Elon Musk and Twitter

I don’t see anyone getting emotional. We’re just stating facts and opinions. In my experience, the person who calls out people for “being emotional” is usually the one in his feelings.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

If the tax code and the government have built in loopholes to benefit the wealthy, they have done so at the behest of the wealthy (who would rather spend a million lobbying for lower taxes than just pay that million in taxes, but I digress). Rich fuckers own and operate our government. You appear to be arguing that any plan to tax them to the point of not having enough wealth to continually accomplish this aim is somehow wrongheaded. For my part, I don't really see how any other solution is possible.

Lets not get started on all the loopholes in the Estate Tax Code which insure much of the weathy's money is passed on to their hiers.

Exactly! Every time the government is finally gonna solve the problem of rich people they only manage to fuck it up even more.

Rocinante wrote:I don’t see anyone getting emotional. We’re just stating facts and opinions. In my experience, the person who calls out people for “being emotional” is usually the one in his feelings.

What's next, an "I am rubber and you are glue" taunt?

Grow up.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Lets not get started on all the loopholes in the Estate Tax Code which insure much of the weathy's money is passed on to their hiers.

Exactly!  Every time the government is finally gonna solve the problem of rich people they only manage to fuck it up even more.

As I said, you are all in on the idea if it isn't perfect then it is useless.

Dude, few things that a representitive democracy does are going to be perfect or straightforward.  Are you proposing we turn everything over to King Trump?

As you just said, grow up already!

We make slow progress on some things and backslide on others.  Throwing up our hands and shouting "a pox on all their houses" is childish.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Exactly!  Every time the government is finally gonna solve the problem of rich people they only manage to fuck it up even more.

As I said, you are all in on the idea if it isn't perfect then it is useless.

Dude, few things that a representitive democracy does are going to be perfect or straightforward.  Are you proposing we turn everything over to King Trump?

As you just said, grow up already!

We make slow progress on some things and backslide on others.  Throwing up our hands and shouting "a pox on all their houses" is childish.

There's a difference between "it isn't perfect" and "it will make things worse."

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

As I said, you are all in on the idea if it isn't perfect then it is useless.

Dude, few things that a representitive democracy does are going to be perfect or straightforward.  Are you proposing we turn everything over to King Trump?

As you just said, grow up already!

We make slow progress on some things and backslide on others.  Throwing up our hands and shouting "a pox on all their houses" is childish.

There's a difference between "it isn't perfect" and "it will make things worse."

No, not really.  

To get things done in a representitive democracy there have to be the votes, and if you are going to get something you have to give something, something you probably hate, in return.  Its how the system works.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

There's a difference between "it isn't perfect" and "it will make things worse."

No, not really.  

To get things done in a representitive democracy there have to be the votes, and if you are going to get something you have to give something, something you probably hate, in return.  Its how the system works.

No trapper, thats the current 2 party system that pits american vs american egged on by msm.

People who think both parties are shit and don’t participate in either are so cool.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

No, not really.  

To get things done in a representitive democracy there have to be the votes, and if you are going to get something you have to give something, something you probably hate, in return.  Its how the system works.

No trapper, thats the current 2 party system that pits american vs american egged on by msm.

The United States government has always worked in this manner.  So has every other Representative democracy.

Promoting a "pox on both sides" attitude makes those who chose it part of the problem. The solution is to continue to vote for the Democratic Party that has people trying to fix issues

So, is he buying Twitter or not?

DWags wrote:So, is he buying Twitter or not?

The BOD is blocking it because they don’t want Musk to allow more freedom

NumbersDude wrote:

DWags wrote:So, is he buying Twitter or not?

The BOD is blocking it because they don’t want Musk to allow more freedom

Did Musk break the law in his puchase of over 5% of the stock?

Trapper Gus wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

The BOD is blocking it because they don’t want Musk to allow more freedom

Did Musk break the law in his puchase of over 5% of the stock?

No

Motown Spartan wrote:

DWags wrote:So, is he buying Twitter or not?

Definitely maybe yes or no.

I love the idiots who are dumb enough to believe this is about “freedom” and not money. It just shows me how easily they were/are manipulated. Whether it be pandering to their fear, their racism or their hate, it cracks me up how simple minded they are.

I guess if he owned a social media platform, he wouldn't have to ask the Chinese government to censor it.

More Freedom!

Twitter isn’t a huge moneymaker. For Musk it wouldn’t add value. It’s about being pissed off that he gets ratio’d every time he spouts some ghoulish Randian nonsense. He’s mad like Peter Theil was mad at Gawker and he’s going to use his wealth to make these peons pay. It’s the new normal of vampire capitalism.

Motown Spartan wrote:

DWags wrote:

I love the idiots who are dumb enough to believe this is about “freedom” and not money. It just shows me how easily they were/are manipulated. Whether it be pandering to their fear, their racism or their hate, it cracks me up how simple minded they are.

I mean, they did elect Donald Trump if there was ever any doubt.

If there is, the Murdocks are setting up DeSantis as their new water carrier. First step is the Piers Morgan/trump interview in a move that sends a message they’re moving on.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

Did Musk break the law in his puchase of over 5% of the stock?

No

https://nypost.com/2022/04/07/elon-musk-broke-the-law-when-buying-twitter-shares-experts/

Trapper Gus wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:
No

https://nypost.com/2022/04/07/elon-musk-broke-the-law-when-buying-twitter-shares-experts/

Another example of government over regulation. Let me guess this does not apply to members of congress

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/07/elon-musk-broke-the-law-when-buying-twitter-shares-experts/

Another example of government over regulation. Let me guess this does not apply to members of congress

Requiring a fair price for the stock of a takeover target is over regulation?

It’s weird how the government overreaches when it tries to regulate financial systems but doesn’t overreach when it forces someone to stay pregnant.

Rocinante wrote:It’s weird how the government overreaches when it tries to regulate financial systems but doesn’t overreach when it forces someone to stay pregnant.

Abortion should be 100% legal. No argument from me there.
I am all about less government intervention in Americans lives.  My personal beliefs on abortion: I don’t like it and people should try other options. But even if I don’t like something, I believe in freedom and others having the choice.  Thanks for bringing that up. It makes for a good discussion.

If more people thought like me America would be more free and tolerant.
End the war on drugs. Legalize all drugs. Open the borders to those that want to work and charge all non-US citizens an extra 10% income tax. Collect a fee at the borders for all crossings- $20 each entry.

NumbersDude wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

https://nypost.com/2022/04/07/elon-musk-broke-the-law-when-buying-twitter-shares-experts/

Another example of government over regulation. Let me guess this does not apply to members of congress

Whether or not it applies to members of Congress is not nearly the gotcha that you seem to think it is. Virtually everyone agrees that those fuckers need reigning in, but we're relying on them to restrict themselves, which they will probably never do.

Cameron wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Another example of government over regulation. Let me guess this does not apply to members of congress

Whether or not it applies to members of Congress is not nearly the gotcha that you seem to think it is. Virtually everyone agrees that those fuckers need reigning in, but we're relying on them to restrict themselves, which they will probably never do.

The Stock Act of 2012 further prohits insider trading by members of Congress and sets fines beyond the punishments for insider trading. Critics say it hasn't been effective, thus the push to ban stock trading all together. Didn't see an exemption for Congress in the regulation for acquiring more than 5% of any companies stock, however can't say there isn't one.

Congress is not exempt from insider trading laws, and probably never was, they are just too close to knowing what is going on, which much of the country isn't, and being able to make stock trades on what is public, but not widely known, information.

Trapper Gus wrote:

Cameron wrote:

Whether or not it applies to members of Congress is not nearly the gotcha that you seem to think it is. Virtually everyone agrees that those fuckers need reigning in, but we're relying on them to restrict themselves, which they will probably never do.

The Stock Act of 2012 further prohits insider trading by members of Congress and sets fines beyond the punishments for insider trading. Critics say it hasn't been effective, thus the push to ban stock trading all together. Didn't see an exemption for Congress in the regulation for acquiring more than 5% of any companies stock, however can't say there isn't one.

Congress is not exempt from insider trading laws, and probably never was, they are just too close to knowing what is going on, which much of the country isn't, and being able to make stock trades on what is public, but not widely known, information.

Weak law. Members of Congress should be banned from trading stocks - full stop.

NumbersDude wrote:

Rocinante wrote:It’s weird how the government overreaches when it tries to regulate financial systems but doesn’t overreach when it forces someone to stay pregnant.

Abortion should be 100% legal. No argument from me there.
I am all about less government intervention in Americans lives.  My personal beliefs on abortion: I don’t like it and people should try other options. But even if I don’t like something, I believe in freedom and others having the choice.  Thanks for bringing that up. It makes for a good discussion.

If more people thought like me America would be more free and tolerant.
End the war on drugs. Legalize all drugs. Open the borders to those that want to work and charge all non-US citizens an extra 10% income tax. Collect a fee at the borders for all crossings- $20 each entry.

You've got my vote. Let me know where to get my NumbersDude 2024 merch.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Stock Act of 2012 further prohits insider trading by members of Congress and sets fines beyond the punishments for insider trading. Critics say it hasn't been effective, thus the push to ban stock trading all together. Didn't see an exemption for Congress in the regulation for acquiring more than 5% of any companies stock, however can't say there isn't one.

Congress is not exempt from insider trading laws, and probably never was, they are just too close to knowing what is going on, which much of the country isn't, and being able to make stock trades on what is public, but not widely known, information.

Weak law. Members of Congress should be banned from trading stocks - full stop.

Remember when Elizabeth Warren ran on this and everyone called her an indian... boy that was fun.

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

NumbersDude wrote:

Abortion should be 100% legal. No argument from me there.
I am all about less government intervention in Americans lives.  My personal beliefs on abortion: I don’t like it and people should try other options. But even if I don’t like something, I believe in freedom and others having the choice.  Thanks for bringing that up. It makes for a good discussion.

If more people thought like me America would be more free and tolerant.
End the war on drugs. Legalize all drugs. Open the borders to those that want to work and charge all non-US citizens an extra 10% income tax. Collect a fee at the borders for all crossings- $20 each entry.

You've got my vote. Let me know where to get my NumbersDude 2024 merch.

Libs especially on MSU message boards, this place and tob, don’t realize that they are they are the ones that want the nanny state. More regulation, more government, less individual rights and freedoms.
Someone else has more than you? Tax them. They hate police but don’t want people to have the means to defend themselves.
Anyone that does not fall lockstep with their political views is a labeled a christian, racist, rightwing fascist nazi.
The level of intolerance, stereotyping and projection is so sad its hilarious.

Getting back to the subject.

https://torontosun.com/business/money-news/elon-musk-secures-46-5-billion-in-funding-for-twitter-bid

Musk is going for it. He secured the funding.

Why the richest man in the world would ever need to "secure funding" or take out a loan for anything is beyond me. Why, it's almost as if this is all artifice, just a bunch of imaginary numbers in some ledgers that somehow lead to very real power...

Bredo Morstoel wrote:

Trapper Gus wrote:

The Stock Act of 2012 further prohits insider trading by members of Congress and sets fines beyond the punishments for insider trading.  Critics say it hasn't been effective, thus the push to ban stock trading all together.  Didn't see an exemption for Congress in the regulation for acquiring more than 5% of any companies stock, however can't say there isn't one.

Congress is not exempt from insider trading laws, and probably never was, they are just too close to knowing what is going on, which much of the country isn't, and being able to make stock trades on what is public, but not widely known, information.

Weak law.  Members of Congress should be banned from trading stocks - full stop.

Not sure I agree.  

If they are not trading on non public information I don't see the point.

Furthermore it would need to ban trading for everyone they talk to also.

Motown Spartan wrote:So people that espouse Christian, racist, rightwing, fascist, nazi ideals are in fact not Christian, racist, rightwing, fascist, nazis?

You sound like you use the same excuse that putin uses to invade ukraine. Do you realize that? Calling people racist, fascist and nazis was probably a russian disinformation campaign designed to wedge the american public to attack one another. Every time I see someone post stuff like that- I think russian bot or stooge.

NumbersDude wrote:

Motown Spartan wrote:So people that espouse Christian, racist, rightwing, fascist, nazi ideals are in fact not Christian, racist, rightwing, fascist, nazis?

You sound like you use the same excuse that putin uses to invade ukraine. Do you realize that? Calling people racist, fascist and nazis was probably a russian disinformation campaign designed to wedge the american public to attack one another. Every time I see someone post stuff like that- I think russian bot or stooge.

Maybe you just don't watch Fox or read other Murdock owned media and stay away from.the othe RWNJ outlets along with not belonging to a evangical Christian church.

All good choices on your part, if true, but it leaves you less informed on what is being said.

Cameron wrote:Why the richest man in the world would ever need to "secure funding" or take out a loan for anything is beyond me. Why, it's almost as if this is all artifice, just a bunch of imaginary numbers in some ledgers that somehow lead to very real power...

Its how he becomes the wealthiest person in the world.
Lets say you want to buy a 30 million dollar hotel. You put 10 million down and find investors or financing for the rest. When the deal is done you own a 30 million dollar asset that appreciates while only risking 10 million.
Freeing up your capital for further investment and growth.

NumbersDude wrote:

Cameron wrote:Why the richest man in the world would ever need to "secure funding" or take out a loan for anything is beyond me. Why, it's almost as if this is all artifice, just a bunch of imaginary numbers in some ledgers that somehow lead to very real power...

Its how he becomes the wealthiest person in the world.
Lets say you want to buy a 30 million dollar hotel. You put 10 million down and find investors or financing for the rest. When the deal is done you own a 30 million dollar asset that appreciates while only risking 10 million.
Freeing up your capital for further investment and growth.

Sure, but it suggests that some additional form.of taxations on his transactions are required to fund the government which has created the system in which he is raking in the bucks.