didn’t make little green apples and it don’t rain in Indianapolis in the summertime.”

          • 0 avatar
            RHD

            The extremist clowns are just being their usual extremist clown selves, inciting divisiveness and spouting nonsense, in exchange for a meager paycheck from Uncle Vladimir. What a miserable life for ignorant, miserable people.

      • 0 avatar
        Art Vandelay

        So I think you are confused @la. Free speech is a right conferred to individuals to speak out against the government. It has zero to do with the Government saying stuff. It is if anything designed as a check and Ballance granted to the people. The bill of rights was not written to protect any “rights of the government”…it is to limit the power of the government.

        Limiting things the government can say or do isn’t censorship. It is democracy in action.

    • 0 avatar
      dal20402

      Liberal here. I don’t have any diapers to wet because the conservatives already ruined them all over the prospect that some kid might find out his classmate has two dads. And I hate Musk because he is an a$shole fraudster, not because of anything about Twitter.

      • 0 avatar
        EBFlex

        ” I don’t have any diapers to wet because the conservatives already ruined them all over the prospect that some kid might find out his classmate has two dads.”

        None of that is true. Way to misrepresent the actual spirit of the bill…

        • 0 avatar
          dal20402

          That wasn’t about any bill, it was about the conservative media and flacks going around calling everyone with views about sexuality more liberal than the Taliban’s “groomers.”

          One of these days someone is going to sue one of them for slander and win, and it will be richly deserved. It’s beyond the pale even by conservative media standards.

          • 0 avatar
            EBFlex

            “That wasn’t about any bill, it was about the conservative media and flacks going around calling everyone with views about sexuality more liberal than the Taliban’s “groomers.””

            Again, flatly untrue.

            The fact you think a young student discovering a friend has two dads and a teacher telling very young students that a doctor just “guesses” a person’s gender when they are born is the same thing or discussing sexuality with 1st graders is astounding.

            But “groom” away Dal…..

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        Not a big fan of Musk as well and some of these wing nuts will turn on Musk as soon as he criticizes them. I doubt a kid with 2 dad’s makes them gay and most normal well adjusted people don’t really care.

    • 0 avatar
      jkross22

      The love/hate of Musk has flipped pretty quickly online. Those supporting censorship now hate him, as he went from ambivalence to supporting the scourge of any Democratic society – the free flow of information and opinion.

      I haven’t seen too many people selling their Teslas in protest, though. Quite the pickle for Team Woke.

      I’m just enjoying the buttery popcorn.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Wait until Musk turns on the folks you approve of politically – which he most certainly will, because he’s a host unto himself. Then we’ll talk about him being some kind of brave defender of the “free flow of information.”

        Speaking of censorship, wasn’t it Trump who advocated for changing the libel laws so the big bad media would shut up about him?

        • 0 avatar
          EBFlex

          “Speaking of censorship, wasn’t it Trump who advocated for changing the libel laws so the big bad media would shut up about him?”

          He’s still living rent free…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            More like “he rented you cheap.”

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            No Trump still influences what the Republican Party stands for and Kevin McCarthy’s pilgrimage to Mar-A-Lago along with the other Republicans acquiesce to whatever Trump wants. The Republicans need to move on from Trump. There are plenty of other real issues like inflation, deficit spending, and health care that effect most people. The Republicans had their opportunity to disavow their loyalty to Trump after January 6, 2021 they should have dumped him. Trump is far from rent free when he still has a stranglehold on the leadership of the Republican Party. Republican leadership still is in lock step with Trump.

        • 0 avatar
          Jeff S

          @FreedMike–When that happens Musk will be banned by Republicans and Tesla vehicles will be boycotted by the avid Trumpers. Musk being as outspoken as he is does not hesitate to offend liberals and the right wing nuts. Getting back to this Californian running for US Senate he will have as much political traction as a car in wet sand.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        jkross22 – Get off your fainting couch. NO ONE has a constitutional right to post on Twitter. They are a private company and indeed get to choose who they serve. So now we look at their TOS….and if you can’t meet their TOS, or repeatedly violate them, then you lose the service.

        Anyone who has been banned from that service is welcome to find or even create their own. Oh wait, that happened. And it’s shipwreck.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          And I’m sure the social media service of the former “president” would never ban anyone. Nope.

          The idea that so-called “conservatives” have an arduous time getting heard on the Interned is the funniest thing I’ve heard since Richard Pryor’s “my freebase pipe is talking to me” bit.

        • 0 avatar
          285exp

          Just like wedding cake bakers are free to choose who to sell their products to, right?

          • 0 avatar
            JD-Shifty

            “Just like wedding cake bakers are free to choose who to sell their products to, right?”

            yes. but I don’t think they have to write anything you tell them to on it. see that wasn’t so hard, goob

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            So, it’s only if you force them to write words they don’t like, free speech is only words, goob?

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Well, if a wedding cake baker wants to use the business to look down his or her nose at other peoples’ sex lives, then I’ll declare that to be his or her right.

            And I have the right to to call said baker a judgmental, self-righteous a**hole who deserves to go broke post haste.

            And unless said baker holds the straight folks to the same sexual morality standard that he/she holds the non straight folks to, I’ll call said baker a discriminatory a**hole.

            God bless the First Amendment.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            @Freedmike, oh, the irony.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            You mean, the irony of some cake baker picking and choosing which part of Leviticus he or she wants to use the shop to enforce?

            To wit: Brave Culture Warrior Cake Baker doesn’t think twice about baking one for a couple who just got back from a bisexual wife-swapping weekend because one is a man and one is a woman, but tells two guys to take a hike because of their “sinful lifestyle.” Makes absolute sense.

            This is the kind of nonsense that happens that happens when people try to push their religious beliefs on everyone else uninvited. Heck, if my religion were doing this, you wouldn’t be driving anytime between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday, and bacon would be illegal.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            No Freedmike, the irony is that your post is a textbook case of the pot calling the kettle black. Judgmental? Check. Self-righteous? Check. A**hole? Double check. Then your ridiculous strawman about him having no problem baking a bi-sexual wife swapping cake, for which there is no evidence other than your own bigotry. You know who the real a-holes were in that case? The gay couple. They would be entirely justified in never stepping in that place again, telling all their friends, and posting it on social media to let everyone know not to patronize him. Instead, they sue to force the guy to violate his religious beliefs. There’s some tolerance for you. Remember when gay marriage was all about people being allowed to love and marry who they wished? Not anymore, now you have to bake them a cake celebrating it, regardless of what your personal beliefs are. Should a Muslim baker have to bake a cake with Muhammads’ image on it? A black baker one with a Confederate flag for Jeff Davis birthday? A Jewish baker one with the Hindu symbol for peace for Happy Himmler day? No, we’d all be better off if tolerance went both ways. I didn’t care what two or more consulting adults do to each other, and if gay people want to get married and have the same opportunity to live happily ever after or have an acrimonious divorce and give up half their stuff to their spouse, that’s ok with me too. Demand that someone violate a religious belief that Barack Obama claimed to have before he was elected? Not so much.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            “Violate his religious beliefs”? Where, precisely, does it say in the Bible you are banned from taking a customer’s money because you don’t like what he or she does in bed? Chapter and verse, please. And good luck.

            As far as all that other stuff is concerned…it’s the usual straw men. Don’t you think there’s a difference between doing something that’s offensive on its’ face – i.e., wearing a “Happy Hitler Day” t-shirt into any business – and politely asking a baker to do what his business is set up to do without the baker putting his nose in your sex life, where it doesn’t belong?

            If these brave culture warrior bakers were applying the Biblical sex litmus test that they apply to gay people, then I think they’re walking their walk. So…let’s add some stuff to their no-do list. Oral sex, sex for purposes other than procreation, masturbation, promiscousness, adultery, even doing it during a woman’s period – those are all official no-nos in the Bible (in fact, many of them come from the same book that the “no gay hanky panky” stuff comes from – Leviticus). No cakes for any of those folks, either.

            But we all know these brave culture warriors aren’t going to deny service to anyone for that stuff – because if a straight couple gets told “no” for a wedding cake after Mr. Culture Warrior baker finds out the bride-to-be likes a little head now and then, they’re going to raise holy hell…just like the gay folks would.

            But they won’t do that, of course, and that’s discrimination, and even if it’s legal, it’s wrong.

            You’re right, I don’t tolerate that.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Tell all that to the Supreme Court, sport, they ruled in his favor. When the baker starts baking cakes celebrating masturbation, sodomy, and non-procreative sex, let us know, then we can all mock him for his hypocrisy.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            The Supreme Court also reaffirmed the right to legalized slavery once…sport.

            Then again, if you asked them if it should be legal to cash out Junior’s college fund and spend it all on a craps game, they’d say that’s legal too.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Yeah, because a guy not decorating a gay wedding cake is just like slavery.

            You never did say whether the Muslim, black, or Jewish bakers should be allowed to refuse to decorate cakes that offend them or their religion, or is it just those judgmental and self-righteous Christians?

        • 0 avatar
          Art Vandelay

          “Anyone who has been banned from that service is welcome to find or even create their own. Oh wait, that happened. And it’s shipwreck.”

          Or they can buy Twitter and with the platform now being their private company do with it as they plaese

          • 0 avatar
            Jeff S

            It would be easier to just find another baker. I wouldn’t want someone who doesn’t like me or the group I associate with be forced to make food for me. You could get very sick.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            @Jeff S:

            Agreed, but it’d also be “easier” if people didn’t use their businesses to “spread the word.”

            They have the right to do so, but that doesn’t make it right. All it achieves in the end is to rile people up.

            People whose religious beliefs are so “sincerely held” that they can’t serve the public – ALL the public – should find another line of work. I’d suggest the clergy.

      • 0 avatar
        RHD

        The popcorn is tasty, but the movie is another re-write of the same old boring dialog.

    • 0 avatar
      Lorenzo

      Damaging Musk is not the same as damaging Tesla. It’s also not the same as running for a US Senate seat. National democrats on social media probably support O’Dowd’s effort, but national and state elected democrats don’t. he can split the vote enough so neither he nor Padilla are in the top two on the ballot. The Democrats need that senate seat.

      He’s only running because political candidates can buy adverising time at a discount. He’s only a ‘billionaire” because he says he is – his company has contracts with the government that are top secret, you see. But he still needs the political discount for his smear job on Musk.

  • avatar
    Mike Beranek

    Funny thing about self-driving, it’s not really for passenger cars. It’s for trucks, so that pretty much every trucker will find themselves without a job.
    Think the industry wouldn’t do that? Considering the billions of dollars that could be saved by cutting the drivers loose, I can’t see how they wouldn’t.

  • avatar

    “Politicians is the kwaziest peoples.” We need more electric vehicles and less ICE ones. We need to punish/chastise/reprimand one of the more successful EV manufacturers because. . . the war in Ukraine, the climate, CRT, the racism, the 1619 project, because. . . well, just because.

    Oh, the irony.

    It feels like it’s all just bloviation without brains engaged and reasoning in a rational manner. I do agree with many others that FSD is a misnomer and should be renamed to reflect the reality of the system. Stifling successful innovation seems to be the wrong way to go about it. Making Tesla the poster child isn’t a positive move – it has the potential to hurt more than help.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      I think innovation is great as long as it works. But this particular innovation isn’t working, and I don’t see how Tesla gets it working anytime soon without putting people on the roads at risk.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Fully agree. Maybe in 10 years or so, maybe not. Meanwhile I do appreciate some of the newer nannies that have been developed (lane assist, blind spot, rear cross traffic….). My daughter’s car has them and I think they’ve actually made her a more aware driver….

      • 0 avatar
        DenverMike

        As long as it can force A$$HOLES to keep their eyes on the driving, it can only improve safety. That’s key.

        Impaired driving crashes (up to a point), may be reduced too.

    • 0 avatar

      Agree with all of you gentlemen. My issue is more with politicians that think they know better than you or I when they really don’t in many cases.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I think the politicians are going to take one look at those “my Model 3 decided to try and kamikaze a bicyclist while I was beta testing FSD” videos and back WAY off the whole self-driving thing until the tech is ready.

  • avatar
    bunkie

    I love how “Union corruption” is at the head of the list of auto industry ills. Gotta love Matt’s worldview (sarcasm).

    “Help! It’s the Union!”

    Meanwhile Amazon workers (among others) are denied time to use the toilet.

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      As putting crap in boxes is such a high level and in demand skill they should take that skill elsewhere if they are unhappy with those working conditions.

      • 0 avatar
        mor2bz

        Oh, I see. If you are unskilled and have a low demand job, you dont
        need to crap. Actually, Amazon is high demand; Bezos can’t get enough
        people to be “putting crap in boxes”. I know, the workers should just
        crap in the boxes!

  • avatar
    Dartdude

    Just what Kalifornia needs a another rich elitest senator. He can’t be any dumber than Harris the Ho. He probably anti-car for you anyways. He will win in a landslide. He can buy the most votes.

  • avatar
    JD-Shifty

    ” So, it’s only if you force them to write words they don’t like, free speech is only words, goob?”

    denying blacks and gays services isn’t the same as censorship by an online entity, goober

    • 0 avatar
      Art Vandelay

      What services are being denied $#!+head

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      The baker had gladly sold the gay couple baked goods in the past, and even offered to sell them an undecorated cake, but they sued to force him to decorate one celebrating something that violated his sincerely held religious beliefs, a position that Barack Obama claimed to hold when he was running for President. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2, the 2 most “liberal” dissenting, that he couldn’t be.

      Twitter, Facebook, the New York Times and Wapo are entitled to make their own rules about what they choose to publish or not publish, as long as it’s not legally libelous, and you are entitled to support them too, and we are entitled to mock them and you for being massive hypocrites in claiming that private companies can do what they want, just like your celebrating state’s rights, when it’s convenient.

      • 0 avatar
        Jeff S

        I believe that the baker was not trying to single out the gay couple especially since they bought other baked goods from him and he offered to sell them an undecorated cake. The baker did not refuse to serve the gay couple he just refused to put something on the cake he found offensive.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Yeah, well, uninvited proselytizing violates my “sincerely held religious beliefs.” Guess if a couple walks into my bakery wearing matching “Accept Jesus or go to hell” t-shirt, it’s no wedding cake for them. Same for an “I love bacon” t-shirt.

          And then the people who defend the anti-gay cake baker will defend me too. Heck, maybe they’ll even hook me up with some money to pay a lawyer. Correct?

          This is the problem with using your business to promote your “sincerely held religious beliefs,” folks…it leads to silly crap like this. In fact, I think that if someone’s religious beliefs are so “sincerely held” that they render him or her unable to provide services to the general public, a career change is in order.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            I suggest you put up a sign saying you reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, and you would be free to do so unless they were members of a protected class. If anyone tried to sue you because you refused to serve them just because they wore a shirt that offended your delicate sensibilities, you’d be home free.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            I think that’s actually a good suggestion. In fact, I’d say that in the spirit of full disclosure, these culture warrior bakers put up a sign that reads “If your sex life isn’t up to my Biblical standards, no cake for you”?

            Of course, that means that EVERYONE has to abide by their Biblical standards…not just those silly gay folks.

            But since the average straight couple fails the living hell out of the Biblical morality test right along with the gay folks (the list of no-nos is extensive – look it up), that’s not happening.

            The purpose of this isn’t to pass judgment on everyone – it’s to pass judgment selectively. They want to pick and choose who they look down their noses at.

          • 0 avatar
            285exp

            Do you usually discuss your sex life with merchants? You must be a lot of fun.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            No, and I shouldn’t have to. Neither should gay people. It’s none of anyone’s business but my own. And if the Bible’s right, then if there’s a problem, God’ll solve it eventually.

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • ToolGuy: Here’s a current production vehicle with two engines: https://s7d2.scene7.com/is/...
  • DenverMike: If they’re big fans of Rush, geeze Styx will blow their minds. Bring a big mop. They just don’t know...
  • DedBull: I would be curious to know what the average days in inventory is for new vehicles. Are sales down because...
  • Kendahl: Three major brands are up significantly from last year – Tesla, Genesis and Chrysler.
  • TheEndlessEnigma: These advertisements cloaked as articles are simply amazing.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Jo Borras
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber