Just now, VanHammersly said:

Hopefully they just burn the place down.

Even though the move is a huge win for democrats?  

Just now, Kz! said:

Even though the move is a huge win for democrats?  

Burning it down would be a huge win for the world.

25 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

capt grammar's Oof moment aside, he's right about sonny hostin. 

 

No one uses Twitter except straight white men, surprised you didn't know that. 

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

Burning it down would be a huge win for the world.

Throw facebook on the bondfire too

 

4 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Burning it down would be a huge win for the world.

No, but I can see how you would have that impression. 

19 minutes ago, toolg said:

This is the real story. Where does he get the cash to close the deal? What is Musk's vision for Twitter's future? And who joins along with him for the ride?

TSLA stock is dropping like a stone today for 3 reasons -- (i) the overall market, (ii) concern about margin calls on Musk's loans that use his stock as collateral (would start kicking in around 750-800, get medieval at sub 600) and (iii) concern about one man running all these companies at once. Clearly he is going to want some large holders of TWTR to roll along side him, but he's definitely looking for co-investors as well. The $21bn equity commitment (as of now) is backed solely by Musk. If he can't find others, he might have to start selling TSLA stock to fund it (the LTV on the loan is only 20%). 

6 minutes ago, NOTW said:

No one uses Twitter except straight white men, surprised you didn't know that. 

so that's not actually jussie smollett i'm trolling ? 

 

22 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

Burning it down would be a huge win for the world.

It’s a sewer.  Why Musk thinks it’s worth saving is interesting in itself.  

2 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

Your level of insanity exceeds the limits of my patience and medication. It's exactly why I usually dont bother to discuss things with the cult. 

You need to up your meds.

54 minutes ago, Alpha_TATEr said:

i had to google her name. 

Any noods?

3 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Any noods?

no. i mean i didnt check. 

35 minutes ago, NOTW said:

No one uses Twitter except straight white men, surprised you didn't know that. 

They sure use an awful lot of pronouns.

41 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Even though the move is a huge win for democrats?  

How so?  
 

it makes no sense. Trumdumbs got mad because their boy got banned, now he can theoretically come back. So how is that a win for Dems?

this whole thing is Fing stupid honestly.  

Why does he want it? How does he think he can profit from Twitter?

 

I don't get it.

I dont think this will be a big win for either side. I do find it funny the meltdown that some on one side are having in the face of the possibility of a fair and balanced process being put in place. That amount of pearl cluching is extrodinary. Though Not as much as when Trump won in 2016. 

2 minutes ago, Toastrel said:

Why does he want it? How does he think he can profit from Twitter?

 

I don't get it.

He thinks he can expand it's reach and offerings, make it a more inclusive place, with more features, that will attract more people.  And coincidentally raise it's value. 

8 minutes ago, DBW said:

How so?  
 

it makes no sense. Trumdumbs got mad because their boy got banned, now he can theoretically come back. So how is that a win for Dems?

this whole thing is Fing stupid honestly.  

He's saying it because I said it earlier.  It is a win for the Dems, in the long game sense.  If Musk's goal is to even the playing field, then he has one of two options (VABeach brought it up above): he either brings back in the craziest of the crazy on the right (and lets them make a fool of themselves and tether the Republican Party to their far-right lunacy) or he purges the craziest of the crazy on the left (distancing the Dems from the farthest reaches of their coalition). Either way, it's a win for Democrats.

3 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

 

Just to be clear- So you believe that a limited number of unarmed people who happened to get into the capitol bldg, and roamed around were a serious threat to our democracy? 

So like, by their presence in the building alone, means that they were now in control of our entire government, or could actually get control of it? 

What level of education did you complete and where was the school you went to? 

 

 

Cool. I’m breaking into the white house unarmed because I disagree with Biden policies. boulder be a big deal. What threat am I?  And no one thought those yokels were taking control of anything. They were trying to disrupt the ratification of the electoral college results. 

11 minutes ago, M.C. said:

Isn’t he a she?

2 hours ago, Ipiggles said:

They cant acknowledge this, it  is not what CNN or the left politicians told them. 

See.. cant do it. It's why I have zero respect for you. 

we are done here. 

Can you say the word partisan one more time before you leave? Please?

20 minutes ago, VanHammersly said:

He's saying it because I said it earlier.  It is a win for the Dems, in the long game sense.  If Musk's goal is to even the playing field, then he has one of two options (VABeach brought it up above): he either brings back in the craziest of the crazy on the right (and lets them make a fool of themselves and tether the Republican Party to their far-right lunacy) or he purges the craziest of the crazy on the left (distancing the Dems from the farthest reaches of their coalition). Either way, it's a win for Democrats.

Or it’s a loss for both sides because Twitter is a crap show anyway and I think this acquisition makes that even more clear.  I’m not on Twitter, never will be, and find it amusing that people actually think anything on there is worthy of giving anything more than a glance and a chuckle.  It’s a total waste of time and not a platform than anyone with half a brain cell would take seriously.

Just now, DBW said:

Or it’s a loss for both sides because Twitter is a crap show anyway and I think this acquisition makes that even more clear.  I’m not on Twitter, never will be, and find it amusing that people actually think anything on there is worthy of giving anything more than a glance and a chuckle.  It’s a total waste of time and not a platform than anyone with half a brain cell would take seriously.

I never post, but it's actually useful at times for breaking news. Most investors now have to at least monitor it. 

The actual political conversations are useless. But sometimes entertaining. 

I'd argue that Trump being off Twitter has actually helped his popularity - his base loves him, and he's not able to rile up the opposition. 

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

I never post, but it's actually useful at times for breaking news. Most investors now have to at least monitor it. 

The actual political conversations are useless. But sometimes entertaining. 

I'd argue that Trump being off Twitter has actually helped his popularity - his base loves him, and he's not able to rile up the opposition. 

It’s a great place to get information unless you are Kz and follow all the wrong people.

17 minutes ago, homerpat said:

Cool. I’m breaking into the white house unarmed because I disagree with Biden policies. boulder be a big deal. What threat am I?  And no one thought those yokels were taking control of anything. They were trying to disrupt the ratification of the electoral college results. 

Hilarious that anyone thought they could actually do that. You or them, doesn't matter, was never going to end well for them if they thought they could. 

Now how do you feel about actual disinfo meant to sway an election? Like Russian Collusion built soley on the fraudulent Steel Dossier? Or that the Hunter Laptop story was debunked as russian disinfo prior to the election by 51 former intell experts, only to find out it was real? Or is that not a real threat to democracy?