That looks like porn to me.
That comes from that article: The Christian Prophets Who Say Trump Is Coming Again.
Musk bought Twitter, what hasn't gone wrong?
- Thread starter digitalwanderer
- Start date
-
- Tags
- space karen
That comes from that article: The Christian Prophets Who Say Trump Is Coming Again.
That's posturing, something every president in every country ever force themselves to do. We both know it, and so do most voters, even the many of the very dumb ones.
The original point was that Musk is as much an atheist as Gates, so atheism doesn't seem like a good explanation to why ones is less trusted than the other by concervatives (personally, I like to distrust both, heh)
But since we mentioned trumpie, I got curious and I took the time to find any pools on how the american public saw him region-wise. I found this one:
https://assets.morningconsult.com/w...854/200630_crosstabs_POLITICO_RVs_v1_AUTO.pdf
As far as I could see, when asked what they think of the statement "D. Trump is religious" most voters disagree, and very few agree. That holds even among trump supporters, and religious demographics. But I could be wrong, I havent taken a careful enough look at the tables, just a quick scan during an uber ride.
Last edited:
@milk That was meant as a joke, I agree with you 
OTOH I have little doubt religion has lost some ground in the US (at least I hope, as far as I'm concerned religion is a sign of regression), but it still matters enough that the hypocrite orange clown has to give love to these relics of another century.
EDIT: Need to look through the study you posted, its' huge
OTOH I have little doubt religion has lost some ground in the US (at least I hope, as far as I'm concerned religion is a sign of regression), but it still matters enough that the hypocrite orange clown has to give love to these relics of another century.EDIT: Need to look through the study you posted, its' huge
WhiningKhan
Regular
Republican mind meld.
Really?
Too true...
Most of that should be fixed for now, but can still crop up as folks transition up the user groups by post counts.
- Newcomer
- Regular
- Veteran
- Legend
thanks, corrected it.
well Gates was much bigger > 20 years ago
.The thing is with Gates is he has said hes gonna give most of money to good causes, that doesnt sit well with the US conservative christian notion that Christians are the most generous kind ppl out there, if the most generous american person of all(*) is not a Christian.
Gates foundation has given billions of dollars to family planning. Now this is up there with guns as something sacred to the Christian right.
Musk doesnt have the do-gooder image about him, If he suddenly one day 'saw the light' and said fuck it, Im gonna spend my billions saving the rainforests, distributing condoms or whatever the christian right would turn against him in a heartbeat.
(*)In absolute $ amount, there are of course 100,000s more generous ppl around the world devoting their lives to good causes.
EDIT:
Just looked NZ's last 5 leaders
jacinda ardern: agnostic
bill english: religious, catholic
john key: agnostic
helen clark: agnostic
jenny shipley: presbyterian
Last edited:
cheapchips
Veteran
Too true...
Most of that should be fixed for now, but can still crop up as folks transition up the user groups by post counts.
- Newcomer
- Regular
- Veteran
- Legend
Couldn't you have waited another year?! I was hoping to keep the newcomer tag for a decade.
well Gates was much bigger > 20 years ago
The thing is with Gates is he has said hes gonna give most of money to good causes, that doesnt sit well with the US conservative christian notion that Christians are the most generous kind ppl out there, if the most generous american person of all(*) is not a Christian.
Gates foundation has given billions of dollars to family planning. Now this is up there with guns as something sacred to the Christian right.
Musk doesnt have the do-gooder image about him, If he suddenly one day 'saw the light' and said fuck it, Im gonna spend my billions saving the rainforests, distributing condoms or whatever the christian right would turn against him in a heartbeat.
(*)In absolute $ amount, there are of course 100,000s more generous ppl around the world devoting their lives to good causes.
EDIT:
Just looked NZ's last 5 leaders
jacinda ardern: agnostic
bill english: religious, catholic
john key: agnostic
helen clark: agnostic
jenny shipley: presbyterian
I don't know, but your theorizing seems highly speculative. Billionaires doing philantropy is nothing new. Gates was just the most known and visible personality when he started.
Also, most of Musks recent endeavors are also targeted at evolving humanity (in his vision of evolution) from electric cars, to space rockets, to brain-chips that connect pigs to the telepathic internet.
Both of them are atheists that abandoned their highly lucrative tech companies, MS and PayPall, to go into their own vision of world saving.
I really don't know why Musk gets more of a pass than Gates with conservatives, nor why the reverse is true with the left.
cheapchips
Veteran
At his worst, Musk comes across as a petulant man child. The conservatives can rally around him with a cry of "one of us, one of us", since they're all petulant, mean spirited children trying to masquerade as grownups.
I think you just gave the very definition of "adult" (in general).
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/musk-twitter-lawsuit-florida-pension-fund-010029248.html
A Florida pension fund is suing Musk and Twitter, arguing that the deal can't legally close until 2025 due to the billionaire's stake in the platform. The proposed class-action lawsuit — filed today by the Orlando Police Pension Fund in the Delaware Chancery court— also declares that Twitter’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by allowing the deal to go through. In addition to Musk and Twitter, the lawsuit also named former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, current Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and the company’s board as defendants.
In a message to Engadget, Tulane Law School’s Professor Ann M. Lipton says the lawsuit raises "some very novel issues" under Delaware corporate law. Under a law known as Section 203, shareholders who own more than 15 percent of the company can’t enter a merger without two-thirds of the remaining shares granting approval. Without this approval, the merger can’t be finalized for another three years.
The fund’s lawyers state that Musk initially owned roughly 10 percent of Twitter’s shares, which would seemingly not make Section 203 applicable. But, the fund argues, Musk formed a pact with Morgan Stanley (which owns 8.8 percent of shares) and former CEO Jack Dorsey (who has 2.4 percent) to advance the deal. The combined stake of these parties allegedly makes Musk and his allies in the takeover deal an "interested shareholder" under Section 203 — which, if the court agrees with the underlying reasoning presented in the case, means the merger must either be delayed or get approval shareholders representing at least two-thirds of the company's ownership.
...
A Florida pension fund is suing Musk and Twitter, arguing that the deal can't legally close until 2025 due to the billionaire's stake in the platform. The proposed class-action lawsuit — filed today by the Orlando Police Pension Fund in the Delaware Chancery court— also declares that Twitter’s board of directors breached its fiduciary duties by allowing the deal to go through. In addition to Musk and Twitter, the lawsuit also named former Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, current Twitter CEO Parag Agrawal and the company’s board as defendants.
In a message to Engadget, Tulane Law School’s Professor Ann M. Lipton says the lawsuit raises "some very novel issues" under Delaware corporate law. Under a law known as Section 203, shareholders who own more than 15 percent of the company can’t enter a merger without two-thirds of the remaining shares granting approval. Without this approval, the merger can’t be finalized for another three years.
The fund’s lawyers state that Musk initially owned roughly 10 percent of Twitter’s shares, which would seemingly not make Section 203 applicable. But, the fund argues, Musk formed a pact with Morgan Stanley (which owns 8.8 percent of shares) and former CEO Jack Dorsey (who has 2.4 percent) to advance the deal. The combined stake of these parties allegedly makes Musk and his allies in the takeover deal an "interested shareholder" under Section 203 — which, if the court agrees with the underlying reasoning presented in the case, means the merger must either be delayed or get approval shareholders representing at least two-thirds of the company's ownership.
...
cheapchips
Veteran
It's incorporated there. So are are Musk's holding companies, which he's using as a vehicle for buying Twitter.
(but no idea if it creates any significance)
Because Twitter is incorporated in Delewate.
Nearly all US companies are. It's because of the benefits of doing so, tax liability and legal protections are the primary ones, but it also provides privacy and the registration process is very simplistic.
I thought bots were part of what Savoir Musk was here to fix. What could possibly go wrong?
He wanted to spend $40b+ just to "fix" spam bots in his favorite social media app? So if there's hardly any spam bots, he won't bother?