Vice President Biden Loses Bet Against Tesla


Timeslip From Race Between Model S And CTS-V

Timeslip From Race Between Model S And CTS-V

The moral of the story is simple…don’t bet against Tesla.

According to The Verge, the dialogue below was posted by the  White House pool report.  The transcription reportedly “captures the vice president of the United States confessing to the Vatican secretary of the state that he lost a Hamilton in a bet,” states The Verge.

Biden thought that a Cadillac CTS-V would beat a Tesla Model S in a drag race, but Biden lost that bet. Here’s the dialogue:

BIDEN: What an honor to see you again.


BIDEN: I don’t know whether you know, your photograph is hanging in my office.

PAROLIN: Oh yeah?

BIDEN; Yes, from our meeting.

PAROLIN: You have already met with the Holy Father.

BIDEN: I have met with the Holy Father. And I’ve met with these guys, too.


BIDEN: I had to pay this man $10. He’s from the New York Times. We had a bet: which is the faster car, the newer Cadillac or the new Musk car. Which?

POOLER: Tesla.

BIDEN: The Tesla. I bet the Cadillac.

POOLER: He went for the old technology. I went for the new.

PAROLIN: Oh yes?

BIDEN: The Tesla’s two tenths of a second faster. But I lost. I paid my $10. (LOUDER TO ENTIRE POOL, ROOM AND PERHAPS CITY) I want the record to show, I paid my $10.

MEMOLI (CATHOLIC REPRESENTATIVE IN POOL): Does that count as a confession, sir?

BIDEN: I’m seeking absolution!

Here’s video of a Tesla Model S beating a Cadillac CTS-V in a 1/4-mile drag race:

Source: The Verge

Categories: Tesla


Leave a Reply

46 Comments on "Vice President Biden Loses Bet Against Tesla"

newest oldest most voted

Unlikely he will make that mistake twice. Fun story.

Hey Joe…get yourself a Tesla.

A modified Caddy vs a stock Tesla?
Or did the Tesla have any mods?
Doubt it, maybe wider tires…….lol

The Tesla was modded with a camera on the roof to ruin aerodynamics. 🙂

What’s all this seeking absolution nonsense. Religious people…

Don’t worrry about Joe. The only violent religions are Atheism and Islam, and Joe worships neither.

scott franco (No M3 FAUX GRILL!)

When did atheism become either a religion or violent????

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice!

What hair color is bald?

Not collecting stamps isn’t a hobby.

Hey!! I haven’t been collecting stamps my whole life! I take it quite seriously.

Oh come on didn’t you know that aethism is second in violence only to the Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

You ever wonder why there are no atheists in foxholes? I’ll tell you why: because the FSM ate them.

Not all of us… Not yet anyway.

If you want to convert other to be atheist you can be very violent and intollerant.

scott franco asked:

“When did atheism become… a religion…????”

“atheism”, a lack of belief in God or gods, isn’t a religion. But “Atheism”, the belief that there is no God or gods, is indeed a religion, and it has its adherents which will argue their religious belief every bit as faithfully and fervently as any other True Believer. (I’ve encountered a few… or several.)

Note Open-Mind referred to “Atheism”… not “atheism”. Hopefully that wasn’t just bad grammar.

Yes, and while they ridicule people who are religious (in the sense they believe in a God) Atheists are in fact more religious (it is much harder to prove a negative).

I am personally tired of people attack people who believe in a God while simultaneously accusing those people of being intolerant. The most intolerant viewpoints I’ve ever heard are from people who do not believe in a God criticizing those who do.

“Tolerating intolerance is not, in fact, tolerance.”
The burden of proof is on the claimant.

All I know is that in a growing number of Southern states, you have the right to violate civil rights protections against many forms of discrimination as long as your prejudice is based on a “sincere religious belief.” I know that will never be allowed for an atheist, and I’m sure it will never be allowed for a Moslem. So I guess the only “real” religions are the ones of the political party that alone is pushing those laws.

O.K. The go with agnostic.
You can’t believe in something nobody can prove.

You might prefer this one as an open minded person. (non-violent)

It should be” Then go…”

“You can’t believe in something nobody can prove.”

If a person is limited to believing in only those things that can be proven, then that’s not much of a “belief” at all. If our world lived by that kind of mantra, it would be a very dull place.

Exactly the total opposite.
What a hell of fun do I have trying to understand new thing every day.
At least understanding a bit of it.
Way much better than to let one time, one book tell you everything that you should know and discard anything that has other views.
Because repeating the same thing over and over and thinking that it’s the only thing that matter is sure to be totally dull, and not very open minded.
This is the big difference between understanding and believing.
Although nobody is able to understand everything and thus leaving a lot of space in between for trusting (believing) something that you can’t clearly assert.

“Mommy, when I grow up, I believe I can be president!”

“You can’t prove that, so don’t believe it.”

“I have a dream, that all men were created equal!”

“You can’t prove that, just a dream.”

Clearly there’s many things people believe in that they cannot prove, and it leads to great things. I’m sure you even believe that those planets exist in other galaxies, even though we have no direct proof and all you’ve read is someone else telling you it is true based on indirect observations.

To make religion the exception to the rule is silly, there’s nothing wrong with belief there either. There’s no need to be prejudiced against that.

You make religion the exception.
There is far many more people, government and scientist that agree on the existence of far away planet, galaxy or universe than any god.
Beside, deciding which one god is THE god is a matter of culture more than anything else.
Anyone can have personal understanding of what the bible, Coram, torah or whatever is saying but the proof is hard to come clear.
Seems anyone can claim to be a preacher or an imam, no wonder there is so many of them.
Pretty easy when you have almost nothing to prove.
Dreaming is good for your health an inspiration but it has nothing to do with religion, even animal dream and I never heard of any going in a temple.
But you mention inspiration instead and it’s two different thing.
I dream of flying just seeing bird do it, do I need to believe in god to do so?
If believing in any god make you feel a better person, just do it.
It just don’t work for everyone.
If your belief is aim at judging the conduit of other, then for me, it’s a big fail.

I do not make religion the exception.

If everything must be proven to be believed, as you state above, please prove why I should believe anything you say.

Who cares how many people agree about something or not? That is not a form of proof, it is a group belief until something is proven. Again here, you’re using the same rationale to “prove” things that are not religious, that you condemn for people who are religious.

Einstein’s theory of relativity is still a theory, do you scoff at that as well? There is not proof, only evidence supporting the theory.

Clearly the reasoning you ascribe to religion requiring proof for belief is an exception, as noted in several examples above.

I certainly don’t profess to convert you to a religious person, merely to suggest you shouldn’t condemn or talk down to others who are.

Alas, this is an EV site, so I will end my commenting on this sub-topic here.

Einstein relativity?
O.K. let stay on this course, it is much closer to the topic of this site and to this date a very well crafted theory that has been correlate almost entirely.
Heard about the gravity waves?
This world is amazing!

What a silly, non-relevant distinction. Use a dictionary. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. That doesn’t make it a religion, and turning into a proper noun gives no new or different meaning.

Yeah, right! You obviously haven’t heard (OMG… head smack!) of the Christian Crusades, then.

Nothing like an education…..

I have never seen a major religion more violent than Christians, despite the fact that there is no support in the New Testament for violence (as far as I can remember, anyway).

Terrorists like to use Islam, but there is no support in the Quran for violence. The terrorists made it all up, quite literally.

I have never heard of an atheist open fire in a school, nor become a suicide bomber, etc. Only religions can have agendas with feelings so strong that drive people to violence, despite their religion’s clear and unequivocal denouncement of violence in any form.

“I have never heard of an atheist open fire in a school”

Then you haven’t looked hard. Columbine is one such example.

Conservapedia still can’t deal with Tim McVeigh and Anders Breivik as right-wing terrorists.

I don’t claim there are only atheist terrorists.

Much like I don’t claim a banana-eating gun-wielding teenager went crazy because of the bananas he ate, I also don’t find anything to suggest a correlation to religion in this day and age. If anything, there is more correlation to anti-religion, but I will stop short of asserting that as a fact.

Clearly you have not read rhe Quran. It does in fact advocate violence. Also, your “education” regarding the Crusades is skewed, revisionist history. The Crusades were a barbaric retaliation to a barbaric invasion and conquest during a barbaric time in human history.

Your “education” has much room for improvement. Read the actual historic accounts firsthand from both sides of the struggle, and read the Quran. Christianity has been repeatedly hijacked by those seeking to dominate their neighbors’ Islam was founded by such people.

Again, get your history (information) from the source, not from those whose ideology openly advocates rewriting history to support their narrative.

Joe’s a good guy at heart. Misguided sometimes, but few are as genuine as he.

You don’t hear Biden praising the Bolt/Volt for it’s efficiency achievements…Nope…Just cares about the performance aspect/quarter mile…

That’s exactly what will sell EVs to the masses. Biden’s lighthearted bet is actually brilliant marketing for EVs.

Diamond Joe Biden’s word is his bond!

Ah . . . there we go. That’s my man, Diamond Joe!

He is D’man. Jay just has to link the image:


Does anyone know who the NYT staffer was? John Broder by any chance?

Gardiner Harris.
“New York Times reporter Gardiner Harris explained to the cardinal, “He went for the old technology. I went for the new.”

It’s too bad you can’t get a Tesla drivetrain inside of a CTS-V body & interior.

Agree, in fact I keep looking at all my previous dream cars thinking “could we jam enough batteries in there with a pair of Tesla motors”?

Had my first line-up, next to a new Jaguar F-type last night. I think one has to torment their opponent more, from a Tesla. Like, make eye contact, or say something tactful. Maybe, “Yo, your dinosaur be il’n”. With no sound, or revving. No warning of the tsunami about to befall them, they don’t know what to do, or what hit them. If they spin up those noisy bolts, and you don’t go, they’re embarrassed. If they don’t, and you quietly do, they’re embarrassed.

Gas cars are total play things, next to ~half a megawatt.