He bought it, and now that trump won, he is even richer than before. The rest is revisionist history.
Every article at the bottom of the page has a 4 paragraph section that says, "How the Guardian will stand up to 4 more years of Trump." Quite comical, they consider themselves fair and honest reporters of the news.
That and people just don't give a _____ and can't be bothered to pay attention. See: 99% of the comments (to this day) in every story about the UHC CEO's death. That said, the MAGA mind is as slaveish as any I've ever seen, so I also have serious doubts they'll ever hold their leader's feet to the fire, no matter how bad he screws things up. As I've said before - and stand by to this day - he could shoot a baby in the face on national TV and they've find some rationale for it. Some loon would cook one up and the rest would bleat it it out like the sheep they are within 24 hours.
And yet they're still incredibly better than numerous right-wing sites that paid major settlements for knowingly publishing lies. Missed your criticisms on those, BTW. Good that you've become such an advocate for honesty in media now, at least.
Julia Ingram's campaign contributions: Julia Ingram - $15,538 in Political Contributions for 2020 Hint: She's the author of the OP. She's upset at the election results.
Maybe it's just me but I really don't see an analogy between $15,538 in contributions almost all of which were under $500 each to multiple candidates and $277 million in support of the candidacy of one candidate.
It brings into question why she would write the article in the first place. She is a person with clear political allegiances.
Even conceding that she clearly has a bias that still doesn't mean that the article was inaccurate. Our friend @g8orbill frequently starts threads with links to obviously biased sources.
The problem of money in politics far precedes Musk. When similar concerns have been raised about George Soros in the past people have been accused of believing antisemitic conspiracy theories. The timing of the article is about as comical as this:
I agree with that but calling it a sustained outcry and concluding that he’s the world’s biggest hypocrite is laughable.
Elon hard at work saving more free speech. Muller She Wrote: Elon has removed her subscribers, the blue badge, and has now suspended the account of Loomer. I seem to remember entire “Twitter Files” hearings about how it’s bad when the government stifles speech. How will Elon reconcile his control of social media when HE is the government?
While your first statement is true that wasn’t all you contended. Undoubtedly he’s richer than before; I don’t think that’s ever been contested. You’ve indicated he was “smarter” than everyone for buying Twitter (against his own wishes) and others have written they thought it was his master plan to affect the election (even though he committed to buy it on a whim and tried to back out). It wasn’t a stroke of genius by Musk. It was a rash decision that ended up working out to his benefit.
I’ve always been against money in politics, from every source, but would accept individual citizen donations up to a limit of a few hundred per person. Money shouldn’t sway our politicians, or least the size of one person’s wallet vs another’s shouldn’t play a role.
Desperately? You feverishly support people who want a spoils system in govt and PAC money to be a grifter free for all.
