That's a non-sequitur.
> Elon is clearly capable but I get it, people disagree with his politics so they pretend he not credible at all?
Exactly wrong, and I'd turn that around and say that people tolerate his nonsense because they agree with his politics, and defend him beyond reason.
All I'm saying is people should be judged on what they say and do and the relationship between the two. They shouldn't be excused from lying, abuse and dissembling just because they're successful in business.
It's not based on the comment I replied to.
Musk is making a claim about DOGE - the savings. Comment is saying he's not credible.
I'm saying Musk made claims about Tesla (creating a successful e-car company), Starlink (creating a constellation of satellites for internet globally), SpaceX (land a massive booster). And these were not small claims, they had a high probability of failure and I'd argue most people thought he would fail.
Yet he delivered on all of them. Delivering on one would be amazing, yet alone three massive advances in technology.
So Musk makes a claim about an agency he's helping run and the comment I replied to says "why isn't the default to assume Musk is not credible or constructive"?
I think you can see the ridiculousness in that comment and how my argument is not a non-sequitur.