What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Valmy for Congress!

I'd vote for him if he drops his support for the Washington Football Team or whatever dumb name they now have.

Commanders!

And I would have to run in heavily gerrymandered Texas districts. Me trying to appeal to small town and rural Texans would be as convincing as Dukakis riding around in a tank.

But billionaires can get away with a lot, regardless of what the laws say. That is my answer to Yi

Snyder's folly.

And yes I know the ownership changed, but that taint just doesn't fade.

It will take awhile for sure. The stench will cling to the club for years.

[Barrister]

Valmy for Congress!

I'd vote for him if he drops his support for the Washington Football Team or whatever dumb name they now have.

Commanders!

And I would have to run in heavily gerrymandered Texas districts. Me trying to appeal to small town and rural Texans would be as convincing as Dukakis riding around in a tank.

As  if there aren't some of those in Austin...

[Valmy]

As  if there aren't some of those in Austin...

They are. They are just linked with far away small town areas to ensure Austin has as little representation in Congress as possible. I think Austin is split between eight different congressional districts right now.

However, since the Republicans hate their own voters and constantly support the economic forces destroying Texas rural counties this strategy might not work forever.

[The Minsky Moment]

Thinking about the precedent for a Starlink seizure, in the early 50s, Truman seized control of the big steel mills on national security grounds (there were threats of strikes and lockouts).  The Supreme Court made him give the mills back because he didn't get authorization from Congress first.  But if Congress had agreed, no question it would have been upheld.

[Barrister]

Thinking about the precedent for a Starlink seizure, in the early 50s, Truman seized control of the big steel mills on national security grounds (there were threats of strikes and lockouts).  The Supreme Court made him give the mills back because he didn't get authorization from Congress first.  But if Congress had agreed, no question it would have been upheld.

I had said if you ED Starlink you'd have to do SpaceX as well.  Someone asked why and I forgot to respond.

There's currently 6200 Starlink satellites, all launched on Falcon 9 rockets.  They have plans to launch thousands and thousands more.  Starlink was actually started as a way to help fund SpaceX's other ventures (like Starship).  The satellites only have an estimated lifespan of 5 years.  They're launched in very low orbits which gives them such good latency, but are closer to the atmosphere.

If you seize Starlink you just know Elon is going to refuse to launch more satellites, or is going to charge an exorbitant rate.  I mean this is a man apparently suing former advertisers on X/Twitter for no longer advertising on the platform.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ok point taken, if push came to shove, Uncle Sam might have to buy SpaceX.  It's not like the US government has no experience launching rockets.

It's not an outcome I'd relish. But Elon Musk, Starlink and SpaceX all enjoy the many benefits of protection and business from the United States.  Private business can and should be able to make lawful business decisions on their own.  But Starlink is a valuable national security asset as well as a business. No single private business person should be making the policy decisions about the scope of a US ally's use of that national security asset in a conflict of vital security interest to the United States. 

[grumbler]

This particular piece of American foreign and defense policy was an act of individual charity. 

It was corporate charity, not individual charity, and even at that only the first tranche of Starlink sets was given by Starlink LLC.  The vast majority of the sets and n overwhelming majority of the linked minutes are paid for by the US government.  If Musk personally interferes with US government operations, he cannot be allowed to get away with it.

[grumbler]

I had said if you ED Starlink you'd have to do SpaceX as well.  Someone asked why and I forgot to respond.

There's currently 6200 Starlink satellites, all launched on Falcon 9 rockets.  They have plans to launch thousands and thousands more.  Starlink was actually started as a way to help fund SpaceX's other ventures (like Starship).  The satellites only have an estimated lifespan of 5 years.  They're launched in very low orbits which gives them such good latency, but are closer to the atmosphere.

If you seize Starlink you just know Elon is going to refuse to launch more satellites, or is going to charge an exorbitant rate.  I mean this is a man apparently suing former advertisers on X/Twitter for no longer advertising on the platform.

I don't think that the other shareholders of SpaceX are going to allow Musk to cancel the company's contracts with the US government (which he would have to do if Starlink is bought by the US government).  SpaceX needs the US government far more than the US government needs SpaceX.

[Admiral Yi]

Ok point taken, if push came to shove, Uncle Sam might have to buy SpaceX.  It's not like the US government has no experience launching rockets.

It's not an outcome I'd relish. But Elon Musk, Starlink and SpaceX all enjoy the many benefits of protection and business from the United States.  Private business can and should be able to make lawful business decisions on their own.  But Starlink is a valuable national security asset as well as a business. No single private business person should be making the policy decisions about the scope of a US ally's use of that national security asset in a conflict of vital security interest to the United States. 

The only decision Elon Musk made about StarLink that I'm aware of is that he wanted to be paid for its use.  That's not policy, that's not scope, that's business.

[Admiral Yi]

Oh, and glad to see you Norges Wiener, whatever thread you're in. 

[Barrister]

Ok point taken, if push came to shove, Uncle Sam might have to buy SpaceX.  It's not like the US government has no experience launching rockets.

It's not an outcome I'd relish. But Elon Musk, Starlink and SpaceX all enjoy the many benefits of protection and business from the United States.  Private business can and should be able to make lawful business decisions on their own.  But Starlink is a valuable national security asset as well as a business. No single private business person should be making the policy decisions about the scope of a US ally's use of that national security asset in a conflict of vital security interest to the United States. 

The only decision Elon Musk made about StarLink that I'm aware of is that he wanted to be paid for its use.  That's not policy, that's not scope, that's business.

There were stories that he was "turning off" starlink for Ukrainian devices in Russian-occupied areas, which really hampered the use of drones and the like.

[Admiral Yi]

There were stories that he was "turning off" starlink for Ukrainian devices in Russian-occupied areas, which really hampered the use of drones and the like.

The stories I read were that he turned them off because he wanted the US to pay him and they declined.

[grumbler]

There were stories that he was "turning off" starlink for Ukrainian devices in Russian-occupied areas, which really hampered the use of drones and the like.

The stories I read were that he turned them off because he wanted the US to pay him and they declined.

That's not the story Musk was telling.
The Hill

Musk responded on his social media platform X to new details from an upcoming book that indicated he ordered his engineers to shut off communications network before the attack off the Crimean coast.

"There was an emergency request from government authorities to activate Starlink all the way to Sevastopol," Musk wrote on X, the platform previously known as Twitter.

"The obvious intent being to sink most of the Russian fleet at anchor. If I had agreed to their request, then SpaceX would be explicitly complicit in a major act of war and conflict escalation," Musk wrote.

What Musk fails to note is that the emergency request was to restore Starlink access, not to activate it.  The Ukrainian naval drones were using it when he shut it down.  His claim that naval drone strikes on Russian ships was an escalation of the conflict is not even remotely credible given the war to date.

[Grey Fox]

There were stories that he was "turning off" starlink for Ukrainian devices in Russian-occupied areas, which really hampered the use of drones and the like.

The stories I read were that he turned them off because he wanted the US to pay him and they declined.

To effectively be paid twice.

[grumbler]

There were stories that he was "turning off" starlink for Ukrainian devices in Russian-occupied areas, which really hampered the use of drones and the like.

The stories I read were that he turned them off because he wanted the US to pay him and they declined.

To effectively be paid twice.

It had nothing to do with being paid.  It had everything to do with preventing Ukraine from blowing up some Russian ships, because he claimed that destruction of Russian ships amounted to an "escalation" of the war.

That's why Starlink should be nationalized. Musk's personal interests conflict with US national interest.