What's new
By:

Trump Dictatorship and All Things Politics

Al-O-Meter said:
Fraud? The program was paused because Canada ran out of money to fund it. Tesla was cut off but so was every other EV.

"program was paused due to a lack of funds. ... The government told other (not Tesla) car dealers who actually delivered EVs before the end of the program that they couldn’t get the rebates"

Do lefties ever read anything beyond the sensational byline?
Click to expand...
Not sure if you are being dishonest here or if you’re illiterate. Tesla is being cut off from FUTURE rebate programs in Canada, separate from the paused rebate program.
 
did you guys managed to buy car if needed before this new 25% tariff insanity from orange turd? Just watch your regular cars go up in price by good 5-6K now... Are you great yet?
 
Zombie said:
Not sure if you are being dishonest here or if you’re illiterate. Tesla is being cut off from FUTURE rebate programs in Canada, separate from the paused rebate program.
Click to expand...
In the article it points out that Tesla tried to claim the $42 million (I think that was it, can't remember the actual number off the top of my head) against FUTURE sales, which is what they paused because that is fraudulent, straight up. All other car manufacturers submitted for rebates AFTER sales were made, but Tesla tried to say the $42 million was for sales that occurred over a single weekend, which would equate to something like 8000 cars sold that weekend and that isn't what they sell there in a year or something like that. Yes, it is straight up fraud and it tied up the money in the program from going out to other manufacturers with legitimate claims. Yes, they should be prosecuted. It lays all this out in that article.

However, this tactic proved problematic. The government told other car dealers who actually delivered EVs before the end of the program that they couldn’t get the rebates, which were already applied to the customer purchases, as Tesla took most of the money for vehicles it likely didn’t deliver.
Click to expand...

Tesla has been banned from upcoming federal EV rebate programs in Canada as the government freezes the suspicious $43 million in rebates that Tesla claimed days before the program was paused earlier this year.


Earlier this month, it was reported that Tesla claimed $43 million in government rebates from the iZEV federal EV rebate program in Canada just a few days before the program was paused due to a lack of funds.

The move was suspicious as it would have required Tesla to deliver over 8,000 vehicles at just 4 locations on a weekend, which is physically impossible.

It is believed that Tesla preemptively filed for thousands of rebates after being made aware of the pause to ensure it wouldn’t run out in an anticipated surge in demand due to the program’s pause.
Click to expand...
 
LogGrad98 said:
In the article it points out that Tesla tried to claim the $42 million (I think that was it, can't remember the actual number off the top of my head) against FUTURE sales, which is what they paused because that is fraudulent, straight up. All other car manufacturers submitted for rebates AFTER sales were made, but Tesla tried to say the $42 million was for sales that occurred over a single weekend, which would equate to something like 8000 cars sold that weekend and that isn't what they sell there in a year or something like that. Yes, it is straight up fraud and it tied up the money in the program from going out to other manufacturers with legitimate claims. Yes, they should be prosecuted. It lays all this out in that article.
Click to expand...
Oh for sure. Al's post was typical in the way Trump supporters arguments often are: Take one point, misrepresent it and argue against the misrepresentation while ignoring the actual claim being made. It's so transparently lame, actually embarrassing for him tbh.
 
Zombie said:
Not sure if you are being dishonest here or if you’re illiterate. Tesla is being cut off from FUTURE rebate programs in Canada, separate from the paused rebate program.
Click to expand...
There is a saying about counting chickens before they're hatched. Proclamations about the future have a way of not coming to pass, especially seeing as Canada made clear the cutting off of Tesla's eligibility was due to tariffs, and the very next day Trump announced a 25% tariff on all cars manufactured in Canada. I think it is a pretty safe bet Canada will signal a willingness to back off their threat to Tesla as part of an effort to save their entire auto industry from collapsing.

What we know is that no EV sellers in Canada are getting rebates because Canada is out of rebate money.
 
www.yahoo.com

Trump says US will 'go as far as we have to' to get control of Greenland

President Donald Trump said the U.S. will "go as far as we have to go" to get control of Greenland, ahead of a planned visit to the Arctic island by Vice President JD Vance that has prompted criticism from Greenland and Denmark. Vance, second lady Usha Vance and Energy Secretary Chris Wright...
www.yahoo.com www.yahoo.com

If you haven't had lunch yet, then here is a word salad for ya.

"So we'll, I think, we'll go as far as we have to go," he continued. "We need Greenland. And the world needs us to have Greenland, including Denmark. Denmark has to have us have Greenland. And, you know, we'll see what happens. But if we don't have Greenland, we can't have great international security."

Trump added, "I view it from a security standpoint, we have to be there."


He says we need Greenland for security reasons yet has a cabinet that cannot or do not understand what security conduct is, with the best example being the group text on unsecured devices.

This contradiction is obvious and hard to ignore. When officials push something as important as Greenland for national security, it is supposed to signal a well-organized and effective strategy. However, if those same people do not follow basic security protocols when it comes to communication, it raises doubts about their ability to manage much larger and more sensitive national security issues. This raises an important question about credibility: If basic security measures are not followed, how can we trust that those in charge are handling more complex issues properly, especially those with far-reaching consequences for the safety and strategic position of the country? More broadly, this kind of contradiction risks undermining both public trust and international confidence in U.S. security policies. If other countries see such lapses in judgment, it could undermine the perceived effectiveness of the administration’s broader security strategy. It is a matter of both competence and credibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top