Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, August 04, 2026

Tesla has recalled its Cybertruck 11 times to fix issues such as exterior trim panels falling off and an accelerator pedal that can become stuck, but NASA has nonetheless decided the rust-prone vehicle is up to the job of rescuing astronauts if trouble strikes on the launchpad of a forthcoming crewed mission.

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article ...

... Muskmobiles will get the job currently performed by the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (MRAP), a heavily armored military personnel carrier that can survive small arms fire and even the effects of a mine explosion. Several companies make MRAPs, and the US military operates dozens of different models tailored to different missions.

NASA uses MRAPs as launchpad getaway cars in case mission controllers decide astronauts or other personnel involved in rocket launches must make a rapid exit. In 2015, the aerospace agency described the MRAPs it uses as possessing "armor is so thick that each door weighs 600 pounds" and said the vehicles have "the sound and feel of a bank vault" and can therefore "function as a bunker on its own, even if it stays put."

During the event, media asked if SpaceX has modified the Cybertrucks. Joel Montalbano, deputy associate administrator at NASA's Human Spaceflight Mission Directorate, said he was not aware of any modifications. Tesla says the Cybertruck is made of stainless steel and is therefore "tough on the outside to keep you safe on the inside."

The company also trumpets "Cabin windows and glass roof have shatter-resistant armor glass that can handle the impact of hail the size of a baseball (or an actual baseball)." When launching the Cybertruck, Elon Musk claimed the glass was impervious to heavy metal balls, but his demo of that strength went comically awry. ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-04 03:31 PM | Reply

You'll definitely flee a lot faster in the Cybertruck than in an MRAP. Not a fair drag race.

#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-04 04:06 PM | Reply

You'll definitely flee a lot faster in the Cybertruck than in an MRAP. Not a fair drag race.
#2 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-04 04:06 PM

It's definitely a Snatch Game challenge.

#3 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2026-08-04 04:46 PM | Reply

@#2 ... You'll definitely flee a lot faster in the Cybertruck than in an MRAP. ...

Hopefully what you're fleeing is not an explosion.

A MRAP would be better in that scenario.

#4 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-04 05:04 PM | Reply

Seems silly, but not all that surprising. SpaceX is the #1 Tesla customer for Cybertrucks. He bought so many from himself.

#5 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-04 05:54 PM | Reply

@#5 ... SpaceX is the #1 Tesla customer for Cybertrucks. He bought so many from himself. ...

Well, someone has to buy them. They effectively have been a dud in sales.

Now Mr Musk also has his buddy in the White House buying them for NASA.

Tesla Cybertruck misses sales target by 84% (July 2026)
www.newsbytesapp.com

... Tesla's highly-anticipated Cybertruck EV is facing a major setback in sales, reminiscent of Ford's infamous Edsel failure.

The futuristic vehicle has sold less than one-sixth of its target in its first year on the market. ...



#6 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-04 07:22 PM | Reply

"Tesla Cybertruck misses sales target by 84% (July 2026)"

Total Success!!!
~Republican Math

#7 | Posted by Danforth at 2026-08-04 10:04 PM | Reply

Get used to these kind of nonsensical changes that always profit a few.

Hopefully the media drops the golly gee whiz tone of reporting on comically inept morons and starts reporting on the reality of the current graft, corruption and intentional destruction of the United States by the vulture class.

#8 | Posted by jpw at 2026-08-05 07:00 PM | Reply

@#8 ... Get used to these kind of nonsensical changes that always profit a few. ...

Yup.

#9 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-05 09:21 PM | Reply

People will die because of Trump and Elon's corruption

#10 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2026-08-05 10:19 PM | Reply

@#10 ... People will die ...

People will die?

Or ...

People have died?


How Elon Musk Killed Hundreds of Thousands of People (May 2026)
www.currentaffairs.org

#11 | Posted by LampLighter at 2026-08-05 11:17 PM | Reply

If hundreds of thousands of people died, but you can't name a single one, you are a ------ writer.

#12 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 10:18 AM | Reply

There's names. I bet even Grok can dig up some names for you.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 10:20 AM | Reply

Then do it. That's literally Elon's challenge. He gets called on it, says name one. They never name one. This is such easy gotcha journalism, right?

#14 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 10:28 AM | Reply

They did name one, though. You just don't want to know that part. As demonstrated by you not figuring that part out.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 10:57 AM | Reply

You can't possibly be so stupid you think eliminating USAID didn't result in excess deaths after USAID programs were terminated.

Or, perhaps is the day you get to wow me!

Up to you, sport.

#16 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:00 AM | Reply

They did name one, though.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 10:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

They didn't name a single person that died in that Current Affairs article. Go ask Grok for a single name and report back, or use good AI like 5.6 Sol, and report back. This is your super easy, low hanging fruit of a gotcha moment. You can do it, right?

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 11:21 AM | Reply

"They didn't name a single person that died in that Current Affairs article."

Okay. I saw a name a month ago as a reply to Elon's tweet saying they can't actually name anyone.

Do you disbelieve a 9/11 article because it doesn't name victims?

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:24 AM | Reply

Okay. I saw a name a month ago as a reply to Elon's tweet saying they can't actually name anyone.

#18 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:24 AM | Reply | Flag:

and how do you know it's true?

This isn't a knock on the concept. It's a knock on ------ gotcha journalism that does very little due diligence.

#19 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 11:28 AM | Reply

but while you're at it, false equivalence. 9/11 victims are known individuals whose deaths were directly documented. The DOGE claim is based on statistical estimates, zero individually verified cases. It's not close to the same thing.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 11:31 AM | Reply

"The DOGE claim is based on statistical estimates"

Like COVID deaths and flu deaths.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:37 AM | Reply


This is your super easy, low hanging fruit of a gotcha moment. You can do it, right?
~ SITZKRIEG

Okay. I saw a name a month ago as a reply to Elon's tweet saying they can't actually name anyone.
~ Snoofy

Nope ... this is classic Snoofy.

You can't possibly be so stupid you think eliminating USAID didn't result in excess deaths after USAID programs were terminated.

Which program? Seriously is there a "program" that was so vital that people were pulled out of hospitals because bills weren't being paid?

Otherwise, what does "excess" even mean? Can you even corroborate that assertion?

#22 | Posted by oneironaut at 2026-08-06 11:38 AM | Reply

"zero individually verified cases."

What would a verified case look like?

Give us an example from any other situation where the impact of program cuts is measured.

For example: A handful of Texas women whose names are known died from complications in pregnancy that weren't treated after the Texas abortion ban. Was that because of Texas abortion ban?

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:41 AM | Reply

Someone who died in ICE custody when ICE agents restricted his breathing and whose death was ruled a homicide. Was that because of ICE?

#24 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:45 AM | Reply

Is this research not research you think is accurate enough to support the claim that ending USAID results in excess mortality?

www.thelancet.com(26)00008-2/fulltext

Official development assistance (ODA) accounts for the majority of humanitarian and development assistance in the world's most vulnerable countries and has played a pivotal role in advancing global health. We aimed to comprehensively evaluate the impact of ODA funding on mortality across the past two decades, and to project the potential consequences of current defunding trends.
Methods
We conducted an integrated retrospective evaluation and forecasting analysis using longitudinal panel data from 93 low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). First, we estimated the association between ODA per-capita funding and mortality outcomes from 2002 to 2021 using a two-ways fixed-effects multivariable Poisson regression model with robust standard errors, adjusted for all relevant demographic, socioeconomic, and health-system covariates. We then assessed age-specific and cause-specific effects, performing extensive sensitivity and triangulation analyses to test the robustness and causal interpretation of results. Finally, we integrated the retrospective impact estimates into validated country-level microsimulation models to forecast mortality under three defunding scenarios up to 2030: a business-as-usual trajectory, a severe defunding scenario, and a mild defunding scenario.
Findings
Higher ODA funding levels were associated with a 23% reduction in age-standardised all-cause mortality (rate ratio [RR] 077; 95% CI 070"085) and a 39% reduction in under-5 mortality (061; 049"075). ODA funding was associated with large mortality declines in major communicable diseases: 70% for HIV/AIDS (RR 030; 95% CI 024"039), 56% for malaria (044; 035"056), 56% for nutritional deficiencies (044; 030"065), and 54% for neglected tropical diseases (046; 036"059). Significant reductions were also observed in mortality from tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, lower respiratory infections, and maternal and perinatal causes. Forecasting analyses projected that ongoing reductions in ODA funding could, under a severe defunding scenario, result in 226 million (95% uncertainty interval [UI] 163"293) additional deaths across all ages by 2030, including 54 million (41"68) among children younger than 5 years. Under a mild defunding scenario"defined as a continuation of current downward trends"the projected excess deaths would be 94 million (95% UI 62"126) overall and 25 million (18"32) among children younger than 5 years.
Interpretation
ODA funding has played a decisive role in reducing preventable mortality across LMICs over the past two decades, and the abrupt withdrawal of this support threatens to cause millions of avoidable deaths, reversing decades of progress in global health.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:50 AM | Reply

Or are you just being a bitch?

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2026-08-06 11:51 AM | Reply

Get called on false equivalence. Goes all in on even more false equivalence. Resorts to name calling.

#27 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2026-08-06 11:58 AM | Reply

The following HTML tags are allowed in comments: a href, b, i, p, br, ul, ol, li and blockquote. Others will be stripped out. Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Anyone can join this site and make comments. To post this comment, you must sign it with your Drudge Retort username. If you can't remember your username or password, use the lost password form to request it.
Username:
Password:

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy

Drudge Retort