Oh, so he wasn't joking. He was mocking the people who think he should be held accountable for his actions. As they're annoying.

The clear role lithium played on the coup, the known pressure placed by the US to force that coup, and the economic benefit to Tesla both immediately after the coup and long term. I'll admit it's hardly conclusive, but it's enough that his response was terrible.

>He was mocking the people who think he should be held accountable for his actions.

If you're an internet marxist and accuse someone (without evidence) of staging or supporting a coup .. you're not actually holding anyone for their actions... you're just acting like a douchebag marxist.

>and the economic benefit to Tesla both immediately after the coup and long term.

And to you as well, after all, lower lithium prices mean lower prices for any battery-operated electronics. Maybe you're behind this coup as well?

>I'll admit it's hardly conclusive

I think you can state it more strongly than that. It's a conspiracy theory in the mold of infowars.

>you're just acting like a douchebag marxist.

Only Marxists oppose coups? If you don't want people to blame you for a coup, maybe don't make your first public statement about it be a douchebag admission of guilt.

>And to you as well, after all, lower lithium prices mean lower prices for any battery-operated electronics. Maybe you're behind this coup as well?

I would stand to gain a few dollars, Musk would gain billions. As I think the US helped with this coup, I would be behind it as well, but not to the same degree.

>I think you can state it more strongly than that. It's a conspiracy theory in the mold of infowars.

Both the foreign interests ties and the US ties have some evidence, you just can't conclusively show Musk's involvement. Given the events of the past century, suspecting US involvement in a South American coup is hardly crazy.

>Only Marxists oppose coups?

No. But I looked up the twitter account and a hammer/sickle is a tell-tale sign of Marxists.

>you just can't conclusively show Musk's involvement.

Let's be clear, you can't show ANY involvement by Musk. So all you're left with is FUD.

>Let's be clear, you can't show ANY involvement by Musk. So all you're left with is FUD.

Except the bit where he admitted it. I don't have any further evidence that he played a role in an incredibly beneficial event for him, that is true.

>Except the bit where he admitted it.

Let's just agree on this: responding with a troll response to a Marxist troll who accuses you of being complicit with a Bolivian coup, is not 'admitting' anything. It boggles my mind how you can possibly think otherwise.

I think otherwise as a mocking admission is still an admission. I'll agree that his words likely weren't meant to be taken literally, and that it's hardly proves his connection. Still, that response and his further attempts to draw it back don't make him look good.

> Their one trick is to always post about how evil America is regardless of context. They are supremely annoying.

This is a bad faith interpretation of that tweet. They were responding to a tweet about unnecessary government expenditure with an example of another expenditure that (allegedly) Musk supported. You can call it a whataboutism or attack it for a number of other things, but this is an irrelevant strawman.

>This is a bad faith interpretation of that tweet

What are you talking about? The tweet Musk trolled is in bad faith. That doofus accused Musk of staging a coup. And yes, it is 'whataboutism'.

>another expenditure that (allegedly) Musk supported

Allegedly? Who alleged this? Where are you getting that from?

Its pretty clear what I'm talking about given the direct quote and subsequent explanation.

> Allegedly? Who alleged this?

Literally the tweet you are attacking. I'm not sure if you are playing dumb on purpose or what.

Oh.. so the only person who 'alleged' this, was this bad faith doofus who accused Musk of supporting (or staging) the coup in Bolivia. Gotcha ... though I still fail to see what is the a good faith interpretation of that tweet.

The good faith (perhaps better faith is more appropriate) way to interpret it would be as I mentioned, and calling it out for its actual issues instead of trying to soapbox by building a strawman.

I'm not sure what it is you expected. If you start with accusing someone of staging or supporting a coup you lost the right to a good faith interpretation of your motives from that individual. But this is par for course from online marxists.