Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.
Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.
No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/
Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders
Man I can’t wait for John Bolton to die.
Wait are you trying to tell me that the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to a state he didn’t live in to shoot protestors he didn’t know ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with wanted to kill people?? Wow I am shocked. Shocked!
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
I mean clearly those people do exist, so I’m curious if you have something specific in mind? Kinda feels like asking how people feel about folks with anger issues. Not great but they exist?
Define victim mentality with examples perhaps?
I assume taxing the rich is obviously impossible so the only solution is squeezing the poor \s
Ok that’s what I thought haha, I was confused - I thought the title might have meant the refs blew a call and he went out. Instead he just broke ankles
Wait not having seen the game - does it look like he should have been tackled but made the play, or did the refs miss him going out of bounds or something? I’m confused by the title
Why? The people weren’t injured by cops. The cops were nearby when their service weapons shot bullets at a deadly armed suspect. They can’t be held accountable for the suspect’s actions! He made their guns fire. \s
Honestly the cops were barely involved. They’re practically victims here, at least as much if not more than the people who were shot. \s
Legally a mass shooting
No no, surely the solution to this is a mechanical one
You’re moving the goalposts. Before it’s fully sufficient for a billionaire to say it, then it has to be billionaires and the media, and now they have to also be proposing specific types of solutions for it to count. I’m just curious exactly what counts as US national policy and what doesn’t. And last I checked “circlejerking about what Palantir says” isn’t working out great either.
It’s pretty clear that large portions of the ruling class do in fact want cheap drugs. That’s why you see the oligarch owned media constantly drumming up support for lower drug costs by reporting on how expensive they are, and Mark Cuban has a website he says is cheaper.
Is that what all billionaires want? Is it accurate? It’s the same standard. It’s not that you’re wrong about what a lot of rich US ghouls want. It’s that your argument is lazy and dishonest. You can be right AND not tout Palantir as a source of anything other than bullshit!
I mean this is completely irrational. Obviously US policy is disproportionately impacted by oligarchs but is what Palantir wants the same as what all billionaires want? What if they want different things? You can’t just pick the dumbest or most egregiously ghoulish thing a rich person said today and say “there! That’s the us policy!”
But they literally HAVE a fiduciary obligation. I agree with you that people use that as an excuse for heinous shit, but in this case they had a formal, legally binding offer. Musk was in breach of contract and they sued for specific performance or damages. Musk didn’t want to pay the damages. If they didn’t sue, Twitter would forfeit I think $1bn in damages and their stock would tank. Not suing would open the door for hostile investors to come in, pretend to buy, back out when they wanted to and time the stock movements. I get what you’re saying, but this is a case where if the board didn’t sue then Twitters shareholders pay for it.
You and I may agree that they never should have been in that place to begin with but that’s definitionally a fiduciary obligation