ShareThis Page

Saturday roundup

| Friday, Nov. 10, 2017, 8:57 p.m.
This Friday, Sept. 30, 2016, file photo shows the logo of the Tesla Model S on display at the Paris Auto Show in Paris. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena, File)
This Friday, Sept. 30, 2016, file photo shows the logo of the Tesla Model S on display at the Paris Auto Show in Paris. (AP Photo/Christophe Ena, File)

“We conservatives are often complaining about ‘social engineering.' A lot of us are willing to be engineers, when it comes to tax policy.”

— Jay Nordlinger, National Review's The Corner

“Following news that President Trump's draft budget repeals the $7,500-per-vehicle federal tax credit for electric cars, Tesla's share price took more than a 7 percent dip. ... While other carmakers, such as General Motors, also benefit from taxpayer subsidies, Tesla is unique in that it could not survive if taxpayer support were pulled. ... (I)f an industry doesn't have a survival strategy for coping in a post-subsidy environment, perhaps it shouldn't exist. The alternative is a perpetuation of the sort of crony-capitalism that President Trump promised to abolish.”

— Esther Goldberg, The American Spectator

“Calling out vulgar creeps is all to the good, because (sexual) harassment is ugly and a good society must not tolerate it. So is bearing false witness, and it's important to keep the distinction in mind. Not every wink or nudge is a crime.”

— from a Washington Times editorial

“Only 28 percent of Americans say they are satisfied with the way the United States is governed, according to a poll from Gallup. ... (T)he federal government is rated the least positive out of any business or industry sector mentioned. In addition, out of 22 professions Americans are asked about, the honesty and ethics of members of Congress are rated the lowest.”

— Ali Meyer, The Washington Free Beacon

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.