Elon Musk watch (was Elon Muskrat watch)

redrumloa

redrumloa

Active Member
Moderator
Joined
Apr 2, 2005
Messages
14,039
Reaction score
2,042
I still have my issues with some of his business practices, especially early on, but he's no doubt been winning me over in recent years. 2-3 years back he publicly announced he was red-pilled, and he is proving it now. He went from TDS to based very quickly.

ELON MUSK THROWS JABS @ TWITTER CELEBS, INCLUDING OBAMA, TAYLOR SWIFT; THREATENS TO TURN TWITTER HQ INTO HOMELESS SHELTER​

Musk asked, “Is Twitter dead?” stoking unease among the blue checkmarks and Twitter chief Parag Agrawal, who has winced at Musk’s influence over the company.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512786361983676424

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512786909315096579

He followed up his antics with a separate poll, calling for Twitter HQ — in San Francisco — to be converted to a homeless shelter as a follow-up to his Twitter obituary.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1512966135423066116

“Given that Twitter serves as the de facto public town square, failing to adhere to free speech principles fundamentally undermines democracy,” Musk tweeted. “What should be done?”
 

ELON MUSK DECIDES NOT TO JOIN TWITTER'S BOARD OF DIRECTORS, OPENS DOOR FOR POTENTIAL HOSTILE TAKEOVER​

Elon Musk buying a simple ownership stake in Twitter is turning into an episode of "Days of Our Lives." Now, we wake up to Twitter CEO Parag "Stefano DiMera" Agrawal announcing Musk will NOT be joining Twitter's board of directors. No, I don't think the story is going to end there.

To recap, a week ago, it was announced Musk bought close to 10% of the bird app. The next day, Agrawal announce Musk was taking a seat on the board of directors. A few days of hissy fits from Twitter employees and trolling by Musk on Twitter followed. Musk was supposed to start on the 9th (Saturday). Yesterday, this statement was released:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1513354622466867201

Musk responded with nothing but a question mark, in a tweet that has since been deleted. Here's what stands out from Parag's statement to me (emphasis mine):

"Here's what I can share about what happened." Methinks there's more to the story.

"I believe this is for the best." Ok, there is definitely more to the story

"There will be distractions ahead." That's the most interesting part of the statement. Already, the internet is talking about how this could open the door for a hostile takeover from Musk. Part of the deal announced last Monday was that Musk couldn't purchase more than 15% of the company (he currently owns just under 10%). If Musk isn't on the board, he could buy up as much as he wants. It was agreed upon when the announcement was made. Something changed over the course of four days.

It's a question of WHAT changed. It could be as simple as Musk has already grown bored and doesn't want to do this anymore. Twitter could have cried and whined to Parag. The board may have thought naming Musk to the board would let them control the billionaire but found out the hard way it was a stupid thought.

Or there was a major disagreement at the last minute (the "distraction ahead"), and Musk walked away, free to either start gobbling up more stock or do nothing but troll the company on the platform of which he owns the most shares until they find a reason to permanently suspend him. We won't know for sure until Musk tweets about it or sits down for an epic edition of the Joe Rogan Experience.
 

Elon Drops the Hammer on Twitter: Fire 12 Floors of People? 'Exactly'​


https://twitter.com/x/status/1512974273606045702

Yes, his remark was made in jest. But Musk didn’t become Twitter’s largest shareholder to sit on the sidelines.

He intends to make his mark on this company. After becoming a member of the social media platform’s board of directors, the self-described free-speech absolutist amended his SEC filing to reflect that his interest in Twitter was no longer “passive” but “active.”

This company has amassed far too much power. And frankly, after listening to Twitter’s arrogant new CEO, Parag Agrawal, my guess is his prattling on about how they determine who can and can’t be heard didn’t sit well with too many Americans.

In a 2018 interview with MIT Technology Review, Twitter’s current CEO Parag Agrawal, who was 33-years-old at the time and serving as chief technology officer, said the company should “focus less on thinking about free speech, but thinking about how the times have changed.”

“Where our role is particularly emphasized is who can be heard … And so increasingly our role is moving towards how we recommend content … how we direct people’s attention,” he added.

Shortly after Agrawal took over as CEO, this quote was unearthed. Musk reacted at the time with the following tweet.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1466074646240014340

As for “firing twelve floors of people,” it might be too much to ask. That said, layoffs are typically one of the first orders of business following a shakeup like this.

Musk should start with Agrawal.

Either way, it will be fun to watch.
 

Elon Musk makes $43 billion cash takeover offer for Twitter​

(Reuters) -Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk took aim at Twitter Inc with a $43 billion cash takeover offer on Thursday, with the Tesla CEO saying the social media giant needs to be taken private to grow and become a platform for free speech.

"Twitter has extraordinary potential. I will unlock it," Musk, who is already the company's second-largest shareholder, said in a letter to the San Francisco-based company's board on Wednesday. The offer was made public in a regulatory filing on Thursday.

Musk's offer price of $54.20 per share represents a 38% premium to Twitter's April 1 close, the last trading day before his 9.1% stake in the social media platform was made public.

Musk, the richest person in the world according to a tally by Forbes, rejected an invitation to join Twitter's board this week after disclosing his stake, a move analysts said signaled his takeover intentions as a board seat would have limited his shareholding to just under 15%.

Musk told Twitter it was his "best and final offer" and said he would reconsider his investment if the board rejects it.

"Since making my investment I now realize the company will neither thrive nor serve this societal imperative in its current form. Twitter needs to be transformed as a private company," Musk said in his letter to Twitter Chairman Bret Taylor.
 
Lefties are losing their sh*t!!! Suddenly out of nowhere "trying to buy Twitter is muh raaacisms!!11" :lol:

Leftists Are Melting Down After Elon Musk Offers to Buy Twitter​

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514570168730636290

Tweet.png


https://twitter.com/x/status/1514571243156127747

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514566650938417158

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514559725538471939

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514566921559154692
 
I have (serious) issues with Twitter, but getting another dictator is not the answer.

Musk also doesn't understand what Free Speech is.
 
cecilia said:
I have (serious) issues with Twitter, but getting another dictator is not the answer.

Musk also doesn't understand what Free Speech is.
Click to expand...

I have my issues with Elon. That's long established with me arguing with people here. I also try to avoid the whole "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" thing with Twitter. I like what's he's doing with Twitter but cautiously. I saw your post while watching a video and contemplating about making a post complaining about the rise of the Conservative Media (opposing to the established Liberal Media). Instead at least for now I'll drop the video below. I generally agree with this guy and mostly here. It's relevant to this Twitter situation.

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=657880225290916
 
cecilia said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1514661681695105073

https://twitter.com/x/status/1514665578841133060
Click to expand...
"It isn’t clear why Musk [...] missed the deadline. The gains of $156 million represent a drop in the bucket [...]"

It's not about the money. It may have just been that he was buying through multiple parties and Elon (plausible deniability) didn't know when he crossed the 5% threshold until everything was brought together. Or he just "forgot". But it's not for the $156 million which he'd gladly pay without even noticing. He just didn't want to give Twitter the opportunity to try to block him.

Elon is no longer the biggest shareholder. After Elon bought his 9.2%, the Vanguard Group extended theirs to 10.3%
The next 3 biggest owners are Morgan Stanley (8.4%), Blackrock Inc(6.5%), and State Street Corp (4.5%). Four of the five top shareholders of Twitter are mutli-trillion dollar wealth management corporations.
Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns (through his Kingdom Holding Company) claims 5.2% which should put him in that top 5 category according to that previous list.
So that's the kind of ownership Twitter currently has - huge investment firms with massive bets on huge hi-tech and industrial interests and members of the royal family of a dictatorial theocratic state. We are supposed to trust those guys not to shape twitter's influence to benefit themselves but to be suspicious of Musk? Musk has issues, but I'd support him over that lot any day.
 
Last edited:
FluffyMcDeath said:
"It isn’t clear why Musk [...] missed the deadline. The gains of $156 million represent a drop in the bucket [...]"

It's not about the money. It may have just been that he was buying through multiple parties and Elon (plausible deniability) didn't know when he crossed the 5% threshold until everything was brought together. Or he jut "forgot". But it's not for the $156 million which he'd gladly pay without even noticing. He just didn't want to give Twitter the opportunity to try to block him.

Elon is no longer the biggest shareholder. After Elon bought his 9.2%, the Vanguard Group extended theirs to 10.3%
The next 3 biggest owners are Morgan Stanley (8.4%), Blackrock Inc(6.5%), and State Street Gorp (4.5%). Four of the five top shareholders of Twitter are mutli-trillion dollar wealth management corporations.
Saudi Arabia’s Prince Alwaleed bin Talal owns (through his Kingdom Holding Company) claims 5.2% which should put him in that top 5 category according to that previous list.
So that's the kind of ownership Twitter currently has - huge investment firms with massive bets on huge hi-tech and industrial interests and members of the royal family of a dictatorial theocratic state. We are supposed to trust those guys not to shape twitter's influence to benefit themselves but to be suspicious of Musk? Musk has issues, but I'd support him over that lot any day.
Click to expand...
Top three institutional investors in pfizer:
Vanguard Group Inc 8.1%
BlackRock Inc 7.3%
State Street Corp 5.0%

Mark Zuckerberg remains the largest shareholder of Meta (formerly Facebook) at 16.8%
After him it's:
Vanguard Group Inc 7.7 %
BlackRock Inc 6.6%
State Street Corp 4.1%
 
I guess we'll find out what Elon's Plan-B is now. Chances are first thing he'll do is click executed on a "Market Order" sell for his entire stake. Twitter's stock will likely plunge in the coming days / weeks.

Poison Pill: Twitter Board Enacts Plan to Block Takeover by Elon Musk​

Colloquially known as a “poison pill,” the measure allows existing shareholders to buy more shares at a discounted price, diluting the stake of any shareholder seeking to acquire the whole company and theoretically raising the costs of doing so.

In a press release, Twitter said the limited duration Rights Plan, which will be triggered if Musk’s share grows to 15 percent or more, be in effect until May of 2023, “will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation.”

The Rights Plan is intended to enable all shareholders to realize the full value of their investment in Twitter. The Rights Plan will reduce the likelihood that any entity, person or group gains control of Twitter through open market accumulation without paying all shareholders an appropriate control premium or without providing the Board sufficient time to make informed judgments and take actions that are in the best interests of shareholders.
The Rights Plan does not prevent the Board from engaging with parties or accepting an acquisition proposal if the Board believes that it is in the best interests of Twitter and its shareholders.
Click to expand...
While the Rights Plan will raise the cost of any takeover attempt, it still relies on existing shareholders’ appetite to buy shares at a rate that prevents Musk or any other party from acquiring a large enough stake to take over the company.
 
Wayne said:
Ok, I'll bite. What -- in your estimation -- is "free speech""?
Click to expand...
free.jpeg


it's right there in the First Amendment (my personal favorite).

on a privately owned platform you still have to follow their rules and they don't like people lying about things which endanger the lives of citizens. Dopey donny was kicked off of Twitter because he caused an insurrection which killed people. That, for them, was the line they drew. He spent YEARS lying about everything before Jan 6th and if I was in charge of Twitter I would have kicked him off years ago.

Morning Joe had him on their show almost everyday during 2015 instead of other way more worthy persons. The media gives that guy way too much oxygen. He has the right to spew his nonsense on any street corner. But he doesn't have the right to hold private companies for ransom.
 
cecilia said:
View attachment 2378


it's right there in the First Amendment (my personal favorite).

on a privately owned platform you still have to follow their rules and they don't like people lying about things which endanger the lives of citizens. Dopey donny was kicked off of Twitter because he caused an insurrection which killed people. That, for them, was the line they drew. He spent YEARS lying about everything before Jan 6th and if I was in charge of Twitter I would have kicked him off years ago.

Morning Joe had him on their show almost everyday during 2015 instead of other way more worthy persons. The media gives that guy way too much oxygen. He has the right to spew his nonsense on any street corner. But he doesn't have the right to hold private companies for ransom.
Click to expand...
On the First Amendment (all of it) I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

That being said, you have a society where "companies are considered people and have rights" (bullshit) and the fact that the First Amendment doesn't (necessarily) apply to a state or local government that chooses to impose their own standards of behavior. California is a sad but great example. Private companies (and even public ones) don't have to play by that rule either.

Now, because it kinda irks me, I have to call bullshit on your idea that Trump "caused an insurrection which killed people" but that's an argument for another day. If Seattle and all the other BLM bullshit was considered a "Peaceful protest" (where people died spuriously), the January 6th was absolutely no different. The ONLY difference is that instead of Seattle, it happened in Nancy's own "back yard" and gave the Democrats another bullshit story to peddle through the corrupt media to get rid of OrangeManBad and elect a corrupt paid-China-puppet Socialist with absolutely demonstrable dimensia...

Ugh... It's amazing how two otherwise intelligent people can see and interpret the same exact thing, armed with their own version of "the truth" (whatever the {bleep} that is these days) and come to two completely different conclusions..

This is what's become wrong with America (and by-in-large the world as a whole)...
 
Wayne said:
On the First Amendment (all of it) I completely and wholeheartedly agree.

That being said, you have a society where "companies are considered people and have rights" (bullshit) and the fact that the First Amendment doesn't (necessarily) apply to a state or local government that chooses to impose their own standards of behavior. California is a sad but great example. Private companies (and even public ones) don't have to play by that rule either.

Now, because it kinda irks me, I have to call bullshit on your idea that Trump "caused an insurrection which killed people" but that's an argument for another day. If Seattle and all the other BLM bullshit was considered a "Peaceful protest" (where people died spuriously), the January 6th was absolutely no different. The ONLY difference is that instead of Seattle, it happened in Nancy's own "back yard" and gave the Democrats another bullshit story to peddle through the corrupt media to get rid of OrangeManBad and elect a corrupt paid-China-puppet Socialist with absolutely demonstrable dimensia...

Ugh... It's amazing how two otherwise intelligent people can see and interpret the same exact thing, armed with their own version of "the truth" (whatever the {bleep} that is these days) and come to two completely different conclusions..

This is what's become wrong with America (and by-in-large the world as a whole)...
Click to expand...

It's not a privately owned company, nor regulated as one.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top