return2ozma@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 3 months agoTrump says he has 'no choice' but to support electric vehicles because Elon Musk 'endorsed me very strongly'www.businessinsider.comexternal-linkmessage-square121fedilinkarrow-up1804arrow-down122
arrow-up1782arrow-down1external-linkTrump says he has 'no choice' but to support electric vehicles because Elon Musk 'endorsed me very strongly'www.businessinsider.comreturn2ozma@lemmy.world to News@lemmy.world · 3 months agomessage-square121fedilink
minus-squareIronKrill@lemmy.calinkfedilinkarrow-up7·3 months agoWhat the parent comment is saying is the implication is that without Elon’s money, he wouldn’t consider EVs. So same meaning.
minus-squareripcord@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up1·3 months agoSaying that he “has no choice” now doesn’t really sound like he’s the one in control of the decision. That’s definitely not the same thing.
minus-squareprole@lemmy.blahaj.zonelinkfedilinkarrow-up4·edit-23 months agoNo, he said the converse. “Opposite” would necessarily suggest a different outcome (i.e. Musk not beholden to Trump). (Haven’t had a logic course in literal decades, so maybe someone can correct me if I’m misremembering. I forget how to draw those logic square thingies…)
He actually said the opposite here.
What the parent comment is saying is the implication is that without Elon’s money, he wouldn’t consider EVs. So same meaning.
Saying that he “has no choice” now doesn’t really sound like he’s the one in control of the decision. That’s definitely not the same thing.
No, he said the converse.
“Opposite” would necessarily suggest a different outcome (i.e. Musk not beholden to Trump).
(Haven’t had a logic course in literal decades, so maybe someone can correct me if I’m misremembering. I forget how to draw those logic square thingies…)
You’re right, thanks.