Elon Musk: Officially a fraud and piece of shit. Official or unofficial war criminal?

[elfenix 34749]

23 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Musk gets on the board

iirc musk did not get on the board because that would then cause fiduciary* duties to kick in wrt other s/h

 

 

*as was pointed out by my business law prof, they're not really fiduciaries because a fiduciary has to put his principle 100% first other than the payment of the fiduciary's fee, whereas a joint venturer of any sort is definitely in it for their own benefit, though that is in common with the other venturers. 

[Fudge Nuggets 19455]

46 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

Going from Larry Ellison and every large bank to an army of weird bros making micro donations would be fitting, 

Rocket boi's Bro Army can't bail him out since all their money got vaporized in various bankrupt crypto exchanges.

[clapclapclap 9000]

Or, you know, Musk might be correct about the bots:

https://twitter.com/Most_Maximus/status/1546332694547767296

[Captainant 28538]

5 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Or, you know, Musk might be correct about the bots:

https://twitter.com/Most_Maximus/status/1546332694547767296

lmao yeah seems like a real straight shooter with upper management all over

[wildcat09 29579]

Really worried about the Sugma and Ligma variants.

[NoName 17148]

3 minutes ago, clapclapclap said:

Or, you know, Musk might be correct about the bots:

https://twitter.com/Most_Maximus/status/1546332694547767296

lol

https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-528961447371

 

Quote

 

CLAIM: A tweet claiming “I just left the ER” and “we are officially back to getting crushed by COVID-19,” which has been copied and pasted by many Twitter users, is part of a fake bot campaign and doesn’t represent anyone’s real experience.

AP’S ASSESSMENT: False. The original tweet with this message comes from a licensed emergency medicine doctor and is genuine.

THE FACTS: An image circulating on Twitter and Facebook claims to reveal a sinister network of bots who copied and pasted the same fake message at the same time in an attempt at COVID-19 fearmongering.

In reality, it shows an authentic warning from an emergency room doctor that was transformed into a meme over the course of a week after Twitter users copied and pasted his words to discredit his message and breed confusion.

It all started on July 22, when Dr. Sam Ghali, a licensed emergency medicine physician in Jacksonville, Florida, posted a tweet about how the delta variant of the coronavirus was affecting his hospital.

“I just left the ER,” Ghali wrote. “We are officially back to getting crushed by COVID-19. Delta Variant is running rampant and it’s MUCH more transmissible than the original virus. 99% of our ICU admits did NOT receive a vaccine. Virtually ALL of them wish they had.”

 

the original tweet was posted 7/22/21 and is from a blue check, legit account with 230k followers

also it's a shitty meme - a thread on it. the guy who posted it is literally about 12 months late to the party.

you are posting this from an account with this as it's twitter bio:

Quote

America First.  You cannot coexist with people who want to kill you and send your children to re-education camps.

take a two second glance at this account: https://twitter.com/Most_Maximus

to see you shouldn't be posting dumb shit from them anywhere, especially not in this thread.

that whole account is about 33% bacon tweets, 33% shitty memes and 33% edgelord-quality takes.

[52-80 19377]

5 minutes ago, NoName said:

that whole account is about 33% bacon tweets, 33% shitty memes and 33% edgelord-quality takes.

theres a certain danger qualifying posting history for credibility when discussing with surly members…

 

…i know what kind of kinks you weird fuckers are into

[wildcat09 29579]

It's rude to kink shame.

[NoName 17148]

11 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

theres a certain danger qualifying posting history for credibility when discussing with surly members…

 

…i know what kind of kinks you weird fuckers are into

heh

i just mean that in general, it takes two seconds to look at that account and say "highly doubtful this guy knows fuck about shit, especially when it comes to a $44 billion dollar tech merger that has highly specific wording around the agreement and the ability of two parties to break the deal"

[Not that Bob 743]

10 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Screw this take over stuff. Where does one acquire that leather trench coat? I want that coat. I want it. Never be an opportunity to wear it but it would look bitchin' in the closet...or on the coat rack in the entry. 

Edited July 11, 2022 by Not that Bob

[Chopper 17432]

Are bots good? Or are bots bad? I can't keep it straight. And what stupid asshole once said the following?

In the press release announcing the deal on April 25, ____ said: “I also want to make Twitter better than ever by enhancing the product with new features, making the algorithms open source to increase trust, defeating the spam bots, and authenticating all humans. Twitter has tremendous potential – I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

 

[chainsaw 10291]

4 minutes ago, Not that Bob said:

Scew this take over stuff. Where does one acquire that leather trench coat? I want that coat. I want it. Never be an opportunity to wear it but it would look bitchin' in the closet...or on the coat rack in the entry. 

Jesus christ

[Herpa Derpa 6343]

54 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

It's rude to kink shame.

Hey, don't shame my kink shame kink.

[F250 29201]

7 hours ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Must be from his French Vampire cosplay days when he went by the name Lestat de Beauvoir.

His father was a 17th century French aristocrat given to drink and gambling, with the assistance of a young French whore he sired Lestat.

[Vegas64 713]

I thought it was Matthew Stafford at the UGA Pike Halloween Bash Spring of 2004. Joke is on him because TAPPS photo store or whatever has them

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

I don’t see how Elon doesn’t owe shareholders the difference from his offer and the value today, or whenever the case is resolved in a courtroom.  What’s that going to work out it be? A $22 dividend per share. If I’m a Twitter shareholder, I don’t even care much about the Twitter revenue or income, how much are we getting from Elon.

elon should be offering $10B to walk away from this mess.

[Genco 3057]

7 hours ago, clapclapclap said:

Or, you know, Musk might be correct about the bots:

https://twitter.com/Most_Maximus/status/1546332694547767296

[Grade of D as in David 13255]

How long until they ban him? 

 

[Samson's Wig 3230]

I don't follow this shit closely as I'm neither a fanboy nor its inverse.  The haters seem to be most prevalent here.  Is this based on politics of some kind? Everything else is these days, so I assume the hatred of Musk is based on his having different political opinions than his detractors. Is he a pro-life, thin blue line loving, fundie weirdo or something?  Whatever it is, the love and hate for this man is fascinating.   Maybe the dislike is based on our reliving the 1890's, complete with insanely wealthy individuals who don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us?  That bothers me too, especially when I think about what that type of culture and economy led to last go round (WWI and WWII).

All I'm hoping this story does is shine a light on how insignificant Twitter and other social media truly are.  The sunshine pumping bullshit that has so many people convinced that these platforms actually have any kind of meaningful impact (even Musk seems to buy into this notion) are insane.  If you're an active user your head is so far up your own ass you can't see it for what it is.  That tech bros can still peddle their lackluster products to people under the guise of somehow making the world a better or more connected place is mind boggling.  Seemingly intelligent people actually believe this shit.  Bill Burr's send up of Steve Jobs (linked upthread somewhere) was on point.  These people don't really create anything.  They don't add value.  They suck value from their customers. They've made the world a worse place.  But that only happens because a segment of our society actually give credence to the value of these shoddy products. 

Of course Twitter is full of bots, just like every other social media.  The percentage of criminals looking to scam people likely makes up a significant portion of the actual human users.  These platforms do not add value.  They lure you in with bullshit and keep you engaged while they suck out your soul for profit.

[chainsaw 10291]

5 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I don't follow this shit closely as I'm neither a fanboy nor its inverse.  The haters seem to be most prevalent here.  Is this based on politics of some kind? Everything else is these days, so I assume the hatred of Musk is based on his having different political opinions than his detractors. Is he a pro-life, thin blue line loving, fundie weirdo or something?  Whatever it is, the love and hate for this man is fascinating.   Maybe the dislike is based on our reliving the 1890's, complete with insanely wealthy individuals who don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us?  That bothers me too, especially when I think about what that type of culture and economy led to last go round (WWI and WWII).

All I'm hoping this story does is shine a light on how insignificant Twitter and other social media truly are.  The sunshine pumping bullshit that has so many people convinced that these platforms actually have any kind of meaningful impact (even Musk seems to buy into this notion) are insane.  If you're an active user your head is so far up your own ass you can't see it for what it is.  That tech bros can still peddle their lackluster products to people under the guise of somehow making the world a better or more connected place is mind boggling.  Seemingly intelligent people actually believe this shit.  Bill Burr's send up of Steve Jobs (linked upthread somewhere) was on point.  These people don't really create anything.  They don't add value.  They suck value from their customers. They've made the world a worse place.  But that only happens because a segment of our society actually give credence to the value of these shoddy products. 

Of course Twitter is full of bots, just like every other social media.  The percentage of criminals looking to scam people likely makes up a significant portion of the actual human users.  These platforms do not add value.  They lure you in with bullshit and keep you engaged while they suck out your soul for profit.

Are you making a point?

[Captainant 28538]

20 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

How long until they ban him? 

it's remarkable how Elon is trying to fabricate an issue out of nothing and convince an internet mob that the hype is real. It reminds me of a president refusing to accept the results of an election, creating enough media noise for uncritical people to think there's something there, and then using that fallacious public consensus to affect a real-world outcome.

This whole time, Elon has been trying to use this false narrative about bots and twitter hiding data to convince the very same people who thought the election was stolen and that nothing happened on Jan6, that he's getting done dirty by twitter lol. All of this noise has damaged twitter's value in a real and measurable way, and is likely to cause irreparable damage to their business. It's remarkable, and (IMHO) is why musk has picked up so much ire to address Sampson's post

Edited July 12, 2022 by Captainant

[NoName 17148]

7 minutes ago, Samson's Wig said:

I don't follow this shit closely as I'm neither a fanboy nor its inverse.  The haters seem to be most prevalent here.  Is this based on politics of some kind? Everything else is these days, so I assume the hatred of Musk is based on his having different political opinions than his detractors. Is he a pro-life, thin blue line loving, fundie weirdo or something?  Whatever it is, the love and hate for this man is fascinating.   Maybe the dislike is based on our reliving the 1890's, complete with insanely wealthy individuals who don't have to play by the same rules as the rest of us?  That bothers me too, especially when I think about what that type of culture and economy led to last go round (WWI and WWII).

All I'm hoping this story does is shine a light on how insignificant Twitter and other social media truly are.  The sunshine pumping bullshit that has so many people convinced that these platforms actually have any kind of meaningful impact (even Musk seems to buy into this notion) are insane.  If you're an active user your head is so far up your own ass you can't see it for what it is.  That tech bros can still peddle their lackluster products to people under the guise of somehow making the world a better or more connected place is mind boggling.  Seemingly intelligent people actually believe this shit.  Bill Burr's send up of Steve Jobs (linked upthread somewhere) was on point.  These people don't really create anything.  They don't add value.  They suck value from their customers. They've made the world a worse place.  But that only happens because a segment of our society actually give credence to the value of these shoddy products. 

Of course Twitter is full of bots, just like every other social media.  The percentage of criminals looking to scam people likely makes up a significant portion of the actual human users.  These platforms do not add value.  They lure you in with bullshit and keep you engaged while they suck out your soul for profit.

i assume this is just a really, really, really shitty (like futureman-level shitty) attempt to troll.

 

[chainsaw 10291]

3 minutes ago, Captainant said:

it's remarkable how Elon is trying to fabricate an issue out of nothing and convince an internet mob that the hype is real. It reminds me of a president refusing to accept the results of an election, creating enough media noise for uncritical people to think there's something there, and then using that fallacious public consensus to affect a real-world outcome.

This whole time, Elon has been trying to use this false narrative about bots and twitter hiding data to convince the very same people who thought the election was stolen and that nothing happened on Jan6, that he's getting done dirty by twitter lol. All of this noise has damaged twitter's value in a real and measurable way, and is likely to cause irreparable damage to their business. It's remarkable, and (IMHO) is why musk has picked up so much ire to address Sampson's post

It's pretty easy to forecast Elon's moves. He's a manic attention whore surrounded by enablers, so in order to forecast his next move, consider what options are available to him and then choose the option that maximizes the amount of attention it draws to himself. Do not take into consideration whether there are foreseeable negative consequences because he's too manic to second-guess himself or resist the impulse, and he's overconfident about his ability to avoid consequences both because he has a delusional sense of self-worth and because his money mostly paves the way for that self-fulfilling prophecy. The money gets him to third base, but he thinks all he hits are triples.

That's how you could easily predict he was going to announce that he's buying twitter, that's why you could easily predict that he was going to pull out of the deal, that's why you could easily predict that he was going to make up some bullshit about bots as his excuse, and that's why today it's easy to predict that he's going to drag out a legal battle not because he cares about the battle itself but because he wants to paint himself as a martyr.

When the martyr thing stops generating the attention he craves he will do something dramatic like going to rehab. His lawyers will change the defense to something about how he wasn't of sound mind and that's why the deal should be annulled. They will point to some medication he was taking and blame that, and make the narrative about addiction, or mental illness, or something that takes some legitimate discourse and makes it all about him.

Twitter might at that point be guilted into some kind of compromise deal so it doesn't look like they're bullying the poor geeky kid who flew too close to the sun.

[Samson's Wig 3230]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

Are you making a point?

First line of the second paragraph, I suppose.  But no, not really.  No one else on this thread has written anything of substance either. It's an absurd discussion on its face.  

[52-80 19377]

1 hour ago, chainsaw said:

That's how you could easily predict he was going to announce that he's buying twitter, that's why you could easily predict that he was going to pull out of the deal, that's why you could easily predict that he was going to make up some bullshit about bots as his excuse, and that's why today it's easy to predict that he's going to drag out a legal battle not because he cares about the battle itself but because he wants to paint himself as a martyr.

What's the next easy prediction?

[chainsaw 10291]

5 minutes ago, 52-80 said:

What's the next easy prediction?

He's gonna ride the attention wave until it dries up. My current guess is that when it dries up he will paint himself as a victim of mental illness or an addiction of some kind and that will be used to try and back out of the deal.

[Vegas64 713]

On 7/11/2022 at 12:45 PM, Vegas64 said:

For those who don't get Matt Levine's Bloomberg newsletter (you should), he lays it out very smartly today:

If this dispute ends up in court, there are three things that the court can do:

1. Agree with Musk, and let him terminate the deal without paying anything.
2. Agree with Twitter that Musk is bound by his contract, and then make him pay $1 billion, the maximum available damages, for breaching the contract.
3. Agree with Twitter that Musk is bound by his contract, and then order specific performance, making him pay $44 billion to actually buy Twitter.

I will ignore the first possibility, not only because I think it is unlikely but also because it is functionally the same as the second. On the scale of Twitter’s market capitalization, or of Musk’s wealth, letting Musk walk away for $0 is not meaningfully different from letting him walk away for $1 billion. In either case, Musk is fine, and Twitter is not. 

So the possible outcomes of litigation are extremely binary: He pays $44 billion and buys Twitter, or he pays zero-to-$1-billion and does not. And there is nothing in between. A court can’t say “man, this is really bad, but I am not going to force you to buy Twitter because that seems cruel to everyone, so I will make you pay $10 billion of damages to compensate Twitter and send a message.” Nope! It’s $44 billion or $1 billion.

Also, though, the possible outcomes of litigation are extremely terrible. Letting the world’s richest person get out of a deal for a nominal fee because he got bored with it undermines the rule of law and the predictability of Delaware merger agreements. But forcing an unwilling buyer to own a big public company — with thousands of employees and an outsized influence on politics and culture — seems bad for the buyer, the employees, the users and the world. Nobody wants either of these outcomes. But they are the only available outcomes in court.

Now: They are not the only possible outcomes in the world. They are the only possible outcomes in court. If Twitter and Musk go to court and fight to the death and a court enters a final judgment, it will be for one of those things, $1 billion or $44 billion. But because the outcomes are so drastically different, and so binary, and so bad, and because no one is entirely sure which one it will be, the two sides have a lot of incentive to try to settle for something in between.

There are two possible sorts of settlement:

1. Musk buys Twitter for less, or
2. Musk walks away for more.

Musk and Twitter could agree that he will close the deal, but will pay less than $54.20 per share. I don’t know what the number is. More than the $25ish per share that I have been assuming Twitter is worth without Musk. More, probably, than the $36.81 closing price of Twitter on Friday, before Musk tried to get out of the deal. These sorts of renegotiations happen sometimes and usually result in pretty modest price cuts, but it is hard at this point to imagine Musk agreeing to pay, like, $52.69. He will want a big price cut ($35?) and Twitter will want a small one ($52?) and it might be hard to reach agreement.

Anyway, these outcomes are bad — everything is bad — but they are better than the binary outcomes in court, and I suppose it would be good if one of them happened. If Musk wrote Twitter a check that was much bigger than $1 billion, then Twitter’s shareholders would be, not made whole, but at least mollified. And he might be a little chastened, and might stop going around pretending to buy public companies just to cause chaos. And Twitter would remain Twitter, which, you know, could be better, but could also be worse.

Of course there are obstacles here. Elon Musk is rich, weird and stubborn, and might not settle even when it’s in his best interests. Twitter’s directors are in an awkward spot: They are under a ton of scrutiny, they have a good legal case, and they will probably be sued by disgruntled shareholders if they settle for anything less than specific performance at $54.20 per share, even if doing so is in shareholders’ best interests. Nothing about this deal has been especially rational so far, and there is no reason to assume that it will settle rationally now. But it would be nice.

Piggybacking off this post to (in a spoiler) post a follow up case in the Delaware Chancery Court & Delaware M&A that is interesting for those more curious about the legal intricacies of this stuff:

Spoiler

Not much is going on today, so I thought we might talk about an interesting Delaware Chancery Court decision from last April. In March 2020, a private equity fund, Kohlberg & Co., signed a merger agreement to buy a company called DecoPac Holdings Inc., which “sells cake decorations and technology to supermarkets for use in their in-store bakeries,” in a $550 million leveraged buyout. Kohlberg also got commitment letters from lenders to provide debt financing for the deal.

Then the Covid-19 pandemic got worse, the supermarket-cake-decorating business declined, and Kohlberg “lost their appetite for the deal shortly after signing it.” So, as the judge — then-Vice Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick — writes, “the buyers called their litigation counsel and began evaluating ways to get out of the deal.”

They came up with three approaches:

They said that DecoPac had experienced a “material adverse effect” due to the decline in its business during the pandemic. If there was an MAE, then Kohlberg could terminate the agreement.

They said that DecoPac had not complied with its covenant to “operate the Business in the Ordinary Course of Business,” because it had done unusual things (like draw on a revolver) to respond to the pandemic. If DecoPac breached its covenants, then Kohlberg could terminate.

They took steps to blow up their financing, sending exaggeratedly bad projections to their lenders along “with demands for more favorable debt financing terms.” Asked for better financing for a worse deal, the lenders declined, and Kohlberg did not get its financing. This is important because the contract allowed DecoPac to seek specific performance, that is, ask a Delaware court to order Kohlberg to pay the $550 million and close the deal, but only if “full proceeds of the Debt Financing have been funded to Buyer.” By blowing up the debt financing, Kohlberg planned to avoid specific performance: Even if the court didn’t believe it about the MAE or covenant stuff, it wouldn’t order Kohlberg to close the deal if the debt financing wasn’t available.

So Kohlberg canceled the deal and DecoPac sued. The vice chancellor was not amused by Kohlberg’s excuses:

At trial, the plaintiffs proved that DecoPac did not breach the MAE representation, given the durational insignificance and corresponding immateriality of the decline in sales. They also proved that, even if it was reasonable to expect that these sales declines would give rise to an MAE, the seller-friendly exception for events “related to” government orders applied, and DecoPac had not suffered disproportionately to comparable companies. The plaintiffs likewise demonstrated that DecoPac operated in the ordinary course of business in all material respects. The plaintiffs further proved that the buyers breached their obligation to use reasonable best efforts in connection with the debt financing.

Adding another layer of complication to the analysis, the buyers claim that, despite these holdings, it need not close. They rely on a contractual exception to the parties’ agreement conditioning the seller’s right to specific performance on fully funded debt financing. Because there is no debt financing in place, the buyers argue that the court may not grant specific performance. The court disagrees. Applying the prevention doctrine, this decision deems the debt financing condition met because the buyers contributed materially to lack of debt financing by breaching their reasonable-best-efforts obligation.

Chalking up a victory for deal certainty, this post-trial decision resolves all issues in favor of the seller and orders the buyers to close on the purchase agreement.

On specific performance in particular, she wrote:

“A party seeking specific performance must establish that (1) a valid contract exists, (2) he is ready, willing, and able to perform, and (3) that the balance of equities tips in favor of the party seeking performance.” This court has not hesitated to order specific performance in cases of this nature, particularly where sophisticated parties represented by sophisticated counsel stipulate that specific performance would be an appropriate remedy in the event of breach.

Here, the parties stipulated to the remedy of specific performance, but that stipulation applies “if and only if . . . the full proceeds of the Debt Financing have been funded to Buyer on the terms set forth in the [DCL] to fund the payment of the Estimated Closing Payment at Closing (or would be funded at the Closing if the equity Financing is substantially contemporaneously funded at the Closing)” (the “debt-funding condition”).

Kohlberg moved to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance on the basis of the debt-funding condition, arguing that Plaintiffs’ claim for specific performance is barred because it is undisputed that the full proceeds of the Debt Financing were not funded. ...

At trial, Plaintiffs demonstrated that Kohlberg’s breach of Section 6.15(a) contributed materially to Kohlberg’s failure to obtain Debt Funding. Plaintiffs proved that each of the Lenders were willing to execute Debt Financing on the terms of the DCL and that Kohlberg refused to move forward. In the words of one of the Lenders, when Kohlberg made the Financing Demands, “they changed the ask and risk profile of the deal and were not willing to adjust the economics, so they were really looking for a way out.” The non-occurrence of Debt Financing, therefore, was due materially to Kohlberg’s failure to move forward toward a final credit agreement on the terms of the DCL.

The deal closed in May 2021, a few weeks after her decision; I guess Kohlberg figured out its financing.

Anyway I know I am late to it but I hope you enjoyed this digression into the recent history of Delaware M&A litigation. McCormick was a vice chancellor at the time of this opinion; she is now the chancellor, the chief judge of the Delaware court that hears basically all high-stakes merger litigation in the US. It will be interesting to see what she does next.

 

[Bookman 4763]

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/technology/twitter-lawsuit-musk-acquisition.html

Wow Twitter sues. That's a very aggressive move for a company with no leverage and their best-case scenario is Elon Musk winning.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

1 minute ago, Bookman said:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/12/technology/twitter-lawsuit-musk-acquisition.html

Wow Twitter sues. That's a very aggressive move for a company with no leverage and their best-case scenario is Elon Musk winning.

they have the greatest leverage in the world: a signed contract with no stipulations for Elon to back out without a substantial penalty. Actions have consequences.

You can't offer to buy a company, flip their public image & operations upside down, and then expect to walk away because you grew bored of the deal. 

And Twitter also has the second best leverage in the world: they can ban Elon from their platform. That must be worth a couple billion by itself to him.

[Chopper 17432]

5 hours ago, chainsaw said:

Are you making a point?

I think his point was that even someone who doesn't know shit about fuck can write a lengthy post about "something" and fool himself into thinking he's writing something intelligent.

[Serak The Preparer 3484]

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

they have the greatest leverage in the world: a signed contract with no stipulations for Elon to back out without a substantial penalty. Actions have consequences.

I believe that @Bookman was referencing @Vegas64 who a couple of days ago said:

"I think worst case scenario is Elon bullies his way to renegotiate a better deal under false bot pretenses because Twitter will capitulate."

I

[Chopper 17432]

Here's the suit filed by twitter

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22084453-twittermuskcomplaint

Melknonian has already gone through it once. Interesting day for Twitter, the company. They got called out for irresponsible behavior by one of their own employees who testified to the J6 Committee. Now this.

 

[chainsaw 10291]

44 minutes ago, Chopper said:

Here's the suit filed by twitter

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/22084453-twittermuskcomplaint

Melknonian has already gone through it once. Interesting day for Twitter, the company. They got called out for irresponsible behavior by one of their own employees who testified to the J6 Committee. Now this.

 

An overpriced lawyer was paid by a publicly-traded company (for now) to write paragraph 79 of that lawsuit.

[Francisco 2.0 32591]

Not trying to CR.  Guess Trump is pissed Musk is backing out, so Trump won't get reinstated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[HenryJames 67362]

letthemfight.gif

[chainsaw 10291]

9 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Not trying to CR.  Guess Trump is pissed Musk is backing out, so Trump won't get reinstated.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Wow Peter Dinklange got tall

[Vegas64 713]

2 hours ago, Serak The Preparer said:

I believe that @Bookman was referencing @Vegas64 who a couple of days ago said:

"I think worst case scenario is Elon bullies his way to renegotiate a better deal under false bot pretenses because Twitter will capitulate."

I

Right.

It's definitely an extreme and hyperbolic interpretation to take what I've said--that which you quoted above and more-- and spin it that Twitter has zero leverage and can't win this in the court of law.

I think Twitter has the best, slam dunk legal case on paper...like literally everyone else paying attention sans Elon and his team (and even them I'm not so sure). I just also have an opinion that, that being the case, Elon has cards to play and a compromise is sought-- my best guess at the time was what was quoted above and I'm still not sold it won't happen that way, though things change daily.

I can't control what trauma other people have lived through or their subsequent emotional responses to things that trigger them so let's just let Bookman vent.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Vegas64

[Bookman 4763]

42 minutes ago, Vegas64 said:

Right.

It's definitely an extreme and hyperbolic interpretation to take what I've said--that which you quoted above and more-- and spin it that Twitter has zero leverage and can't win this in the court of law.

I think Twitter has the best, slam dunk legal case on paper...like literally everyone else paying attention sans Elon and his team (and even them I'm not so sure). I just also have an opinion that, that being the case, Elon has cards to play and a compromise is sought-- my best guess at the time was what was quoted above and I'm still not sold it won't happen that way, though things change daily.

I can't control what trauma other people have lived through or their subsequent emotional responses to things that trigger them so let's just let Bookman vent.

Like I said, it sounded like a joke.

[Hmbre97 6337]

Are those real people or cardboard cutouts in those photos?

[Chopper 17432]

3 hours ago, Vegas64 said:

I just also have an opinion that, that being the case, Elon has cards to play and a compromise is sought-- my best guess at the time was what was quoted above and I'm still not sold it won't happen that way, though things change daily.

He definitely has cards to play if Twitter wants to mitigate some of the risk that the judge will hesitate to pull the trigger on enforcing specific performance. Or perhaps if Twitter fears that Musk will try to evade a favorable judgment.

This has been quite the car wreck and it was clear this was the most likely result from the very beginning, even before the offer was accepted.

[Brisketexan 106899]

He definitely has cards to play if Twitter wants to mitigate some of the risk that the judge will hesitate to pull the trigger on enforcing specific performance. Or perhaps if Twitter fears that Musk will try to evade a favorable judgment.
This has been quite the car wreck and it was clear this was the most likely result from the very beginning, even before the offer was accepted.

Sure. But alternatively, do you know how you beat an unreasonable narcissist? You take him to the mat and choke him out. Elon will know he’s been beaten when he’s been thoroughly beaten. And not a moment before. So fight to win, give no quarter, and when he’s down….finish him.
Any seasoned litigator has faced an opposing party like Elon. What I typed is how you win. Trying to negotiate in good faith with someone who is incapable of acting in good faith is how you lose.
By the way, seeing the look on their face, when they finally realize that they’re actually going to lose, they can’t stop it, and you’re not going to let them get back up? It’s one of the greatest feelings ever.

[Hank Scorpio 17924]

Look, we all know he’s bad, but he’s funny sometimes. 
 

 

[52-80 19377]

man's got jokes

 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4999]

9 hours ago, Hmbre97 said:

Are those real people or cardboard cutouts in those photos?

At least one of them is a lizard person.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

Elon is playing a weird game. I don't know what he considers his main company but Tesla would seem to be a reasonable choice. However his politics and attitude would seem to be at odds with the politics and attitudes of the majority of Tesla buyers. 

I don't think Elon has to show himself as a woke champion who meditates and eats kale 5x per day but you don't want to alienate your customers when you're the main face of the product. No CR but imagine if the MyPillow guy started tweeting that he agrees with AOC. It would turn off his customers.

Most CEOs want to come across as apolitical because why alienate 40% of the public. 

[NoName 17148]

25 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Elon is playing a weird game. I don't know what he considers his main company but Tesla would seem to be a reasonable choice. However his politics and attitude would seem to be at odds with the politics and attitudes of the majority of Tesla buyers. 

I don't think Elon has to show himself as a woke champion who meditates and eats kale 5x per day but you don't want to alienate your customers when you're the main face of the product. No CR but imagine if the MyPillow guy started tweeting that he agrees with AOC. It would turn off his customers.

Most CEOs want to come across as apolitical because why alienate 40% of the public. 

honestly it's not a bad move. he knows TSLA is going to get squeezed HARD in the next 36 months. he has to know TSLA is overvalued at it's current stock price. this way he can say it's because he isn't woke enough when instead it is everyone under the sun releasing EVs and the stock price normalizing to wherever it "should" be

...all just in time for him to shift over to SpaceX and for him to start braying about how important it is for humanity to be a two planet people again.

[Nice Guy Eddie 13731]

14 minutes ago, NoName said:

honestly it's not a bad move. he knows TSLA is going to get squeezed HARD in the next 36 months. he has to know TSLA is overvalued at it's current stock price. this way he can say it's because he isn't woke enough when instead it is everyone under the sun releasing EVs and the stock price normalizing to wherever it "should" be

...all just in time for him to shift over to SpaceX and for him to start braying about how important it is for humanity to be a two planet people again.

I hear you but many potential Tesla buyers are not being squeezed by the economy at the moment so why alienate any of them? Is their marketing strategy to alienate buyers so they have a built-in excuse when sales don't meet targets? Bold strategy.

Most likely Tesla as a company does not like what Elon is doing but rather they just have to accept their CEO dgaf what they think.

[Samson's Wig 3230]

16 hours ago, Chopper said:

I think his point was that even someone who doesn't know shit about fuck can write a lengthy post about "something" and fool himself into thinking he's writing something intelligent.

I haven't offered anything of substance in this thread, to be sure, but we can't all just quote tweets and spell Musk's name incorrectly for giggles. Congrats on being clever, I guess.  Maybe you'll get called up to the big leagues and join Twitter's legal team after they've read your well crafted posts in this thread.

[Samson's Wig 3230]

2 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you but many potential Tesla buyers are not being squeezed by the economy at the moment so why alienate any of them? Is their marketing strategy to alienate buyers so they have a built-in excuse when sales don't meet targets? Bold strategy.

Most likely Tesla as a company does not like what Elon is doing but rather they just have to accept their CEO dgaf what they think.

I think most folks don't consider politics at all when shopping for a new vehicle.  Tesla owners, however, may be a group who does given the environmental implications.  I agree his companies would be better served if he would shut the fuck up, but then what would all the folks on both sides of the circle jerk do for entertainment?

[52-80 19377]

16 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

I hear you but many potential Tesla buyers are not being squeezed by the economy at the moment so why alienate any of them?

90% of people who threaten “ill never buy [xxx] if/because of [unrelated reason]”….never intended to buy the thing in the first place

5% of them do it anyway