Wrestleknownothing

I am left to wonder why Musk acquired Twitter. It wasn't for the employees most of whom he fired, it wasn't for the code that he regularly trashes, it wasn't the brand which he just changed. There are networking benefits, but he seems to be subverting those too. It seems like he could have started from scratch and spent a lot less than $44 billion. That would still have left Twitter as a competitor to deal with, but probably would not have emboldened Zuckerberg to create a competitor (or maybe that is wrong).

Does anyone use Truth Social? It just got a boost from the SPAC that plans to acquire it (DWAC) settling a fraud charge with the SEC.

I understand what you are saying. It is a very difficult speech to parse because it rambles painfully, as Trump often does not finish his sentences, or says nonsensical things. He also frequently says one thing and the opposite thing in the very same sentence. I look at it this way. He was speaking directly to this audience. He was not addressing Congress or Mike Pence or anyone else. And he was imploring them to march while using inflammatory language. It is my personal opinion that his own actions should disqualify him from office. But he has not been tried, nor convicted of any offense that would make that official. As it stands he is free to run for the Presidency, I just think he should not.

I would not call this a comprehensive list but starting with the call to the Georgia secretary of state find votes so that he could overturn the Georgia results, followed by his setting up Pence as a fall guy for refusing to defy the Constitution, followed by his rambling speech at the Capitol that day where he claims the election was stolen so many times I got tired of counting, while using language like "Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated." And "And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore." And "We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country." Then after shouting the equivalent of fire in a crowded theater he resisted several requests for him to snuff out the fire he lit.

Trump's single greatest policy failure was his attempt to block the peaceful transition of power. This is so fundamental to the proper functioning of a democracy that no other policy is of remotely similar consequence.

Your sense of humor is unmatched.

To quote Ernie McCarcken when he wins the million dollars, "All I know is I finally got enough money I can buy my way out of anything. I can do anything I want. And I can get myself a lawyer. And I'll walk. Finally, Big Ern is above the law."

You aren't a ctiminal until after the trial. At a bail hearing you are just the accused.

So, why are they ducking Iowa?

Have you read Robert Caro's biographies of LBJ? In "Means of Ascent" he tells an amazing story of Johnson having his first election stolen from him (by Lone Star beer of all entities) and then using what he learned there to successfully steal his next election. He put in just enough fake votes to win earning him the sarcastic nickname Landslide Lyndon. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Box_13_scandal

Market manipulation, as a matter of law, requires a trade to have occured. Marking an private security to market is not a trade. And even if a trade were to occur, there are exceptions to most situations when both parties are accredited investors (all Twitter owners are accredited). Accredited investors are deemed able to fend for themselves. Though there was a fascinating ruling this week in the Ripple cryptocurrency case that essentially turns the concept on its head. It will certainly be appealled.

Can't manipulate something that doesn't have a market.

No, writing it down is not taxable. These are unrealized losses. There is not taxable event until they sell. And they are part of customer assets, not their own. As for selling, doubtful. Kathy Wood says she wants to buy more. Seems like there is a trade there. Fideilty thinks it is 35 cents in the dollar and Wood says she is a buyer at 53 cents on the dollar. Why not buy Fidelity's stake? Fidelity must not want to sell either.

No, Sir. But I have always been involved in finance in a variety of capacities.

My first boss out of college did the NY Times puzzle every day. He was pretty proud of how easy it was for him. He also use to say about dumb guys, "he couldn't spell cat if you spotted him the c and the a. So one day I am doing a crossword puzzle and one of the answers is cat. I finish the puzzle except for the t which I leave blank. I take the puzzle in his office and tell him I am struggling with the last word and need his help. He looks pretty self satisfied until he looks at the puzzle, gives me a disgusted look, and throws it at me.

Kathy Wood said the other day that her firm has written down their Twitter stake 47%, but would buy more at these valuations as she still believes in the long term potential. Previously, Fidelity had written down their stake by ~65%. And Musk said that Twitter is cash flow negative because advertising revenue is down 50% (though he didn't say from where, other estimates had it down 89% from pre-deal levels earlier this year) and the debt load is heavy. Current interest rates on the three debt tranches range from 9.8% to 15.1%. So why not go public? As a private company the only thing that matters is cash flow. But as a public company no one is better at creating a meme stock than Elon Musk. There are hoards of loyal Musk followers who would gladly subscribe to the IPO. The stock would surely trade higher in public markets than private. The con argument is that no private company likes to do a down round, but it sure seems like it is better to issue stock and pay off the high interest rate debt at this point.

But you can rely on Chicago voter rolls to establish someone is dead

BS. Tupac's not dead.

Peacefully and patriotically? No.

None of the other 44 attempt to interfere with the peaceful transition of power. Perhaps those facts are related.

You are right. I was needlessly harsh there. Prior to 1878 and the building of the first successful oil tanker, this was a true statement. Today? Not so much. Did you mean prior to 1878?

I heard you got DQ'd because you wouldn't put the pen down.

This is really dumb.

Homeless guys on drugs are notoriously reliable narrators.