Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale (Update: WSJ report details Musk’s relationship with Putin) (2 Viewers)

[SaintForLife]

Elon Musk struck a deal on Monday to buy Twitter for roughly $44 billion, in a victory by the world’s richest man to take over the influential social network frequented by world leaders, celebrities and cultural trendsetters.

Twitter agreed to sell itself to Mr. Musk for $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the company’s share price this month before he revealed he was the firm’s single largest shareholder. It would be the largest deal to take a company private — something Mr. Musk has said he will do with Twitter — in at least two decades, according to data compiled by Dealogic.

“Free speech is the bedrock of a functioning democracy, and Twitter is the digital town square where matters vital to the future of humanity are debated,” Mr. Musk said in a statement announcing the deal. “Twitter has tremendous potential — I look forward to working with the company and the community of users to unlock it.”

The deal, which has been unanimously approved by Twitter’s board, is expected to close this year, subject to a vote of Twitter shareholders and certain regulatory approvals.

The blockbuster agreement caps what had seemed an improbable attempt by the famously mercurial Mr. Musk, 50, to buy the social media company — and immediately raises questions about what he will do with the platform and how his actions will affect online speech globally.

Elon Musk and Twitter Reach Deal for Sale

Twitter agreed to be taken over at $54.20 a share, a 38 percent premium over the share price before it was revealed that Mr. Musk had been buying up the company’s stock.

www-nytimes-com.cdn.ampproject.org

If Musk does what he claims he wants to do it will be a big improvement and good for free speech.

 

[MT15]

Back to the topic of the thread - I saw where Musk has now floated the idea that childless people shouldn’t have the right to vote. Because they have no stake in the future.

 

[Snarky Sack]

Back to the topic of the thread - I saw where Musk has now floated the idea that childless people shouldn’t have the right to vote. Because they have no stake in the future.

I saw that also. His reasoning is logical, but it would never fly.

 

[MT15]

I saw that also. His reasoning is logical, but it would never fly.

You think? Lol.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I saw that also. His reasoning is logical, but it would never fly.

You really think that is logical? Jesus...

 

[Snarky Sack]

You really think that is logical? Jesus...

By Allah, I do!

People with no kids are not going to care about the future, not in the same way people with kids will. Keynes' statement that "in the long run, we are all dead," sounds very different to a person with kids. I have five, and I want them and their children and grandchildren not to have their economic futures trashed by greedy childless people wanting unlimited freebies.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

By Allah, I do!

People with no kids are not going to care about the future, not in the same way people with kids will. Keynes' statement that "in the long run, we are all dead," sounds very different to a person with kids. I have five, and I want them and their children and grandchildren not to have their economic futures trashed by greedy childless people wanting unlimited freebies.

I mean... what about people with nieces and nephews? Surely, they care about the future left to those children. What about people that cannot conceive? Do they not deserve to be able to vote? This is clearly ridiculous and Musk is a world-class moron if he genuinely thinks this makes sense.

 

[MT15]

By Allah, I do!

People with no kids are not going to care about the future, not in the same way people with kids will. Keynes' statement that "in the long run, we are all dead," sounds very different to a person with kids. I have five, and I want them and their children and grandchildren not to have their economic futures trashed by greedy childless people wanting unlimited freebies.

So I guess someone should point out that there are plenty of greedy people with children, and also plenty of selfless childless people. There’s not really any correlation between these two traits that I can think of.

Go ahead and tell us more about your “libertarian” leanings though. A real libertarian would abhor your stances on things.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So I guess someone should point out that there are plenty of greedy people with children, and also plenty of selfless childless people. There’s not really any correlation between these two traits that I can think of.

Go ahead and tell us more about your “libertarian” leanings though. A real libertarian would abhor your stances on things.

It's very Farb-esque, this whole "I'm a libertarian but not always a good one" thing.

 

[bdb13]

By Allah, I do!

People with no kids are not going to care about the future, not in the same way people with kids will. Keynes' statement that "in the long run, we are all dead," sounds very different to a person with kids. I have five, and I want them and their children and grandchildren not to have their economic futures trashed by greedy childless people wanting unlimited freebies.

So if you could wave a magic wand, I as a responsible and married 35 year old with no kids would have less rights afforded to me as an American than people who've accidently had children and suck at being parents?

That's a pretty offensive and unAmerican position to hold imo.

 

[Snarky Sack]

All I said was that Musk's take was logical. It wasn't even really Musk's take, he just said "yup" to someone else's take.

This is a key difference between left and right. On the right, we often politely and vaguely assent to what someone on the right says, even if we don't absolutely embrace their exact stance. It's a combination of politeness and wanting to support each other.

If I were talking to someone who seriously believed that childless couple should not vote, for the reasons whoever was talking Musk gave, I would probably say something like . . ."that's logical." If he went on an on about it, so it was not just an off-the-cuff remark, I would probably say something like "of course that would never fly." I'm not going to turn hostile, when we are having a nice conversation and he happens to say something that I don't fully agree with.

If he became pushy about it, insisting on me committing to his position, I would argue the point. Or I might say "agree to disagree." I would also be surprised at a righty acting like a pushy lefty.

Because lefties (in general) don't like to let the smallest point go. They not only naggingly "correct" people on the right, they do it to each other also, constantly monitoring for slight deviations from the current progressive dogma. We have multiple posters here on this thread making the same points, in the same nagging tone.

As to my being libertarian, that is far to advanced a subject for this board.

 

[bdb13]

All I said was that Musk's take was logical. It wasn't even really Musk's take, he just said "yup" to someone else's take.

This is a key difference between left and right. On the right, we often politely and vaguely assent to what someone on the right says, even if we don't absolutely embrace their exact stance. It's a combination of politeness and wanting to support each other.

If I were talking to someone who seriously believed that childless couple should not vote, for the reasons whoever was talking Musk gave, I would probably say something like . . ."that's logical." If he went on an on about it, so it was not just an off-the-cuff remark, I would probably say something like "of course that would never fly." I'm not going to turn hostile, when we are having a nice conversation and he happens to say something that I don't fully agree with.

I he became pushy about it, insisting on me committing to his position, I would argue the point. Or I might say "agree to disagree." I would also be surprised at a righty acting like a pushy lefty.

Because lefties (in general) don't like to let the smallest point go. They not only naggingly "correct" people on the right, they do it to each other also, constantly monitoring for slight deviations from the current progressive dogma. We have multiple posters here on this thread making the same points, in the same nagging tone.

As to my being libertarian, that is far to advanced a subject for this board.

I'm not a lefty but you have to be able to understand why I would take offense to someone saying it's logical for me to have less rights applicable to me than other Americans simply because my wife and I have chosen to this point not to have children. That wasn't some small point there,

 

[CoolBrees]

*too advanced

Libertarians are just selfish republicans.

There is no one more selfish than a Libertarian

 

[cuddlemonkey]

All I said was that Musk's take was logical. It wasn't even really Musk's take, he just said "yup" to someone else's take.

This is a key difference between left and right. On the right, we often politely and vaguely assent to what someone on the right says, even if we don't absolutely embrace their exact stance. It's a combination of politeness and wanting to support each other.

If I were talking to someone who seriously believed that childless couple should not vote, for the reasons whoever was talking Musk gave, I would probably say something like . . ."that's logical." If he went on an on about it, so it was not just an off-the-cuff remark, I would probably say something like "of course that would never fly." I'm not going to turn hostile, when we are having a nice conversation and he happens to say something that I don't fully agree with.

If he became pushy about it, insisting on me committing to his position, I would argue the point. Or I might say "agree to disagree." I would also be surprised at a righty acting like a pushy lefty.

Because lefties (in general) don't like to let the smallest point go. They not only naggingly "correct" people on the right, they do it to each other also, constantly monitoring for slight deviations from the current progressive dogma. We have multiple posters here on this thread making the same points, in the same nagging tone.

Stripping away basic constitutional rights is not logical in any way. Agreeing to disagree with someone willing to do that is spineless. Perhaps the issue isn't that people on the left nag everyone. Perhaps the issue is that people on the right are too gutless in standing up to bullshirt. Either that or they support it.

As to my being libertarian, that is far to advanced a subject for this board.

I highly doubt that. How about you hit us with the highlights and we find out?

 

[Snarky Sack]

Stripping away basic constitutional rights is not logical in any way. Agreeing to disagree with someone willing to do that is spineless. Perhaps the issue isn't that people on the left nag everyone. Perhaps the issue is that people on the right are too gutless in standing up to bullshirt. Either that or they support it.

That proposed binary choice is invalid. There is a named fallacy for that, but what it is called escapes me.

I highly doubt that. How about you hit us with the highlights and we find out?

If I did that, how long do you think it would take for someone to say "So you're saying . . . " followed by something that I did not say?

BTW, I remember now. False Dichotomy.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I'm not a lefty but you have to be able to understand why I would take offense to someone saying it's logical for me to have less rights applicable to me than other Americans simply because my wife and I have chosen to this point not to have children. That wasn't some small point there,

The reasoning was logical. As opposed to him saying, "I hate childless people, so they can't vote!" which seems to be how people are taking it.

Some dude made a logical point about how childless people decide to vote, and Musk said the equivalent of "uh-huh," rather than nitpick him. Have you ever known someone who would bicker over the smallest point and not rest until the person he or she was bickering with fully capitulated or just got tired of the conversation and ended it?

 

[bdb13]

The reasoning was logical. As opposed to him saying, "I hate childless people, so they can't vote!" which seems to be how people are taking it.

Some dude made a logical point about how childless people decide to vote, and Musk said the equivalent of "uh-huh," rather than nitpick him. Have you ever known someone who would bicker over the smallest point and not rest until the person he or she was bickering with fully capitulated or just got tired of the conversation and ended it?

Things can sometimes simultaneously be "logical" and stupid.

This is one of those things.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That proposed binary choice is invalid. There is a named fallacy for that, but what it is called escapes me.

I am open to there being other options and did not intend for spineless or accepting to be the only options. My stance is that those are the two most likely reasons.

If I did that, how long do you think it would take for someone to say "So you're saying . . . " followed by something that I did not say?

BTW, I remember now. False Dichotomy.

Can you even name their policy positions?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I am open to there being other options and did not intend for spineless or accepting to be the only options. My stance is that those are the two most likely reasons.

Ok, then.

Can you even name their policy positions?

I can, but that is because I take the time to research them. If you cannot, it is because the media chooses not to focus on their policies.

It would be most impolitic for the media to highlight that both Trump and DeSantis oppose Biden's open border policy, which is getting more and more unpopular, especially among African-Americans.