Uh-oh.Almost as if handing over responsibility for key aspects of infrastructure to private individuals, corporations and 'philanthropists' rather than funding them from taxes is a bad idea.
Musk talking to Putin at all would be a violation of his security clearance and likely also a violation of sanctions, regardless of the exact reason for it.It's still just innuendo without the context. We can't pooh-pooh Times reports about communication the government has had about the 115, without doing the same to this just because it's convenient to believe it. That is the rabbit hole the cartel fans have gone down.
Realistically, world leaders will want to stay close to Musk for many reasons and little snippets of conversations out of context, even if they are real, don't mean anything.
And @Alvin-blue-qhd is right. Xi doesn't need Putin to give messages to Musk.
Musk talking to Putin at all would be a violation of his security clearance and likely also a violation of sanctions, regardless of the exact reason for it.
As is, by the way, Trump speaking with Putin, especially given Trump actually currently receives classified security briefings as the major party candidate for the presidency.
And I am not really sure how a Wall Street Journal article about Musk speaking with Putin is related to a New York Times article about the UK government testing the temperature of the UAE government regarding the PL’s charges against City.
I'm not sure musk needs security clearance as such, but if he has influence over a presidential candidate and also ties to the head of a hostile state then he'll be very closely watched at the very least.Fair enough, I wasn't aware that Musk would need a security clearance to do whatever he thinks he is doing for Trump. I didn't think sanctions covered communication either, but I may be wrong.
The point about the Times report on government/FO discussions about the 115 is that it is almost certainly nothing dressed up with selected, or at the most charitable incomplete, out-of-context quotes. It could very well be the same with this WSJ article. That was all. Just trying to be consistent here: not putting down the Times article while getting excited about the WSJ article.
I'm not sure musk needs security clearance as such, but if he has influence over a presidential candidate and also ties to the head of a hostile state then he'll be very closely watched at the very least.
Musk has been given a security clearance based on being an executive of SpaceX because it handles launching of classified government satellites (and other elements of their government contracts). Speaking with Putin is most definitely a violation of that clearance.Fair enough, I wasn't aware that Musk would need a security clearance to do whatever he thinks he is doing for Trump. I didn't think sanctions covered communication either, but I may be wrong.
The point about the Times report on government/FO discussions about the 115 is that it is almost certainly nothing dressed up with selected, or at the most charitable incomplete, out-of-context quotes. It could very well be the same with this WSJ article. That was all. Just trying to be consistent here: not putting down the Times article while getting excited about the WSJ article.
Musk has been given a security clearance based on being an executive of SpaceX because it handles launching of classified government satellites (and other elements of their government contracts). Speaking with Putin is most definitely a violation of that clearance.
And depending what he has been discussing with Putin, it is also a very likely a violation of sanctions against Putin and Russia, as no American business is allowed to do any sort of business with him.
Beyond that, what quotes are being taken out of context?
Either Musk has had contact with Putin, or he hasn’t. Merely talking to him, regardless of what they have discussed, is hugely concerning.
And I still maintain that this is nothing like the Times article so that is not relevant comparison to either content or reaction. Not to mention I am not sure who among those taking this seriously you have judged to not haven taken the Times articles seriously.
I wasn’t attacking you, I was responding to your post in the same way you were responding to the other post. We disagree, thus we are discussing. That is the nature of the forum, correct?I really don't have the strength to discuss things I didn't raise in the first place.
But to my actual point, what is your view on the 115 charges? That the club is guilty because some documentation clearly says Etihad only paid 8 million per year with the rest being sourced by ADUG? That is Magic Hat thinking. Or that the leaked information was taken out-of-context and can be reasonably explained at the right time? That is the prevailing thought on here.
You may have a different view, that's fine. But the worst any reasonable person can say is that they don't know, and I happen to think this Musk information should be looked at the same way. It looks odd, but I prefer to be consistent.
As for who I was referring to, maybe the two posters who referred to Musk as a traitor on the basis of this article, to one of whom I replied directly. It's a fanzine attitude to politics which is pretty poor, similar to the red fans attitude to the 115 charges. If you (one, not you personally) don't like Musk and what he is doing it must all be true with the worst possible connotation attached to it. It's clear City are guilty and should be relegated.
My comment was nothing to do with you, in case you think it was. And fwiw, Musk may be a traitor, I wouldn't be surprised as he is such a self-centered ****, but not based on the content of this article.
That's all. Not sure why it's such an issue, tbh.
I wasn’t attacking you, I was responding to your post in the same way you were responding to the other post. We disagree, thus we are discussing. That is the nature of the forum, correct?
And my points were related to your original response, in that Musk talking to Putin at all—which by varied reports is actually occurring—is a very concerning state of affairs. It seemed like you weren’t aware he had a security clearance or that speaking with Putin could be a violation of it and/or sanctions based on Putin’s current status with the US government, hence I shared that information and tried to provide context as to why it mattered.
My posts weren’t personal, as I understand yours weren’t.