Elon Musk makes $41 billion offer to buy Twitter

Status
Not open for further replies.

nnguy2

Posts: 418   +866
You do know Musk doesn't have the cash to throw down 40ish billion right? Almost all of his worth is tied up in Tesla. You think he'd liquidate that much stock on Tesla?

It's a pump and dump you fools. He's driving up the price of Twitter which was $77/share just a year ago so he can dumb the shares he just bought at $30s for $40s and claimed since Twitter denied his buyout so he's just going to get rid of his shares.

Why is MAGA so dumb?
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 348   +272
I am not sure that many know the SCOTUS reason behind ruling for that bakery. No, I am not an expert on SCOTUS, but some rulings, IMO, are easy enough for most people to understand.

SCOTUS ruling in favor of the bakery was very narrow, as I understand the decision, and, IMO, some lawyer really wanting to push it, might have seen their way back to state court, or creatively reworked the lawsuit for an outcome in favor of the plaintiffs.. SCOTUS ruled that the state court did not adequately consider the Bakery's religious viewpoint, and, basically discriminated against the bakery on religious grounds. In no way, again, as I understand it, did the SCOTUS ruling give any bakery/business/whatever, the right to discriminate against anyone based on their sexual preferences. It was, perhaps, touted by "conservative" media as a victory for "conservative" principles, however, as I see it, that gives the ruling more power than it actually has.

On the principle of free speech, however, SCOTUS is definitive in stating that in no way does First Amendment Rights, in the US, give anyone the right to incite violence because incitement to violence is not necessary for the free exchange of ideas - and that is what, according to the ruling, the First Amendment is all about - the free exchange of ideas.

And, as I see it, many do not understand what "Congress shall make no law" means as the opening to the First Amendment. It applies quite clearly to "Congress". In that sense, "Congress" making a law that some company like Twitter or Facebook, etc., has to allow people to say whatever they like whenever they like in any context that they like would be unconstitutional because "Congress" had made the law. The long and short of that is, if anyone says something in a forum that the forum's owners decide they do not like and they remove the post containing it, too bad. It's their forum. And if the post is spouting incitement to violence, my bet is that the owners of the forum could be held liable for a lack of censorship if the forum did/does not delete the post.

To get more or less back to the topic, I think even Musky has no clue what free speech means with respect to him trying to take over Twitter. I think he thinks he will be able to say whatever he likes without respect to existing laws or rules, but, IMO, nothing could be further from the truth.
And yet Twitter didn't ban the official account of Iran's govt. when it called for the destruction of Israel in a tweet nor did it ban Antifa and BLM accounts when they called for riots .. oops I mean 'peaceful protest'.
 

Kirby1

Posts: 162   +264
What a statement to make lol. Elon Musk buys Twitter, unbans a number of figures who were banned under previous ownership, and WHAM slap on the label domestic terrorist because one of those figures is Donald Trump. The only reason he would be a terrorist is because lefties get scared sh*tless by the changing tides.

Obviously everyone disagrees with Jan 6 happening. I'm sure some would think that most on the right wish a successful insurrection was completed, but I'd posit that the vast majority on the right would not be happy with an insurrection if successful. Many of the left believe that because they see Donald Trump as a fascist dictator (so using force to take power after a democratic election makes sense to them).

Regarding election fraud, I personally don't think whatever fraud may have happened was significant enough to change the outcome of the election, but I think it's worthwhile to ensure there is none. Even people on the left are concerned about voters' rights being defrauded (by voter suppression), so this is a concern for everyone as we are a democracy. The difference is the actions taken to ensure a fair election.

Besides these two topics, I have no idea how people on the left consider Donald Trump a terrorist. The only thing I can think of is misinformation propagated by the media regarding extremists (it's misinformation because the counter-evidence is undisputable if you look at it).
There's plenty of evidence that Trump is essentially a domestic terrorist. For one, he lead an insurrection. Two, he tried to disband nato as a favor to Putin. There are like a thousand more pieces of evidence. If you want to ignore it and call it fake leftist propaganda, you might as well consider yourself a Russian asset too because you're doing them Kremlin's work for them.
 

EdmondRC

Posts: 247   +333
There's plenty of evidence that Trump is essentially a domestic terrorist. For one, he lead an insurrection. Two, he tried to disband nato as a favor to Putin. There are like a thousand more pieces of evidence. If you want to ignore it and call it fake leftist propaganda, you might as well consider yourself a Russian asset too because you're doing them Kremlin's work for them.
Trump did not try to disband NATO, where do you get that from? Trump wanted Germany to pay more and he wanted EU/NATO countries to stop buying their energy from Russia. He told Germany they were too dependent on Russian energy, the media laughed at the time. Well that was proven 100% correct when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Even Germany has implicitly admitted Trump was right. And the Russian collusion hoax that you still seem to believe was 100% a fabrication of the Hillary Clinton campaign, a lot of that has come out and its still trickling out. The mainstream media completely lied to you for 4 years and you should be angry at them, but apparently, for the rest of eternity, you are just going to keep blaming Trump.
 

Axle Grease

Posts: 253   +200
I can see where this is coming from. Fox was literally begging Musk to unleash Trump. Problem is, he's still undecided, after all, green cars are not on the list of GOP' s priorities.

Are you implying Elon Musk would be more likely to reinstate Trump's Twitter account if Republicans favored pouring taxpayer money into Tesla?
 

Scott Barnes

Posts: 22   +22
This is completely in Musk's court to make a hash of. There is the potential here for a reset on how a large chunk of the population interact with each other of course there is also the potential for it to go very poorly as well. Free speech has to be bound by the concepts of decency and personal responsibility not to mention there really needs to be a modernization in the way that we view anonymity in online interactions. Traditionally I was for as much privacy as possible online but it may have to pass that if you want to use a platform like Twitter that you have to verify your identity as a back catch of keeping folks more civil in their choices of discourse.

There are plenty of scenarios where this can be a move forward. It simply requires us all to keep our composure and take the time to really craft our comments before posting anything, as a species we all need to work on our emotional control when it comes to our digital speech. Maybe even alter the platform in such a way that there are different tiers of twitter where access to a more "scholarly" or "affluent" tier of interactions requires dedication to decency and well researched commentary similar to how researchers are positioned in their fields by the degree to which their work is cited. You could also seed this tier structure ahead of time by giving a pass for access to thoroughly vetted and pier reviewed scientists, attorneys, medical doctors etc...

As opposed to a character limit maybe have a limit on the number of total threads you can comment on in a 24hr period to further incentivize quality discourse and at the same time serving to bring the ferocity and emotional involvement down on topics where there is a greater delta to cross for something resembling consensus?

Musk has a long history as a technology driver and a facilitator of innovation, change isn't always good but in the case of twitter it is required at this point as its current situation is becoming ever more untenable. Personally I'm excited to watch how this all plays out and the disgusting optimist at my core is really hoping this can be an evolution of how we communicate that takes us away from pointless animosity.
 

Axle Grease

Posts: 253   +200

PEnnn

Posts: 770   +874
I don't call the left liberals. Today's American left is anything but liberal.

Tunny you mentioned that, because America's right is not right.

And yes, the pun is fully intended and no, it's not just a metaphor.

<cue in the sound of rightists' heads exploding.....>
 

Kirby1

Posts: 162   +264
Trump did not try to disband NATO, where do you get that from? Trump wanted Germany to pay more and he wanted EU/NATO countries to stop buying their energy from Russia. He told Germany they were too dependent on Russian energy, the media laughed at the time. Well that was proven 100% correct when Russia invaded the Ukraine. Even Germany has implicitly admitted Trump was right. And the Russian collusion hoax that you still seem to believe was 100% a fabrication of the Hillary Clinton campaign, a lot of that has come out and its still trickling out. The mainstream media completely lied to you for 4 years and you should be angry at them, but apparently, for the rest of eternity, you are just going to keep blaming Trump.

A republican appointed judge called Trump a threat to democracy just today.

 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 348   +272

A republican appointed judge called Trump a threat to democracy just today.

Laughable. First link in regards to NATO is a link to a WAPO story that doesn't cite sources, second link says 'Republican Judge'. Mitt Romney claims to be a Republican yet he's anything but. btw that same judge let Hillary Clinton off the hook when he refused to allow the criminal indictments prepared by prosecutors during White Water to be submitted.
 

Kirby1

Posts: 162   +264
Laughable. First link in regards to NATO is a link to a WAPO story that doesn't cite sources, second link says 'Republican Judge'. Mitt Romney claims to be a Republican yet he's anything but. btw that same judge let Hillary Clinton off the hook when he refused to allow the criminal indictments prepared by prosecutors during White Water to be submitted.
I could link a thousand more stories about the NATO thing, and I'm sure none of it would matter to someone like you who has chosen to only believe what you want to believe.

Also it doesn't say it's a republican judge, it says its a judge who was appointed by President Bush.
 

AlaskaGuy

Posts: 348   +272
I could link a thousand more stories about the NATO thing, and I'm sure none of it would matter to someone like you who has chosen to only believe what you want to believe.

Also it doesn't say it's a republican judge, it says its a judge who was appointed by President Bush.
'A republican appointed judge called Trump a threat to democracy just today.' <---your quote.
As far as NATO is concerned Trump asked NATO to start paying their fare share RE 2% of their GDP towards their defense.

nato1.jpg
 

julesigles

Posts: 22   +27
Well obviously not the Muslim God, as those who follow Musk assume Allah is responsible for every terrorist act on Earth...

It always amazes me that Americans use the word "Liberal" as if it were some sort of insult...

Do you know what "liberal" actually means?

Being willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

On second thought... now I begin to see why so many think it's a "bad word"...
Obviously the word has changed over time. Are we to guess you're a young person without the benefit of some decades worth seeing the evolution? Lots of words don't mean what they once did. This is one reason a lot of middle aged liberals are quick to point out they are "classical liberals" and not to be confused with post-modernist so called liberals or democratic socialist liberals and modern day American Marxists. Etymology is like that. Another example - the word "progressive".
 

yannus

Posts: 53   +43
It always amazes me that Americans use the word "Liberal" as if it were some sort of insult...

Do you know what "liberal" actually means?

Being willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one's own; open to new ideas.

On second thought... now I begin to see why so many think it's a "bad word"...
It's liberal in opposition to conservative, I think. Being liberal can be good as long as for the sake of accepting new ideas, one doesn't start to go against consumed wisdom acquired through centuries, which would refer to conservative. That said, the very concept of what media call politics is division and those two words are the symbol of it. Meanwhile, destruction of conservative AND liberal countries continues through inflation and violence.
 

Squid Surprise

Posts: 5,335   +4,980
Obviously the word has changed over time. Are we to guess you're a young person without the benefit of some decades worth seeing the evolution? Lots of words don't mean what they once did. This is one reason a lot of middle aged liberals are quick to point out they are "classical liberals" and not to be confused with post-modernist so called liberals or democratic socialist liberals and modern day American Marxists. Etymology is like that. Another example - the word "progressive".
Maybe guess again? And you missed my point....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.