Musk buys a big chunk of Twitter

So you're saying this forum is intolerant, Gatorchatter is just also intolerant?

 

Interesting. That is some evidence.

Still other studies have found a more equal level between the groups.

Why Liberals Aren’t as Tolerant as They Think

 

I'm saying you don't know what you are talking about. But carry on, not going to continue to argue about it with you. If it makes you feel better to claim that the right is more tolerant of the left than the left is of the right, knock yourself out.

 

Twitter Counters a Musk Takeover With a Time-Tested Barrier

Twitter does not want to become a plaything of the world’s richest person.

So on Friday, it turned to a tried-and-tested corporate defense mechanism invented in the 1980s — the heyday of the corporate raider — to block a potential takeover attempt by Elon Musk and buy its board some time.

The mechanism, known as a poison pill, has a simple intention: to make it less palatable for a potential buyer to pursue the target company if the buyer accumulates shares above a certain threshold. In Twitter’s case, if Mr. Musk bought more than 15 percent of the company, Twitter would flood the market with new stock that all shareholders except Mr. Musk could buy at a discounted price.​

That would immediately dilute Mr. Musk’s stake and make it significantly more expensive for him to buy the company. Mr. Musk currently owns a little more than 9 percent of Twitter’s stock.​

 

That's not remotely surprising.

 

Yeah, that's the funny thing about this claim. It may well be that right-wingers are just twice as insufferable about politics as left-wingers are. Hence it's easier for a right-winger to be tolerant of their liberal friends than it is the other way around. That is certainly my experience.

 

I won't even say it's about being insufferable. It's about what you're willing to tolerate. I have Republican friends. You disagree with me on judicial ideology? No big deal. You disagree on taxes? No big deal. You believe in limited government? No big deal. You are anti-abortion? No big deal.

But you're the sort of person who calls those of us who support transgender rights "groomers" or "pedophiles"? Nope, we can't be friends. You engage in overtly racist behavior? We can't be friends. You think the January 6th insurrectionists were patriots or justified? We can't be friends. You call anybody who is pro-choice "baby murderers"? We can't be friends. You think gay people deserve to be discriminated against because of their "lifestyle"? We cannot be friends.

Life is short, and I don't need that sort of toxicity in mine.

 

And it's a shame, because you were almost there.

 

Never gonna happen.

Dilute Musk's stake = losses for all of the other shareholders as well.... which would open up Twitter and their board to all kinds of lawsuits. That NY Times article is a liberal pipe dream.

Regardless if Musk buys Twitter or not....Musk has already won and Twitter will be changed forever.

There's no good ending for Twitter outside of some other buyer.

 

Now we're backtracking on the notion that pointing out that one side is more intolerant makes you intolerant.

 

You call people who support a secure border, "bigoted."

You call people who believe Caitlyn Jenner is a man, "transphobic."

You are one of the biggest race-baiters on this forum and throw terms like that around about as loosely as Al Sharpton. Spare me your concerns about name-calling and please... find yourself a mirror.

 

It already happened. They passed the poison pill (it triggers automatically when somebody acquires enough stock to trigger it). Yes, it is possible some shareholders challenge it legally, but it is a very common anti-takeover defense that has been used and upheld by courts for decades in literally thousands of instances.

BTW, Elon Musk doesn't have the cash to make the offer he claimed he was making. So, sorry to disappoint, but he isn't buying Twitter like he claimed, and they aren't letting him play games with their stock. He doesn't have that kind of cash and nobody in their right mind would fund a 131x multiple offer for a relatively long-established company with a relatively weak source of income.

 

Not without risking control over his existing companies. You think he is going to risk losing control of Tesla?

 

The issue is that assets that are not liquid (such as let's say 8-9% of Tesla's stock) are not terribly great collateral for a loan of that size. You would need to find somebody that is willing to gain control of Tesla as collateral in case Twitter collapses as a private company (he is talking about taking the company private, so the stock would become worthless, and I doubt there is much asset value in Twitter).

 

Liberals are hoping. Musk exposed Twitter and liberals for everyone to see.

 

You don't even know what a poison pill is, do you?