Pedo guy megalomaniacal manchild officially owns Twitter

[Firewithin]

1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

 someone being President illegally. 

 

like right now!?!?

 

Spoiler

GOTTEM

 

[CitizenVectron]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

That's a pretty cynical take.

 

The GOP is pretty open about stealing the next election. Someone foreign-born being elected legitimately is the least of America's concerns as it's democracy collapses. Let's be realistic, it barely counts as a democracy as-is.

[AbsolutSurgen]

8 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The GOP is pretty open about stealing the next election. Someone foreign-born being elected legitimately is the least of America's concerns as it's democracy collapses. Let's be realistic, it barely counts as a democracy as-is.

That is also a rather cynical take.

[SaysWho?]

2 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

That is also a rather cynical take.

 

A bunch of people are either winning primaries or running on 2020 being rigged against Trump (and not the 81 million who voted for Biden costing Trump the election) and running against incumbents on the basis that they should never have certified the 2020 election. It's a little disturbing that these people exist and get mainstream support from a major political party.

 

I'm not saying Citizen will 100% be proven correct because I've said to him in the past that I think he goes too unrealistically negative in his predictions. However, I get his cynicism because what stopped 2020 from going to the person who lost was Secretaries of State who did their job. Now people who wanted to overturn a free election are running for those positions so those barriers aren't in the way. I hope Americans say no to it, but I was hoping they'd say no to Trump in 2016 as well.

[Zaku3]

16 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The GOP is pretty open about stealing the next election. Someone foreign-born being elected legitimately is the least of America's concerns as it's democracy collapses. Let's be realistic, it barely counts as a democracy as-is.

 

 

 

Citizen is mos def Darth Maul. 

 

Btw it has hit me how bad things are that Maul's quote about the Republic applies to us.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

10 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

That is also a rather cynical take.

 

Buddy, if you ain't cynical about the political future of the United States of America, then I don't know what to tell ya!

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

I was called cynical before J6 but musk isn’t going to be president there’s too many sycophants who are more than willing and eager to keep a fellow traveler from power, especially before he gains actual power

[Zaku3]

31 minutes ago, CitizenVectron said:

 

The GOP is pretty open about stealing the next election. Someone foreign-born being elected legitimately is the least of America's concerns as it's democracy collapses. Let's be realistic, it barely counts as a democracy as-is.

 

"Stacey Abrams and the Obamas have joined forces to protect democracy. And top Democrats just agreed to 300% MATCH EVERY grassroots gift to the DCCC Headquarters Account for the next 2 hours! Will you answer the call and chip in $11 to build the infrastructure we need to protect the House Majority? > dems.me/3v4NFjW

Reply STOP to End"

 

Just got this text message. When saving the republic is just another grift.

 

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, Zaku3 said:

 

"Stacey Abrams and the Obamas have joined forces to protect democracy. And top Democrats just agreed to 300% MATCH EVERY grassroots gift to the DCCC Headquarters Account for the next 2 hours! Will you answer the call and chip in $11 to build the infrastructure we need to protect the House Majority? > dems.me/3v4NFjW

Reply STOP to End"

 

Just got this text message. When saving the republic is just another grift.

 

 

I mean, if you believe Democrats believe in a peaceful transfer of power -- and Obama did it for fucking Trump -- then that's less a grift and more, "We need to keep the majority so we can continue our January 6th investigation and not let the House waste your money on their fake investigations/next generation Benghazi hearings."

[AbsolutSurgen]

18 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

A bunch of people are either winning primaries or running on 2020 being rigged against Trump (and not the 81 million who voted for Biden costing Trump the election) and running against incumbents on the basis that they should never have certified the 2020 election. It's a little disturbing that these people exist and get mainstream support from a major political party.

 

I'm not saying Citizen will 100% be proven correct because I've said to him in the past that I think he goes too unrealistically negative in his predictions. However, I get his cynicism because what stopped 2020 from going to the person who lost was Secretaries of State who did their job. Now people who wanted to overturn a free election are running for those positions so those barriers aren't in the way. I hope Americans say no to it, but I was hoping they'd say no to Trump in 2016 as well.

 

15 minutes ago, Commissar SFLUFAN said:

 

Buddy, if you ain't cynical about the political future of the United States of America, then I don't know what to tell ya!

I'll be honest, I think that the combination of isolationism from Covid and amplification of fringe messages on Twitter cause many of these conspiracy theories to look a lot more real than they are.  Are there people who are willing to overturn Democracy and break the rules (rather than bend them), absolutely.  Do I think they can "steal" an election that is not close.  No.

[SaysWho?]

4 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

 

I'll be honest, I think that the combination of isolationism from Covid and amplification of fringe messages on Twitter cause many of these conspiracy theories to look a lot more real than they are.  Are there people who are willing to overturn Democracy and break the rules (rather than bend them), absolutely.  Do I think they can "steal" an election that is not close.  No.

 

Yeah, but the problem is we're not popular vote oriented; we're electoral. So if you have several close states -- Georgia, Arizona, Michigan, etc. -- you can feasibly not certify those elections in the state. It's not just a matter of certifying the election in its entirety nationwide; each state is responsible for certifying its own.

 

I do think the isolationism and more people than ever getting "algorithm'd" on the computer amplified this. But relitigating 2020 is still on the minds of a ton of the Republican base, unfortunately.

[Jwheel86]

@Commissar SFLUFAN

What happens to those who bought above 54.20? Twitter was at 80 14 months ago. 

[Spork3245]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

@Commissar SFLUFAN

What happens to those who bought above 54.20? Twitter was at 80 14 months ago. 

They get $54.2/share and a pat on the ass.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

@Commissar SFLUFAN

What happens to those who bought above 54.20? Twitter was at 80 14 months ago. 

($XX.XX)

[SaysWho?]

 

 

 

 

Or to go with the new rules:

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

 

 

 

Or to go with the new rules:

 

Do you have a link to that breakdown?  $6 billion seems awful light.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

Do you have a link to that breakdown?  $6 billion seems awful light.

 

U.N. to Elon Musk: Here's how we would spend your money to fight global hunger

WWW.CBSNEWS.COM

---

The Tesla CEO challenged the United Nations to break down how a mega-donation from him would avert famine. So it did.

 

[AbsolutSurgen]

1 minute ago, SaysWho? said:

 

U.N. to Elon Musk: Here's how we would spend your money to fight global hunger

WWW.CBSNEWS.COM

---

The Tesla CEO challenged the United Nations to break down how a mega-donation from him would avert famine. So it did.

 

Yeah.  They said how they would spend the money. But it wouldn't "solve" world hunger -- not even close.  Which was Elon's point to begin with.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

U.N. to Elon Musk: Here's how we would spend your money to fight global hunger

WWW.CBSNEWS.COM

---

The Tesla CEO challenged the United Nations to break down how a mega-donation from him would avert famine. So it did.

 

 

Quote

The U.N. emphasized that $6 billion would not eradicate world hunger.

So the only part that matters is that it doesn’t end world hunger 😂

[mclumber1]

5 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Yeah.  They said how they would spend the money. But it wouldn't "solve" world hunger -- not even close.  Which was Elon's point to begin with.

 

Yep.  Who the F thinks $6 billion would solve hunger?  You know that the food/tech that is distributed to these poor areas would just get confiscated by the local governments/warlords, and the people would still be dying of starvation. 

[AbsolutSurgen]

3 minutes ago, mclumber1 said:

 

Yep.  Who the F thinks $6 billion would solve hunger?  You know that the food/tech that is distributed to these poor areas would just get confiscated by the local governments/warlords, and the people would still be dying of starvation. 

That's not where I was going.  

[SaysWho?]

11 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

Yeah.  They said how they would spend the money. But it wouldn't "solve" world hunger -- not even close.  Which was Elon's point to begin with.

 

5 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

 

So the only part that matters is that it doesn’t end world hunger 😂

 

Okay, here's the hill we're gonna die on, I see.

 

 

But if you think he was right to ghost them and not fork over the $6 billion and instead spend $44 billion on Twitter, then by all means, let's have that discussion.

[AbsolutSurgen]

Just now, SaysWho? said:

 

 

Okay, here's the hill we're gonna die on, I see.

 

 

But if you think he was right to ghost them and not fork over the $6 billion and instead spend $44 billion on Twitter, then by all means, let's have that discussion.

He never offered them $6 billion.  He was calling them out on their original bullshit claiming that it would.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

He never offered them $6 billion.  He was calling them out on their original bullshit claiming that it would.

 

But it wasn't bullshit, and he did.

[TwinIon]

I actually believe that going private is probably the right move for Twitter, even if Elon is not the guy I'd want in charge of it.

 

I've said this before, but I think the problem with Twitter is that the thing that it's good at is not the thing that makes it money. As a broadcast platform, I think Twitter is pretty good. I follow a lot of journalists, some domain experts, and some institutions (government entities, companies, etc.), and it works well as a way for those high profile types to share official communications in addition to other thoughts. I think my twitter feed is a decent source of news I'm interested in, but I don't really interact with anyone on there.

 

I don't talk to friends on the platform or really post much at all. I'm a heavy user that contributes basically nothing, and that limits what info Twitter can get about me. I read through Twitter far more often now than I ever did with Facebook, but while I used Facebook there's no doubt they knew more about me. It's also a terrible place to search for something, even tweets that were on your own feed, which again limits what they end up knowing about me.

 

The usage that I think twitter is best suited for doesn't result in the extraordinary growth most social networks are searching for, nor does it result in Twitter becoming an ideal advertising provider. So much of Twitter's efforts seem focused on promoting more of the facebook style peer-to-peer social networking, because that's where the money is, but it's not what Twitter is good at.

 

Elon's not the guy to fix this kind of stuff, but a private Twitter does have potential. If they don't have to focus so much on the growth metrics that the market is looking for and can instead focus on improving what the platform is actually good at, maybe it can become a better product.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

29 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

But relitigating 2020 is still on the minds of a ton of the Republican base, unfortunately.

 

[stepee]

Honestly d1p is a far superior platform than twitter and privately owned already. More people should just post here.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, stepee said:

Honestly d1p is a far superior platform than twitter and privately owned already. More people should just post here.

As long as they’re not magatards

[stepee]

Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

As long as they’re not magatards

 

Don’t worry, we will just invite journalists to help feed us content direct. Like Lopez.

[SaysWho?]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

Honestly d1p is a fat superior platform 

 

I know this is a typo, but since people here seem dead set to not follow the UN/Elon story, I'm starting to wonder if we do believe in fat superiority. 

 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

Don’t worry, we will just invite journalists to help feed us content direct. Like Lopez.

I still can’t believe he was embarrassed for his takes here and then goes and posts worse ones in the New York ducking times

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

35 minutes ago, Jwheel86 said:

@Commissar SFLUFAN

What happens to those who bought above 54.20? Twitter was at 80 14 months ago. 

 

They get to live with their regrets.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

 

But it wasn't bullshit, and he did.

The guy made an ambiguous claim, Musk said he would do it if they could produce something showing that they could accomplish a particular goal, and their response was a plan that by their own words and numbers does some 15-20% of that goal.

 

So the tweet you shared was false.

 

Whether you think it would still be good to use 6 billion Elon Bucks to help feed 45 million people for a year, that is a different discussion than the weak dunk attempt above.

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

The guy made an ambiguous claim, Musk said he would do it if they could produce something showing that they could accomplish a particular goal, and their response was a plan that by their own words and numbers does some 15-20% of that goal.

 

So the tweet you shared was false.

 

Whether you think it would still be good to use 6 billion Elon Bucks to help feed 45 million people for a year, that is a different discussion than the weak dunk attempt above.

 

No, he didn't. The claim was: "$6 billion to help 42 million people that are literally going to die if we don't reach them. It's not complicated."

 

They then provided the receipts.

 

Not their fault the initial headline was wrong. However, it is Elon's fault that he couldn't provide 6 billion to prevent 42 million from starving unless he's the kind of guy who only reads the headline.

[Kal-El814]

3 hours ago, mclumber1 said:

This sale would trigger capital gains taxes on all the shareholders right?  That's a few billion dollars worth of taxes, in addition to whatever Musk has to pay (now or later) on the money he acquired for this sale. 

 

Stop simping for trickle down taxation. Destroy tax shelters, tax capital gains as standard income, tax income above $1M at 75%.