The General
Footballguy
No way he pays that ridiculous initial offer would be my guess.massraider said:
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Twitter and Elon Musk (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter Joe Bryant
- Start date
The Commish
Footballguy
The financial aspect of this entire thing is probably the least interesting part to me. Not sure I could care less. I am speaking of the evidence that seems to suggest that Musk had no real clue about twitter's reach (or lack thereof) globally, what the composition of the "user base" actually is or how it makes money efficiently. The last part is only of a slight interest in a "well, no duh" kind of way.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
The whole thing is crazy. A regular person wouldn't buy a house or car without an inspection but Musk proposes to buy Twitter for 42 billion without DD.
The Commish
Footballguy
I think this is the de facto twitter thread 
"Public square" arguments are getting tougher and tougher to make with respect to what a private business has to allow etc.
SC weighs in on Texas Law
"Public square" arguments are getting tougher and tougher to make with respect to what a private business has to allow etc.
SC weighs in on Texas Law
The General
Footballguy
This is the thinking of quite a few ####### bosses IMO.
No clue about Elon’s situation or why he’s popping off, but I get a sense from people I have chatted with that if there is pressure to be in the office it comes from managers - who don’t come in. They enjoy the power trip or they need the minions to do the hands on work while they supervise at home.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Not aware of anyone who made a public square argument. Only that Twitter was acting as a de facto public square.I think this is the de facto twitter thread
"Public square" arguments are getting tougher and tougher to make with respect to what a private business has to allow etc.
SC weighs in on Texas Law
Good link. I found it interesting that the ruling didn't break down along the traditional left/right axis.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
This is absurd. There should be ZERO requirement to be in an office unless your physical presence is absolutely necessary to be there (i.e. construction worker, plumber, etc..).
You would think businesses would say, "Hell! We can save a ton of money by not having an office or having a much smaller one". But, I agree with @The General here. He wants to be a doosh-nozzle on a power trip.
The teams I've been on have not dropped in productivity at all despite all of us being remote now. It's the future. Not only that, think of the how much we're saving the environment by WFH.
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish
Footballguy
Plenty of it in this thread. But to save the little bit of clicking I'll summerize. Generally goes like this: "Twitter is a public square and because of that, you can't censor me". It's not a public square as MT so aptly pointed out near the beginning. It's a private company allowing you to post on their site based on their rules and they are allowed to do what they believe is correct for their business. If that means removing you or me or whoever, that's their decision. We don't have a "right" to be on their platforms.
Battersbox
Footballguy
I don't remember anyone saying it's a public square in this thread. Only that it is serving as a de facto public square. You are correct that several posters are conflating the two arguments.
I think everyone has agreed they have the legal right as a private company to do whatever they want, but that's sort of an irrelevant part of the conversation.
The Commish
Footballguy
nevermind...
Last edited by a moderator:
Battersbox
Footballguy
I didn't know she didn't join the written dissent. Is it a given that she'll explain her vote at some point?
Toby2ElectricBugaloo
Footballguy
Don't think so.
Just one more way the Supreme Court refuses to see itself as accountable to the American people.
Battersbox
Footballguy
Is it customary for every dissenting judge to join the written dissent? I'm really curious about this because as you said, the 3 justices who are most conservative dissented. For them to be joined by Kagan is very strange.
Kagan wouldn't join the written dissent if she disagreed with its rationale, even if she also disagreed with the order entered by the Court.
This wasn't a real case. It was part of the shadow docket, not the actual docket. There was no oral argument. Written briefs were very limited. I don't think the majority wrote an opinion. I don't think it's weird for dissenters not to write an opinion in that situation, either.
Last edited by a moderator:
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Maurile Tremblay said:
If Kagan hadn't asked to have her dissent noted (and it would be perfectly normal for her to not appear on the order at all), we'd probably all assume it was a 6-3 decision. Its an unfortunate trend for me, but I get it. Thomas wrote a 12 page concurrence on a 9-0 dismissal order in the Trump/Twitter 1st amendment case last year. All 9 agreed the case was moot because Trump was no longer President so none of it mattered, but Clarence decided to write a manifesto on how he might rule in a future case involving Twitter's status as a public utility, Section 230, social media devils, etc. - paving the way for a hypothetical future lawsuit. From a big picture perspective, I think this is a terrible trend.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/040521zor_3204.pdf
Battersbox
Footballguy
Thanks for your reply.
Just so I'm understanding, you're saying the trend of dissenters authoring these comprehensive opinions is not a good idea? Or in other words, dissenters simply dissenting without formally submitting their reasoning used to be the norm and now it is less so?
And why would Kagan ask to have her dissent noted? What do you suppose her reasoning would be?
***And before any of our highly-political brethren on here think I'm trying to steer us toward some sort of agenda by asking these questions, let me say I'm absolutely not. I'm purely curious. In fact, from my limited understanding, I think the court got this one right***
CletiusMaximus
Footballguy
Battersbox said:
The important part from MT's comment is understanding the difference between an order and an opinion on a case before the Court. This ruling on the Texas law was an order. You can see all the other orders they entered that day in the link - accepting or rejecting cases, granting minor procedural motions, and similar rulings. Most orders are entered without comment. In some cases, an order is the work of a single justice, but in some the issue is referred to the entire court, in which case it goes to a vote. In those cases, we usually just know there were at least 5 on the side that prevailed, but we have no idea who or why - which in most cases is fine. This is called the "shadow docket" because in some cases these rulings can be quite powerful and have significant consequences, even though the case is only before the court on a procedural ruling. In recent times, the justices are not only increasingly identifying their vote, as Kagan did here, but also sometimes writing detailed concurrences, dissents, partial dissents, etc. My personal feeling on this, which is not worth the paper its not printed on, is that its not a positive development for the justices to use the platform of a concurrence in an order to state their position on an issue not before the court.
Terpman22
Footballguy
Is this more a 5-D chess move, or is he really just in CYA mode and is having a bit of buyer's remorse (even though he hasn't truly bought it)?
whoknew
Footballguy
Krista is definitely the expert in this area. So based solely on her analysis a couple of pages back, it doesn't seem like he has a very good legal basis for getting out of the deal. This letter, therefore, seems like a price negotiation to me.
The General
Footballguy
Like with any rich ####### type his out goes something like, not sure the legal terms but, “no deal…sue me”.
supermike80
Footballguy
Even worse. Will cost him a billion if he backs out. Pocket change. Meanwhile millions who bought the stock will get punched
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Seems so familiar....
Twitter is calling his bluff and giving him all the data he asked for. Information he would have been allowed to review during DD but declined. I hope they do whatever they can to get that $42 per share or most likely squeeze a billion+ in penalties out of him.
It stinks because I'm such a big fan of Musk the innovator but he acts like such a privileged jerk.
That one guy
Footballguy
Some of his recent Twitter posts keep showing up in my feed recently, goings on about bots and spam ads on YouTube now…starting to read like Trump’s constant “some people are saying…” and then just tossing chum into the water for bait
Nugget
Footballguy
Last 7 days:
Space X fires employees over open letter to management
Daughter files for name change and new birth certificate, wants nothing to do with Elon
Tesla factories losing billions of dollars, furnace for cash
Starlink may not work due to 5G interference
Boring company expands tunnel project around Las Vegas
Elon answers questions for Twitter employees
Space X fires employees over open letter to management
Daughter files for name change and new birth certificate, wants nothing to do with Elon
Tesla factories losing billions of dollars, furnace for cash
Starlink may not work due to 5G interference
Boring company expands tunnel project around Las Vegas
Elon answers questions for Twitter employees
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Nugget
Footballguy
So maybe Elon had twins with an executive at one of his companies around the same time Grimes was giving birth to his 9th child.
Secret twins
He is not helping his cause.
Secret twins
He is not helping his cause.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
What cause is he not helping? This seems like a pot shot and I'm not even sure what the.problem is. Dude can't have kids?
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
They're religious fundamentalists who refuse to acknowledge that they're religious fundamentalists.
I'm a big fan of marriage, monogamy, and not having kids out of wedlock. If anybody asks me about the "best" way to organize your life when you're in your 20s, it's that. But a) that's just my advice, b) adults should be free to organize their lives differently if they choose, c) my disapproval should be a matter of complete indifference to them, and d) I don't fundamentally care how people live because it's none of my business.
But religious fundamentalists don't think that way. @Nugget apparently has a thing about out-of-wedlock children, and because he cares, we're all supposed to care and we're all supposed to shun the sinner. I don't agree with that as a matter of personality, and it's also not the way I conceive of my own religious practice.
BladeRunner
Footballguy
This is weird coming from the side of the aisle where adultery is no big deal and irresponsible sex is promoted and celebrated.
I would think you would be frantically buying Tesla and Twitter stock right now.
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
I think this means Elon is required to donate to the Herschel Walker campaign.
That doesn't answer my question. That sounds like an explanation for Musk not helping Nuggets cause, not about hurting Musk's.
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Fair enough. I think of 200+ billion reasons why this doesn't affect Musk's "cause" at all.
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Sleeping with subordinates at work is usually a big no-no. To paraphrase Dennis, it's because of the implication.
massraider
Footballguy
IvanKaramazov
Footballguy
Ah yes, how could I have overlooked this point since you guys have so consistent on this issue over the years.
Rich Conway
Footballguy
I imagine this depends on what cause we're talking about. Best I can tell, Musk has two basic causes in which he's interested. The first is owning/operating his businesses. Other than the possibility of being sued for sexual harassment or other HR violation, I don't think this really impacts that cause at all. Musk's second cause, IMO, is being an attention whore. This would seem to help, or at least not hurt, that cause.
the moops
Footballguy
Your snark aside, I think most people here would probably not survive in their profession very long if they were secretly having kids with a subordinate. Obviously billionaires and politicians live by different rules
Nugget
Footballguy
Do you think employers should be having sex with their subordinates?
Do we still think the Space X allegations are false?
Last edited by a moderator:
massraider
Footballguy
Quote from Elon:
"Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis.
A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far."
The biggest danger civilization faces is the birth rate? I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the genius on this one.
"Doing my best to help the underpopulation crisis.
A collapsing birth rate is the biggest danger civilization faces by far."
The biggest danger civilization faces is the birth rate? I'm going to go ahead and disagree with the genius on this one.
Nugget
Footballguy
Desert_Power
Footballguy
Feel free to link to me overlooking this stuff in the past. I realize you are obsessed with sides lately, but I do not appreciate this bullcrap allegation.
