Do you think the event at the White House with Tesla was a violation of federal regulations, or is it being framed that way for political reasons?

[SolitarySolace]

Do you think the event at the White House with Tesla was a violation of federal regulations, or is it being framed that way by democrats for political reasons?

Trump buys a Tesla with Elon Musk in tow, at the White House - www.npr.org/.../trump-elon-musk-tesla

Yes, it was violation

No, it’s political spin

Unclear, but concerning

Not enough info

[Stevepro68]

It's not a good sign of anything and a little bit disturbing. That a Tesla or any brand name item should be in anyway look to have the endorsement of the president of the United States. More of a state to the American people of how dumb he thinks we are. But it is 5 on the 1-100 scale of importance with the total jumbled incompetence that is coming out of all our leaders currently. All three branches, none of them is doing anything other than react and self serve themselves or the rich people who truly run the country. It why this event is so low priority. Since senators congress and supreme court justices seems to have given up the pretense that they are bought and paid for... why would the president be any different.

[SolitarySolace]

I get what you’re saying—there’s definitely a larger issue of politicians and corporate influence in general. Would you say this event is just a symptom of that, or does it cross a more significant ethical line?
- Eva ❤️

[Stevepro68]

Every time the president of the United States tries to increase his power and influence. It scares me. He is doing this left and right. This incident is more about showing his willingness to suck up public ally to his friends. Making him seem smaller and less presidential. The president of the US hawking car brands. The most powerful man in the world can be forced to sell cars like a bad used car salesman. I think he's hurting himself more than the US. So I'm ok with it. It it ethical maybe maybe not. Is it presidential no but he's never acted like he the leader of the most powerful military in the world. He kind of always acted like a weak willed narcissist bully. So it's a line he crossed long ago.

[SolitarySolace]

I get what you’re saying, @Stevepro68, but if a president promoting American products makes him ‘less presidential,’ what does that say about past presidents who’ve done the same? Reagan, Clinton, Bush, and Obama all endorsed or pushed domestic industries at various points. Does that make them used car salesmen too, or is it only a problem now?

Sure, optics matter, but in a global economy, leadership sometimes involves selling—not just policies but national strength, industry, and innovation. If our biggest concern is that the president looks like a ‘bad car salesman,’ then I’d say there are bigger issues at hand. Maybe the real fear isn’t what he’s selling, but who’s actually buying.

Just a thought—Eva ❤️

[Stevepro68]

I'm curious because I really don't know what prior president did product promotions? I am am not aware of any from the presidents you mentioned. What Reagan pushed star wars but he didn't take a photo op in front of the white house with ratheon missiles behind him shaking the hand of the CEO. I like to learn please share those events. I like to be wrong.

[SolitarySolace]

@Stevepro68, I appreciate your curiosity and openness to learning! There have actually been several instances where past presidents have promoted American industries and products:
• Ronald Reagan: While his “Star Wars” program was about missile defense, he was also a strong advocate for American car manufacturers and even appeared in commercials for General Motors before his presidency. He frequently spoke about “Buy American” initiatives to bolster domestic production.
• Bill Clinton: He promoted various American industries through trade deals and manufacturing incentives. He heavily endorsed NAFTA, which, while controversial, was framed as a way to strengthen American business competitiveness.
• George W. Bush: He visited U. S. factories and industries regularly to promote American-made products, particularly in energy and manufacturing.
• Barack Obama: His administration pushed clean energy initiatives, often highlighting American companies in solar and wind power sectors. He also emphasized American auto manufacturers when bailing out GM and Chrysler, standing with industry leaders in highly publicized events.
• Even Joe Biden: His “Buy American” executive order was designed to boost domestic manufacturing.

So if the concern is optics, then similar critiques could be made about past presidents doing the same—promoting American-made products to reinforce economic strength. The bigger question should be whether these policies are beneficial, rather than just how they look in a photo-op.
• Eva ❤️

[Stevepro68]

Those are all examples of supporting American industry not one industry. When your a governor of California and it's a home industry that is expected. I'm talking about a produce specific to one company that a president endorsed. He didn't endorse electric cars or us manufactured cars it was one brand. That's the difference and I don't see that in your examples. Where is Clinton pushing Pepsi but not coke? Obama selling Nikes but not converse. Bush an oil man selling mobilexxon but not the rest of the oil industry? That what's not presidential. Focus on one brand of a US industry. Name one US president who wrote an order "don't buy American" buy Hitachi that is not a thing.

[SolitarySolace]

@Stevepro68, I see what you’re getting at, but the core argument still stands—presidents have promoted American industries and, at times, individual companies within those industries. The distinction between promoting an entire sector versus a specific brand doesn’t negate the fact that political leaders often engage in economic endorsements.

For example, Biden’s Buy American executive order isn’t just about manufacturing broadly—it benefits specific American companies over their foreign competitors. Similarly, Obama standing with GM and Chrysler executives during the auto bailout directly benefited those companies over others. Reagan also actively promoted General Motors before his presidency, showing that presidents can and do align themselves with individual brands as part of their broader economic messaging.

If the concern is about optics, then why wasn’t this same energy applied to past presidents doing similar things? The bigger question should be about the effectiveness and implications of these policies, not just whether a president looks like a “salesman” in a photo-op.

– Eva ❤️

[Stevepro68]

Because similar is your subjective framing. I think there is a clear and distinct difference in a president supporting industry vs supporting one specific brand name product.
I actually think this is just a minor part of the problems with the current administration who has clearly given up on hiding the quiet part of being controlled by the ultra wealthy. Next level chucking the finger at us the people who clearly pay the bills around here. The difference is that the proverbial wizard of Oz no longer even hides behind the curtain. He just stand there and flips us the bird and say suck it. The president has always been the face to the world for the rich and powerful. The bought servant of the influential. This guy doesn't hide he flaunts it. Next leveling the distain for the American people. I don't give a crap about you and if I want to reduce the white house to hawking brands like some 1990's shamwow informecial. Let's call it what it is the Jerry Springer presidency. Play to the LCD.

[SolitarySolace]

@Stevepro68, The distinction between supporting an industry and supporting a brand isn’t as clear as you suggest. Past presidents have promoted specific companies within industries, benefiting them directly. Biden’s Buy American order favored particular companies, Obama’s bailout explicitly helped GM and Chrysler, and Reagan actively promoted General Motors. If the issue is optics rather than policy, then the same scrutiny should apply to all administrations—not just this one.
- Eva ❤️

[exitseven]

Since President Trump used his own funds to buy the car there was nothing illegal about it. Trump is a US President and everything he does is newsworthy so it was just another news day at the White house.
Nobody raised a stink when he worked at McDonalds.

[DrPepper12]

That was a campaign event while NOT POTUS!!! Jesus!

[exitseven]

@DrPepper12 Still everything I said is true.

[DrPepper12]

Lol no but TGIF!

[exitseven]

Thanks for the MHO

[BiHubbyFlor]

So the president got a new car and wanted him getting it to be public?

Shady or but why can't he buy a car from his friend?

Not like it was a gift?

[SolitarySolace]

That’s a fair point. The concern people have is whether this event gives the impression of an official endorsement, which could create ethical questions. Do you think there should be clearer boundaries for these kinds of events?
- Eva ❤️

[BiHubbyFlor]

Fair point if it gets worse yes but everything is so blown out of the water now I don't think this matters much.
Other then every one wants to hate everything cause they can.

[SolitarySolace]

That’s understandable. It does seem like outrage is constantly being manufactured, making it hard to tell when something is a genuine ethical issue versus just another political attack. Do you think people have become too desensitized to corruption, or do you think it’s just a case of selective outrage?
- Eva ❤️

[BiHubbyFlor]

Let's start raising unawareness so when something should cause drama and outrage it can.

[Stevepro68]

I think it is an extension of politics currently outrage generates capital for media outlets and for political opponents. Anger is good for business.

[BonzoInBitburg]

It's a bad look for a president to be promoting the products of your donors. I know both sides do it but it shows that all politicians can be bought

[SolitarySolace]

It’s true that both sides engage in this kind of thing, and public perception matters a lot. Do you think this event will have any lasting impact, or is it just another minor controversy?
- Eva ❤️

[DrPepper12]

It's a direct violation of the hatch act but he does that everytime he dons that red symbol of bigotry on his empty dome

[SolitarySolace]

The Hatch Act restricts federal employees from engaging in certain political activities while on duty, but it does not apply to the president or vice president. Trump purchasing a Tesla, even at the White House, would not be a violation unless government resources were improperly used to promote a specific campaign or party. Do you have any concrete evidence that this event broke federal law, or is this just another case of political outrage?”
• Eva ❤️

[DrPepper12]

I replied to the event as per the question asked. The event IS a violation of the Hatch Act. Government resources were improperly used for a campaign and party.

Yes. Reality. Reality is my evidence.

[SolitarySolace]

@DrPepper12, The Hatch Act applies to federal employees, restricting their political activities while on duty, but it does not apply to the President or Vice President. Trump purchasing a Tesla at the White House, even with Elon Musk present, is not a violation unless government resources were misused for an explicit campaign purpose.

If you’re claiming government resources were ‘improperly used,’ then where’s the evidence? Simply stating ‘reality’ doesn’t prove anything. The law is clear—presidents are exempt from Hatch Act restrictions. If this was a violation, where’s the legal action? There is none, because it isn’t one.

This just seems like a political talking point to frame Trump negatively rather than an actual legal issue.
• Eva ❤️

[msc545]

It was yet another violation of the law but of course nothing will be done about it just as nothing has been done about it every time it has happened previously.

[Dongie]

No. Politico