Monica Showalter has it at American Thinker: Has Elon Musk stumbled into some scandalous truths about Twitter? Other’s have hinted at this aspect, but Showalter—following Sundance—goes deep. My one reservation is that Musk himself has benefited mightily from federal money, as I understand the situation. Still, subsidies for cars are one thing and subsidies for censoring the information flow to the subject population is quite another thing.
The only way anything makes sense is I divide the cabal into two loosely affiliated but powerful wings -- globalists/ foreign policy / 4th branch/ neocon and progressives./ Politicians / activists. The two wings are Distinct. Not everyone in government is in a wing but both wings hold such sway that everyone else not in one of these camps feels compelled to go along for their best interest or are powerless to oppose. Obama is in the politician wing, Clintons are in the politician wing,, Blackrock, neocons state department is in the foreign policy globalist wing, bluto Barr is in the globalist wing. The progressive / politician/ activist
wing is the lesser, or "appearances" wing, the globalist/ forreign policy bankster wing is the power wing. The wings have struck deals and hold cards against each other. Durham in this sense is a card the globalist wing holds against the political wing. Hunter's laptop investigation as well. Election 2020 as well. Trump isn't in either wing. Nor I suppose is Musk. Anyone not in one of the wings finds himself in a David vs Goliaths situation. That's how it makes sense to me
I've been saying it for years. Twitter is not financially self-sustaining. They are spending a lot of money, constantly, from someone. At this point, it's hard to believe that would be "investors" hoping to someday turn a profit. It makes much more sense that Twitter is doing exactly what it's being paid to do. Like Google or Facebook, but more so. (I believe Google makes a profit.) Who can foot that bill?
As for Musk, that guy's a spook. Rather, he's a front for something spooky.
I haven’t a clue on the who funds it question. I’m marinating on the article.
I’ve long had questions as to how Facebook could buy up competitors for enormous sums of money when it was still private, and long before it was actually making any money, some before it had any real revenue.
Twitter hasn’t bought up much, but a company loosing hundreds of millions a year, that pre-Musk had accumulated $800million in liability reserves - which based on the footnote appear to be mostly related to shareholder lawsuits - isn’t worth a market capitalization of 10x to 30x its revenue. There is no path to reasonable profit margins, if profit margins at all.
The move to pass a poison pill, almost guaranteed to tank the stock, opens up the door to an insane shareholder class action lawsuit. Since Twitter doesn’t appear able to actually pay it, the deep pockets for individual investors and pension plans are the institutional investors like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street.
I suppose the institutional managers could end up backing Musk’s push to purchase at escape liability, but with a poison pill now on the table, why would Musk offer to buy their shares?
Based on the economics the market value of social media companies have long been detached from the fundamentals. The absolutely hysterical reaction shows neither the board, nor the CEO, seem particularly concerned about causing predictable financial harm to the shareholders, much less running the company in their best interest.
The fact they’d take on the liability and destroy the company by unanimous board vote shows there is something else going on, and almost certainly cabal-style money beyond comprehension.
In the same spirit as Mark's words above, while I'd still have to see some hard, or at least strong circumstantial, evidence the govt were in on Twitter as the article suggests it may be, the mere fact I don't reject the possibility out of hand is a night and day difference from where I would have been just a few short years ago.
I've been given no reason to believe Twitter can't cover it's costs and make a tidy profit through all the ads it sells, but I'm open to argument this isn't the case if anyone goes beyond mere speculation and actually ends up making such an argument.
The only way anything makes sense is I divide the cabal into two loosely affiliated but powerful wings -- globalists/ foreign policy / 4th branch/ neocon and progressives./ Politicians / activists. The two wings are Distinct. Not everyone in government is in a wing but both wings hold such sway that everyone else not in one of these camps feels compelled to go along for their best interest or are powerless to oppose. Obama is in the politician wing, Clintons are in the politician wing,, Blackrock, neocons state department is in the foreign policy globalist wing, bluto Barr is in the globalist wing. The progressive / politician/ activist
wing is the lesser, or "appearances" wing, the globalist/ forreign policy bankster wing is the power wing. The wings have struck deals and hold cards against each other. Durham in this sense is a card the globalist wing holds against the political wing. Hunter's laptop investigation as well. Election 2020 as well. Trump isn't in either wing. Nor I suppose is Musk. Anyone not in one of the wings finds himself in a David vs Goliaths situation. That's how it makes sense to me
I've been saying it for years. Twitter is not financially self-sustaining. They are spending a lot of money, constantly, from someone. At this point, it's hard to believe that would be "investors" hoping to someday turn a profit. It makes much more sense that Twitter is doing exactly what it's being paid to do. Like Google or Facebook, but more so. (I believe Google makes a profit.) Who can foot that bill?
As for Musk, that guy's a spook. Rather, he's a front for something spooky.
http://mileswmathis.com/musk.pdf
I haven’t a clue on the who funds it question. I’m marinating on the article.
I’ve long had questions as to how Facebook could buy up competitors for enormous sums of money when it was still private, and long before it was actually making any money, some before it had any real revenue.
Twitter hasn’t bought up much, but a company loosing hundreds of millions a year, that pre-Musk had accumulated $800million in liability reserves - which based on the footnote appear to be mostly related to shareholder lawsuits - isn’t worth a market capitalization of 10x to 30x its revenue. There is no path to reasonable profit margins, if profit margins at all.
The move to pass a poison pill, almost guaranteed to tank the stock, opens up the door to an insane shareholder class action lawsuit. Since Twitter doesn’t appear able to actually pay it, the deep pockets for individual investors and pension plans are the institutional investors like Blackrock, Vanguard, State Street.
I suppose the institutional managers could end up backing Musk’s push to purchase at escape liability, but with a poison pill now on the table, why would Musk offer to buy their shares?
Based on the economics the market value of social media companies have long been detached from the fundamentals. The absolutely hysterical reaction shows neither the board, nor the CEO, seem particularly concerned about causing predictable financial harm to the shareholders, much less running the company in their best interest.
The fact they’d take on the liability and destroy the company by unanimous board vote shows there is something else going on, and almost certainly cabal-style money beyond comprehension.
In the same spirit as Mark's words above, while I'd still have to see some hard, or at least strong circumstantial, evidence the govt were in on Twitter as the article suggests it may be, the mere fact I don't reject the possibility out of hand is a night and day difference from where I would have been just a few short years ago.
I've been given no reason to believe Twitter can't cover it's costs and make a tidy profit through all the ads it sells, but I'm open to argument this isn't the case if anyone goes beyond mere speculation and actually ends up making such an argument.
Expose the percentages of Twitter shares ownership in detail and include Chinese and Russian percentages. (the Saudi Kingdom itself owns 5.2%).
Percentages of ownership of major news outlets would be next thing to look at.
Then let's ask ourselves why all major "news" outlets embed Twitter quotes in all of their stories.
Who benefits from all of this censorship?