Musk To Explore Potential Tender Offer for Twitter, Has $46.5B in Committed Financing for Deal (cnbc.com) 255
Elon Musk is exploring whether to commence a tender offer for Twitter, according to a new securities filing. From a report: The updated filing published on Thursday says Musk has received commitments for $46.5 billion to help finance the potential deal. Musk has not yet determined he will make a tender offer for Twitter or whether he will take other steps to further the proposal, the filing states.
seems like a good deal for shareholders (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I can get behind the idea that this wouldn't make Twitter better...
But I feel you're drastically overvaluing what Twitter is right now.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:3)
Twitter is not currently profitable but they are growing in revenue (I think something like $2B to $5B over the past few years) and active-monetizable-users year-over-year so shareholders could say that they feel that growth would be better under the status quo than under Musk.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing Musk has proposed would make Twitter better.
Well he did suggest removing the letter "w" from Twitter
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends when they bought. $54.20/share is good right now but even in just July '21 it was close to $70, so it will depend.
https://finance.yahoo.com/quot... [yahoo.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Which was at the height of the pandemic and idiots were thinking it would actually be worth something. That bubble popped pretty damn quick.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why they don't go for it, big guaranteed short-term gain. Take your profit and re-invest... windfall.
Because they think they'll make more in the long run. That's really the only financial reason. The other is that they don't believe Elon or think some other challenge will show up.
Let's be honest here, Elon is fond of saying a lot of things are going to happen that never materialize and aren't particularly likely to materialize. Remember Hyperloop? He said it's not anymore complex than an air hockey table! Super cheap tickets! Yeah, that hyperloop has totes killed air travel between LA & SFO / Vegas
Re: (Score:2)
Board (Score:2)
Probably because Twitter's Board of Directors hold very little Twitter stock (some don't own any) so they don't really care.
Re: (Score:2)
He's not exploring anything (Score:2)
We're about to find out what a completely unregulated stock market looks like. Buckle up kiddies it's going to be a fun ride.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk is known for playing investment games using rumors and hearsay, and has been partially sanctioned in the past. [sec.gov]
Twitter with a troll in charge is like a wolf running the hen house. I hope current owners and board can keep the creep out.
(It's not that Twitter is ran by wonderful people, it's just that Musk sucks more.)
Re: (Score:3)
Tendor Offer (Score:5, Informative)
Maybe it's just me but I had zero idea what a "tendor offer" was and neither the slashdot summary nor the source article were helpful at all in figuring that out. For those of you in the same boat.
How a Tender Offer Works
A tender offer often occurs when an investor proposes buying shares from every shareholder of a publicly traded company for a certain price at a certain time. The investor normally offers a higher price per share than the company’s stock price, providing shareholders a greater incentive to sell their shares.
https://www.investopedia.com/t... [investopedia.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I respect Musk (Score:3)
..even when he does unbelievably stupid stuff. Twitter is a distraction and a colossal waste of time and money. He should focus on doing useful stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Twitter is a distraction and a colossal waste of time and money.
While I'm inclined to agree with you, people have said that literally about every business venture Musk ever got into.
Could be worse (Score:2)
He could be exploring a potential Tinder offer for Twitter.
How does buying Twitter help (Score:2, Insightful)
Wanna prevent bad press? (Score:2)
Buy the press!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't change, the left did. He's pro-freedom and free speech. The left (well, liberals) used to be pro freedom, too. And, now they're not.
Re:Hard right turn (Score:5, Insightful)
The left (well, liberals) used to be pro freedom, too. And, now they're not.
The left is just barely smart enough to know that sometimes you have to give up some freedom in one area to get more freedom in another. The right doesn't even understand that fraud is already illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The right doesn't even understand that fraud is already illegal.
No, they understand. They just don't care 'cause they keep getting away with things -- former President #45 knows all about that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Twitter kicking people off their platform is infringing nobody’s speech.
Re:Hard right turn (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The first amendment only guarantees the government can’t infringe your speech. Twitter can allow or ban whoever they please. If Musk is unhappy with their terms he’s free to go elsewhere.
Re:Hard right turn (Score:5, Insightful)
He's also free to buy it and change those terms. In case you forgot.
Re: (Score:2)
The first amendment only guarantees the government can’t infringe your speech. Twitter can allow or ban whoever they please. If Musk is unhappy with their terms he’s free to go elsewhere.
Your newfound love of private companies is so touching. And yet ... there's this ...
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
Re: (Score:2)
Who says I love private companies? I’m telling someone from the party of law and order how the fundamentals of our government apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That failure called Truth Social most explicitly states you will be censored and/or banned if you criticize the site itself [newsweek.com] or the con artist. You can even get banned if you create an account which pokes fun at someone [techdirt.com]. It's even banned one anti-vax account (so far).
The site is such a failure, the con artist isn't even posting on it [mashable.com].
Re: (Score:2)
the idea that it would be better if everyone who wanted to be heard could be heard made sense when "wanted to be heard" involved some reasonable amount of friction. writing a letter, going out of your house to put it somewhere, appealing to people with limited bandwidth (newspapers, tv, radio) etc that your thoughts were rational, valuable, or interesting enough on a minimal baseline and going to this place to share your thoughts required both effort behind intent and some degree of social involvement/inves
Re:Hard right turn (Score:5, Informative)
Do you understand one of the fundamental reasons our founders held the freedom of speech to be such an important idea? Because they understood that limits on speech necessitated "gate keepers", who inevitably would abuse their position.
They had a healthy fear of tyranny, hence they created a government which celebrated the individual.
The proper response to "bad" speech is "good" speech, not the censor the "bad".
Re: (Score:2)
note that I did not endorse censorship as defined by the founders? censorship by private entities is not censorship of speech - it is a kind of friction that has always existed and is healthy in the "traditional" avenues of communication
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
The alternative being "anything goes" which 100% of the time results in being a safe haven for the types of speech nobody wants - hate speech, bigotry, homophobia, sexism, misogyny, racism, anti-Semitism, anti-(insert religion here), lies, intended misinformation, and purposefully offensive garbage.
Twitter was already headed there 5 years ago before they started taking out the trash. Every supposed competitor has devolved to that point. Why would Twitter suddenly be immune?
There would be no better way to
Re: (Score:2)
I understand the mechanics of it. I'm not really offering an opinion on it beyond it's not something to celebrate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's absolutely something to celebrate.
The freedom of speech has both a positive and a negative component.
You're focusing only on the positive side: that people ought to be able to say what they want, and aid in disseminating the speech of others, if they want. But you're missing the negative side, which is equally important: that people ought not to have to say things they don't want to say, and don't have to aid others in disseminating speech they don't want to be involved with.
It's vital to have and pro
Re: (Score:2)
A fair perspective, and as mentioned I support their rights in this regard.
I do feel there's an argument to be made regarding the "association" point; it's understood that information posted on twitter ( and indeed, most social media companies ) isn't endorsed by the company, that they're merely acting in a "bulletin board" capacity, but I don't know the legalese to describe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Association can be implicated without endorsement. Consider a restaurant that wants to be seen as upscale and swanky; it might have a dress code for diners, not because they care, but because it's relevant for the sort of place that the restaurant wants to be.
Likewise, Twitter might want to be a place that is inclusive for polite people who are respectful of others, but not tolerant of jerks, whether its jerks that spam the site or that post in support of bigotry or violence or what have you. (And with it
Re: (Score:2)
people ought not to have to say things they don't want to say, and don't have to aid others in disseminating speech they don't want to be involved with.
Like a baker wishing not to bake a particular cake then?
Re:Hard right turn (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't change, the left did. He's pro-freedom and free speech. The left (well, liberals) used to be pro freedom, too. And, now they're not.
BZZZT! Wrong answer thanks for playing! Twitter is a private company so unless you're saying a PRIVATE company should be required to disseminate content it doesn't agree with, or heck they just don't like you so they kick you out, then you're wrong. Think hard before you answer they should here folks. Why? There is follow-up to this and it's a doozy foolish conservatives and moron libertarians won't like about private media.
:You can use a platform* that will welcome you all. I know, I know, there's no libs there to own. Oh and they still won't let you post violent messages against those durty demonrats. However alternatives do exist, and conservative politicians/thinkers have announced the "air is much freer" over there, so get on over. After all, if you believe in the market, then you should be voting by closing down your Twitter account for a Gettr or Truth account.
Also let's not forget that conservatives are only pro free speech for conservatives. They LOVE, that's L-O-V-E shutting down everyone else and attacking companies that openly disagree with them about things. Conservatives (quite literally) invented modern "cancel culture" by trying to cancel anyone they found morally objectionable for decades now.
So please, tell me again about a private company kicking you off Twitter is ruining your freedom of speech. Did they say you couldn't use Gettr? Truth?
*Conservatives don't like Parler anymore after the company handed over PRIVATE user data to the FBI about Jan 6th. Durty traitors to the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing of the sort. I don't think private companies should be REQUIRED, but they should stand for free speech on principle. I'm also glad that Slashdot allows you to say whatever you want without being cancelled.
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing of the sort. I don't think private companies should be REQUIRED, but they should stand for free speech on principle. I'm also glad that Slashdot allows you to say whatever you want without being cancelled.
Post something violent, or try to incite an insurrection against the US government, and we'll see if Slashdot still let's you post. I'm kind of guessing that you won't be posting anything else on the site after they lock your account for violating TOS.
You still want to try and climb on that cross? You're not going to like the answers you get when I start posting all the times conservatives have tried to "cancel" their opposition over the last 50 years. I mean we can start with conservatives trying to ca
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot limits speech in various ways. Try posting in all caps or a bunch of numbers and the lameness filter will stop you. Same with certain words being blocked.
Accounts have been cancelled too over speech, first one I remember was ethanol-fueled for racist trolling. Others like APK have resulted in all kinds of filters ending up with no more pure AC posts.
While freedom of speech and all other types of expressions is a good goal, in practice, if you want a functioning site, the worst trolling and spamming
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BZZZT! Wrong answer thanks for playing! Twitter is a private company so unless you're saying a PRIVATE company should be required to disseminate content it doesn't agree with, or heck they just don't like you so they kick you out, then you're wrong. Think hard before you answer they should here folks. Why? There is follow-up to this and it's a doozy foolish conservatives and moron libertarians won't like about private media.
Your newfound love of private companies is so touching. And yet ...
It is “axiomatic,” the Supreme Court held in Norwood v. Harrison (1973), that the government “may not induce, encourage or promote private persons to accomplish what it is constitutionally forbidden to accomplish.”
Re: (Score:2)
They LOVE, that's L-O-V-E shutting down everyone else and attacking companies that openly disagree with them about things. Conservatives (quite literally) invented modern "cancel culture" by trying to cancel anyone they found morally objectionable for decades now.
Example: Republican Florida Governor Ron DeSantis vs Disney World.
Disney spoke out against the recently-signed "Don't Say Gay" bill, calling for it to be repealed, and *now* DeSantis wants to revoke the Reedy Creek Improvement District [wikipedia.org], the 25,000-acre development in Central Florida that houses Disney’s theme park created in 1967, and seek to eliminate Disney’s exemption to a previously- approved law aimed at cracking down on tech companies.
[Google: DeSantis Disney [google.com]]
Re: (Score:2)
BZZZT! Wrong answer thanks for playing! Twitter is a private company so unless you're saying a PRIVATE company should be required to disseminate content it doesn't agree with, or heck they just don't like you so they kick you out, then you're wrong. Think hard before you answer they should here folks. Why? There is follow-up to this and it's a doozy foolish conservatives and moron libertarians won't like about private media.
Please don't be stupid with this "private entity, lol" bullshit.
If the government sells all the roads to a private company which now maintains it for them, does that suddenly mean you can't have a demonstration anymore and the private company can decide to not allow you to drive on those roads? Just because they're privately owned doesn't mean they can't be a PUBLIC SPACE.
Anyone can sign up on Twitter. There is no membership fee, no vetting, no barriers to entry. They are not a private club, and they don't
Re:Hard right turn (Score:5, Insightful)
He is NOT pro free speech. In fact he talks about banning "spammers." For example, people who are just out to inform people about great crypto offers, how does he get to promote Doge coin and others can't promote their own crypto sales services?
Right wing used to be pro private property, but in 2020 they wanted to force twitter to allow right wing morons on there. Try calling a right-wing talk radio show and see if you can force them to air your viewpoint. If the right wing is so free speech how come we can't declare radio broadcasting an "essential service" like what they want to do with Twitter. i should be allowed to air my views on Fox & Friends and on Hannity.
You're going to tell me the guy who attacked (Score:2)
Elon Musk is pro Elon Musk. Nothing more and nothing less. He is not your friend or Ally. How many Teslas do you own? How many trips on SpaceX have you taken this year? How much longer until it all trickles down? Especially whe
Re: (Score:2)
And the right is pro freedom and pro free speech? How many math textbooks have they cancelled this year? Can teachers teach sex ed in Florida?
The left just boycotts entertainers they don't like, while the right actually censors books and speech.
Re: (Score:2)
What speech and freedomz are liberals against?
Re: (Score:3)
This is insightful and criticism is flame bait? Slashdot has always had a libertarian bent, but this is absurd. This comment is another example of the right delegitimizing the left, which will later be used to justify their violence.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder how pro-freedom he is with union organizers and others who criticize working conditions at his companies or that fact that Tesla is hostile to anyone who wants to buy parts or repair their own vehicle
Re: (Score:2)
He's pro-freedom and free speech.
He's pro-"let me do whatever I want, whenever I want" and actively complaining about the fact that society, even the US, always has some limits on freedoms and speech -- even for rich people. Poor Elon, the SEC won't let him manipulate the market w/his Tweets ... Give me a break.
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't change, the left did. He's pro-freedom and free speech. The left (well, liberals) used to be pro freedom, too. And, now they're not.
Freedom isn't just a simple scalar you can vary between 0 and 1.
Consider that Bob lives in a small town and has a set of beliefs you strongly disapprove of (non-specific because Liberal or Conservative there's beliefs you disapprove of).
Should employers be free to not employ Bob because of those beliefs? Should businesses be free not to serve him? Perhaps you think yes, but what happens if a significant portion of the townsfolk say they'll boycott any business that serves or employs Bob?
What if Alice and Ev
Re: (Score:2)
He didn't change, the left did. He's pro-freedom and free speech. The left (well, liberals) used to be pro freedom, too. And, now they're not.
The entire political spectrum flipped around. The right massively expanded government surveillance during the war on terror. However, during COVID the flip has really become apparent when the left closed businesses and instituted mandates. It seems both parties believe the end justifies the means.
It's also important to realize that most people identify with a party, [wikipedia.org] and then form their opinion on a topic. The rare people that form an opinion first seem strange to everyone else.
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
Really. So the guys looking to supplant the vote of the citizens with "alternate electors" chosen by nobody at all are somehow "pro freedom" now?
Re:Hard right turn (Score:5, Informative)
The word you're looking for is "patriot". Your vague threats of "consequences" have no power any more. You communist faggots have done your worst, and it was not enough to break us.
You're not a patriot. You're a nationalist. Get your terms correct.
A patriot says "I love my country, and it can be even better."
A nationalist says "My country can do no wrong."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hard right turn (Score:4, Insightful)
Whatever Musk is doing is for his benefit. You think he really gives a shit about anyone else?
So the reason why hard right voices get silenced (Score:2)
Censorship is a good thing in some cases whether you like it or not. Speech that actively encourages violence
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because the NYPost did not do the due diligence on the original information and pushed it out at a very sensitive time during the late election season at the behest of the Presidents lawyer (who in fact stated he did not not a thorough analysis of it before the story was published.
Now does that make what Twitter did good? No, not really and Jack Dorsey has said himself it was the wrong way to go about it but what the NYPost was doing was a bit too transparent at the wrong time so it got people spooked. The
Re: (Score:2)
Because the NYPost did not do the due diligence on the original information and pushed it out at a very sensitive time during the late election season at the behest of the Presidents lawyer (who in fact stated he did not not a thorough analysis of it before the story was published.
Now does that make what Twitter did good? No, not really and Jack Dorsey has said himself it was the wrong way to go about it but what the NYPost was doing was a bit too transparent at the wrong time so it got people spooked. The fact that no reporters were willing to put their name on the initial story speaks to that.
Also do you know which news org actually verified the fact the fact that some of the contents were in fact real, who actually hired forensic analysts to look over all the available information? Which one actually provided the talking point that you can now claim it is "proven" (even though the chain of custody is far from proven). Hint hint it was not the NYPost, it was those "libcucks" at the Washington Post.
In my estimation if the NYPost had put half the actual journalistic work into the story that WaPo did it probably would have sailed through, but that doesn't make an October surprise.
The story was true and supportable with evidence. Twitter did no research and just pulled the account. Your comment requires that Twitter investigated, It is readily apparent that they did not. (neither did Facebook). Since the rest of your argument rests on this false foundation, your conclusion can not possibly be valid.
Re: (Score:2)
Supportable with evidence that was not provided at the time of publication. Evidence that only became clear long after the inital story due to the aforementioned lack of investigative reporting.
No other news org had the drives, the NYPost did not provide images of the drives for outside verification, no chain of custody for where the laptop came from (even today the computer shop story has mile wide holes in it), no individual reporters names on the original story and the prime person behind all thi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder if that's part of it, right there.
Re: (Score:2)
He's just got sour grapes. He wanted to be special, to not follow the rules that everyone else has to follow. "Please make an exception for me, because I am the one and only Elon Musk!"
Re: (Score:2)
Lots of people/orgs seek special treatment, some get it... how does that make him any different than anyone else?
Might help if you were more specific.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think he's gone hard right. Rather, he's a social liberal guy with a lot of really weird ideas (that are getting weirder).
Most people stay normal by having regular confrontations with reality.
Highly successful people are able to form their own reality, and if they're not careful they end up getting odder and odder.
With the COVID-19 he's basically falling into the classic misinformation trap where you get shown a few out-of-context facts and are left to draw the "obvious" conclusion that the scientis
Re: (Score:2)
he paints himself as free speech absolutist, in reality he's just a naive priviledged technocrat who enjoys the freedom of not having to be vested in the consequences of his stated ideals. trying to pin him down on a gradient of partisan politics is pointless
anybody who thinks that the problem with the about of sewage on the internet is that there's not enough allowance for conflicting thought, debate, etc is not all that bright wrt to the issue, and this is going to get much worse with the deployment of au
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so your solution is to regulate the marketplace of ideas in a fashion to the way the Soviet Union regulated the marketplace of products? How'd that work out after 1991? Or perhaps we should create a group of people, a caste of hierophants, and they can decide what ideas we the great unwashed masses should be allowed
What Musk has become (Score:2)
Ever since California and Fremont started treating him like shit...
That's an interesting way to put that. I'd put it more like "ever since California and Fremont started treating his companies exactly like every other company in California..."
He's become quite similar to a lot of America's other wealthiest individuals. He likely honestly believes he is entirely self made rather then the beneficiary of massive amounts of government assistance, from direct financial assistance, to American infrastructure (Tesla's need roads to drive on), and on to education. As a new found "
Re: (Score:2)
We could summarize Tesla's early days as being a fledgling company that was heavily dependent on incentives and credits being pushed by the left. As such, it made sense for it to align its messaging with the environmental and societal interests of left-leaning consumers (e.g. EVs are good for the environment, Tesla saved the jobs of factory workers who had been laid off at their Fremont plant by its previous owner, etc.) and base its operations out of a left-leaning state that provided the best blend of fin
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
Amazed at all the pro free speech people censoring my comment.
Re: Hard right turn (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
Is the US constitution explicitly against Africa- Americans running for president?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, when they are in fact born in Africa :D.
Re: (Score:2)
Is the US constitution explicitly against Africa- Americans running for president?
No - it's probably that he isn't a natural born citizen. I mean that seems like a disqualifying item to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Where in the constitution does it say a natural born citizen is prohibited from running for President?
Well, if you are not eligible for the office, how would trying to be elected to it not be fraud?
Here is the relevant article as written -
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Here is a short commenta
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
If you cannot hold the office without constitutional amendment, then why would a major party nominate you?
Re: Hard right turn (Score:5, Informative)
He can run, he just wouldn't be listed on the ballot in a number of states or take office if he did somehow win. Given the speculation that he's just doing the Twitter purchase as a lark, who is to say he wouldn't do the same thing with a political run too?
Rather than try to predict the future on much of this, I'm just going to sit back and enjoy my popcorn.
"The Constitution lists only three qualifications for the Presidency — the President must be at least 35 years of age, be a natural born citizen, and must have lived in the United States for at least 14 years. "
https://www.whitehouse.gov/abo... [whitehouse.gov].
Reading is Fundamental
Re: Bootstrap Procedure? (Score:3)
No it was in the original.
they were both born in the british american colonies.
American declared independce in 1776 fought the british until 1781, and the constituion was created in 1789 with washington being elected in 1791(?). So the 14 year rule was barely able to squeak by.
Why do so many people forget it took 10 years of articles of confederation. That is basically the states are sovergin failing to get along to force the constituion down their throats.
Learn some history.
I wont touch the 35 year
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Washington and Jefferson were natural born Americans. The definition of natural born is born on the land the country governs (the dominion of) and with allegiance to the United States. While there was never any question in the 1800's, this has been clarified in a Supreme Court Case Lynch v. Clark in 1844, which has been cited as precedent so many times as to be the effective legal definition of natural born citizen.
By that definition, every one of the fra
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a "rule", it's in the constitution itself.
"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"
Now you might quibble that 0 people were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, but cearly the people at that time all felt that they were now citizens of the states, and therefore citizens of the USA as well. The point that is important is not ju
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Reading is, as is understanding what you've read, not to mention basic reasoning skills.
It is perfectly legal (though unlikely) for Elon Musk tomorrow to announce his candidacy for President of the United States and actively campaign for the office... even though he does not meet one of the qualifications to hold that office, which you noted. The constitutional qualification does not preclude one from saying they are doing so, no matter how impossible of a task it is.
A number of states have laws which only allow qualified persons to listed on a ballot, so ballot access would be a problem, granted Lisa Murkowski won her senate seat in 2010 in a state-wide write in campaign, so a massive write-in campaign is possible, though also unlikely.
In the unlikely event he announced, and some massive write in campaign which actually sees him win enough votes, and the various states actually transmit their electoral votes to congress with his name as the winner... then during the January 6th counting we'd see the challenging which Trump fans were hoping for, invalidating the results and the house choosing a new President.
Even if his run was hand in hand with a constitutional amendment to modify or remove the natural born citizen requirement, it's extremely unlikely it'd be ratified in time for him to take office. That's not the point.
The point is... so many are so sure what he's going to do, others thinking him dumb for this or that, meanwhile, I'm sitting back with popcorn enjoying the hysterics... to which you've contributed by missing the point.
Wow - you just want to win.
Your argument is total [CENSORED]...
You can not run anywhere if you do not quality. This is a federal requirement and pre-empts state requirements. FULL STOP
this is from the library of congress. it uses smaller words.
"Legal requirements for presidential candidates have remained the same since the year Washington accepted the presidency. As directed by the Constitution, a presidential candidate must be a natural born citizen of the United States, a resident for 14 years,
Re: (Score:3)
I've got to say, if the last decade or so has taught me anything regarding US politics, it's that very little we thought was certain in US law actually is when it comes down to practice. Basically, nearly everyone will tell you that X is clearly illegal and can't be done, and no-one would ever do it anyway. Then someone does it and, all of a sudden, it is not so clearly illegal any more and everyone is unsure. Also, any legal process to determine it takes years longer than whatever it is to run its course.
Re: (Score:3)
Jesus tap dancing christ, stop trying to win the argument
You do realize I'm not the original poster you replied to, right? That was my first post on the thread. Maybe you should just read the comment and actually pay attention to what was said and by who.
You cannot run for president if you do not meet the criteria set in the constitution. Period. You cannot appear on any state ballot and if you are written in, the votes will be thrown out.
You're right in the same sense that you would be right to say that you cannot run a brokerage firm by just taking people's money, claiming to have invested it with a high return, and just using money from new investors to fake the returns. It's illegal and there are all sorts of regulatory mechanisms, most of whi
Re: Hard right turn (Score:2)
No, he cannot. Nobody born on foreign soul can without constitutional amendment.
Holy shit do people not get basic government learning in high school anymore?
Re: (Score:2)
It has nothing to do with losing empathy. Accumulating wealth is hard work; grit, sweat, and tears. Then once you achieve success you are vilified instead of celebrated. You are told you are only wealthy because you exploited people and that you should not be able to keep what you have earned and it should be given to people who did not earn it.
People are going to empathize with people who vilify them. In fact, the opposite will occur.
So in the end, who is it that doesn’t have the empathy? The wealthy
Re: (Score:2)
Correction:
People aren’t going to empathize with people who vilify them. In fact, the opposite will occur.
Re: (Score:2)
All this to block the high school kid who tracks Elon’s private jet flights on Twitter. I guarantee Musk would start banning or blocking people after buying Twitter.