ChiGoose
-
Posts
4,337 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by ChiGoose
-
-
37 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
And your solution is to have society live by only the rules that ChiGoose wants us to? Patience…this will work itself out.
Nah, just keep the guardrails of Roe and Casey in place.
Also, why don't you go tell those people who have to spend money on plane tickets just to get proper care to be patient?
-
Twitter sues Musk after he tries backing out of $44 billion deal
QuoteTwitter sued Elon Musk on Tuesday to force the billionaire to complete his $44 billion acquisition of the company, setting the stage for a prolonged legal battle over the fate of the social media service.
QuoteAt the heart of the case is the issue of disclosure. To terminate the deal, Mr. Musk claimed that Twitter balked at handing over information about spam bots, also known as fake accounts, on the platform. He repeatedly said he did not believe the company’s public statements that roughly 5 percent of its active users are bots. Twitter intentionally misled the public, he said, and obstructed his efforts to get more information about how it accounts for the figures. Mr. Musk has also taken aim at Twitter for not giving warning before recently firing two key executives.
But Mr. Musk signed a legally binding agreement with Twitter. And in that contract, Twitter included a specific performance clause that allows it to sue to force the deal through, so long as the debt that the billionaire has corralled for the acquisition is in place.
In a letter to Mr. Musk’s lawyers on Sunday, Twitter’s lawyers said that his move to terminate the deal was “invalid and wrongful” and that Mr. Musk “knowingly, intentionally, willfully and materially breached” his agreement to buy the firm. The company has said that it is confident in its figures about spam accounts, and that it uses experts in spam to audit the count and ensure its accuracy.
Still, Mr. Musk’s threat of walking away could bring Twitter back to the negotiating table, allowing the billionaire to buy the company at a discount. Mr. Musk’s reluctance to proceed with the Twitter deal has coincided with a significant dip in the value of many Silicon Valley companies, including Tesla, his electric vehicle company, which is the main source of his wealth.
The two sides could also settle. Or they could pay a $1 billion breakup fee and walk away, an option allowed only under certain circumstances, such as if Mr. Musk’s financing fell through.
QuoteThe case may then move to a trial, though there is a chance the judge assigned to the case will dismiss Mr. Musk’s efforts to walk away. If the suit proceeds to trial, the judge will decide whether Twitter’s disclosures were insufficient and constituted a material harm to the deal. The process is likely to take months.
In the past, Delaware’s Chancery Court has prevented companies from trying to walk away from deals. In 2001, for example, when Tyson Foods tried to back out of an acquisition of the meatpacker IBP, the court ruled that Tyson had to follow through with the agreement. In situations where the court has allowed buyers to exit, it has required them to pay damages. By most readings of Twitter’s contract with Mr. Musk, damages would be capped at $1 billion.
-
54 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
100% Mitch McConnell. The old toad is exactly the same Machiavellian schemer at 80 as he’s always been
100% Chuck Schumer. Same. But he’s only 70.
Don't disagree, but I just found it kind of funny to have these two next to each other. Schumer may not have lost his "fastball", but Mitch has been throwing 105 MPH heaters his whole career while Chuck has been topping out at 80 MPH the whole time.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, 716er said:nobody cares about the 1/6 committee, though
It's a deflection tactic, but clearly it's not true:
Almost 6 in 10 say they are following Jan 6 committee's work closely
QuoteThe poll, published on Thursday, found that 58 percent of respondents said they are following the committee’s hearings closely, with 26 percent following the hearings “very” closely and 32 percent following the hearings “somewhat” closely.
-
3 minutes ago, Doc said:
It was the least secure election in modern times. The Dems just like to say it was "the most secure election in history" so that they can gaslight people into believing it was.
That line actual came from a Trump appointee.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, BillStime said:
Wait, did Trump attempt to tamper with a witness this week? If this is true, he's even dumber than I've thought.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
You take that then. Again there’s plenty of evidence but you aren’t listening to those syndicated national radio hosts ( not internet randos ). Now I loooooove my pillow though. Top notch products and made in America !
It's so weird how any time someone who promotes these claims has to talk under oath, they stop promoting them. Except Sidney Powell, I suppose.
So in the world of people who will talk about this under oath, you can have:
- Sidney Powell
And I'll take:
- Trump's DoJ
- Trump's Campaign
- Trump's White House Lawyers
- The election administrators
- The courts overseeing the election lawsuits
- Basically anyone who isn't Sidney Powell
- Rudy Giuliani during one of the court cases when he said it wasn't fraud
Yeah, I think I'm pretty happy with my side of the equation on this topic.
-
1
-
1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:
This is what took place. If you want to believe the testimony of political creatures who may have personal beefs with Trump etc then do so. Fraudulent unverifiable paper ballots were used. Everyone knows this because we were all told well before the election that they were being used and allowed because of “ Covid safety”.
I'll take the sworn testimony from Trump's handpicked DoJ leadership over some rando on the internet.
But if you're looking for comfy products from someone who agrees with you in earnest and is definitely not promoting the same theories as a grift, you can try this promo code for a deal:
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, wnyguy said:
Also we were left to believe that former Vice President Joe Biden received 81 MILLION votes. 81 MILLION.
Not hard to believe. Most Americans were tired of Trump's crap. Enough Republicans defected that there is now an entire industry for Never-Trump Republicans.
2020 was the first time that I personally voted for a Democrat for president, and I wasn't alone in that.
-
2
-
-
3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
Perhaps some political creatures who want to stay in Washington at all costs would testify such things but that’s about it. None of this was ever investigated fully as the Dem establishment prevented anyone from actually doing so. Again , they’re excuse was built in - there is no “ evidence” . There’s plenty of evidence if you want to find it. The official line is repeated ad infinitum to dismiss it. Everyone knows the unverifiable unrequested paper ballots were used. It’s common knowledge- Cuomo and corrupt NYS were one of the first to allow it. Are you saying that none of this happened ? We all saw it and heard it when it was announced.
We have testimony from Bill Barr and his deputies that they investigated every claim of fraud that was raised and found them all to be without merit.
So is it your assertion that they were all committing perjury, or that somehow nobody raised the particular theory your are espousing to them?
Or is it that Trump's hand-picked DoJ leadership were secret Dem deep state globalist illuminati baby eaters?
-
2
-
-
1 minute ago, Boatdrinks said:
Yes there was. Swing states were flooded with unrequested and unverifiable paper ballots. The “ need “ for this was pushed by the Dems immediately after the emergence of Sars2. They knew Trump was on a collision course to overwhelming victory in November of 2020 and were determined to cheat to stop it. It’s pretty obvious and not hard to figure out. The fact the ballots were unverifiable was their built in excise - there is no evidence! Even though stuffing the ballot box is one of the oldest trucks of all time.
All of this is BS.
We now have sworn testimony that these claims were investigated and found to be without merit by Trump's DoJ, Trump's campaign, and Trump's White House lawyers.
If you still believe this, then are you saying that all of those people, whose jobs counted on Trump winning, committed perjury by saying that he did not win? That, for some reason, they decided to lie under oath that they had investigated the fraud claims and found them to be baseless?
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, wnyguy said:
We know what happened, there was a rigged and fraudulent election that took place in November 2020. That's what lead to the protest. We didn't need this politicized circus to understand that.
No there wasn't.
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, T&C said:
What is the purpose of these hearings? I mean, what kind of endgame are these people looking for? Seems like a big waste of time... at this point in time.
To understand what happened that lead to the events of January 6th and make it clear to the nation who was responsible.
Considering that they have sworn testimony from almost everyone in the upper echelon of the Trump admin, campaign, and DoJ that the election was not stolen, but people today still believe it and we even have candidates running on that complete BS, I feel like it's a good idea to keep hammering that point home as well.
-
1
-
-
2 minutes ago, BillStime said:
idiots
Texas has its own grid specifically so that it evades federal regulations.
Cruz knows he's lying but, like many GOP politicians, he thinks people who support him are too dumb to realize he's playing them.
I saw this tweet the other day from a candidate for Lt. Gov that does a good explainer of what is going on with the Texas grid:
-
1
-
-
Doctors Report Compromising Care Out of Fear of Texas Abortion Law
QuoteDoctors worried about getting sued under Texas’ restrictive abortion law have delayed treating pregnancy complications until patients’ lives were in danger, according to a paper from the Texas Policy Evaluation Project.
QuoteAlthough Texas’ abortion law contains an exemption to save the life of the pregnant patient, doctors said it was unevenly and insufficiently applied.
“People have to be on death’s door to qualify for maternal exemptions” to Texas’ current law, one maternal-fetal medicine specialist told the paper’s authors.
Doctors reported that they have postponed abortion care until a patient’s health or pregnancy complication has deteriorated to the point that their life was in danger, including multiple cases where patients were sent home, only to return once they were in sepsis.
And even when patients were able to qualify for an abortion under the life-saving exemption, some doctors report being unable to get nurses or anesthesiologists to assist on these procedures for fear that they will be seen as “aiding and abetting” in an abortion, which is prohibited by the law.
In some cases, doctors said they have avoided standard abortion methods, like a dilation and evacuation, and instead used less common surgical methods or induction to avoid risking a lawsuit.
“Physicians have said that they don’t feel like they can offer the standard medical interventions that are the standard of care across the United States,” said Whitney Arey, the lead researcher on the paper. “That’s resulted in people using less common or outdated practices because it might not be construed as performing an abortion.”
QuoteAll of the doctors interviewed said their hospitals have prohibited multifetal reduction, by which doctors preserve the health of the pregnancy by reducing the number of fetuses a patient is carrying.
Clinicians also reported confusion over whether they can even counsel patients on abortion as an option or direct them to out-of-state clinics.
A 39-year-old woman told TxPEP that her doctor would not discuss abortion options with her after she received a significant fetal diagnosis.
QuoteAnother patient whose water broke at 19 weeks of pregnancy had to decide between waiting to see if she could access care in Texas or getting on a plane to get an abortion elsewhere. She ended up taking the risk of flying out of state while experiencing a significant health emergency.
Yup, the solution is definitely to trust that state legislatures will find a common sense solution that does not cause confusion or endanger lives. Because that's definitely working out well in Texas...
-
The difference here between Hubble and James Webb is astounding:
https://twitter.com/erinbiba/status/1546624746598563840?s=21&t=SSkcrrPeitAR_FB0lukKLA
-
23 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:
Well, thanks for bringing the crazy back just as a rational discussion was about to emerge.
There is absolutely nothing supporting a theory that Biden is some kind of empty suit and that some other advisors/entities are really running the government.
My opinion: he is too old to run again, and he’s showing the typical slippage of a nearly 80 year old. But that doesn’t mean he’s incompetent in any medical sense. It just means there are younger possible candidates who are better suited to be President in 2025. And yes, the same thing applies to Trump, and clearly in retrospect to 2nd term Reagan. I’d like to see a constitutional amendment making anyone over a certain age — I’d say 70, but you could convince me to go a couple years more—from assuming the office. We have a rather arbitrary minimum age of 35, so why not a maximum age?Many have forgotten (hah! That’s dementia for ya) or are too young to know that Reagan: (1) agreed, in the campaign, to take periodic mental acuity tests, and that promise was quickly ignored once he was sworn in; (2) left office in Jan 1989 bemoaning the fact that the 22nd Amendment barred a third term. What a disaster for the country if that Amendment had never passed and Reagan had been elected again, clearly showing signs of dementia by the early 1990s. We ought to think ahead on this one.
We need some serious electoral reforms and while a maximum age wouldn't be at the top of my list, it's a darn good idea and would probably be broadly popular.
-
2
-
-
Wasn't Monticello a plantation?
-
1
-
-
9 minutes ago, 716er said:
well his legal fight didn't last long, eh
He didn't have much of a leg to stand on, honestly.
-
40 minutes ago, SoCal Deek said:
Was it Is there another buyer? How is anyone damaged here?
As far as I know, there is not another buyer lined up. But Twitter's stock price has taken quite the hit since this whole ordeal started. There is no guarantee that it will rebound upon resolution (whatever that may be). As a public company, Twitter has a fiduciary duty to its shareholders, so it's possible that the board will be sued for mismanagement that led to the stock drop.
If the stock price remains low, it is possible that another buyer comes in at a price lower than $44 billion and buys Twitter.
In any case, the board has made a solid case that it should be replaced. Either by Musk upon acquisition, or, if he does not end up buying it, then they should be forced to resign and replaced by people who would be better stewards.
As an aside, Musk planned on leveraging some of his Tesla stock to finance the deal and since then, Tesla's stock has also plummeted (which makes the Twitter deal less affordable to Musk). There is an outside chance at a similar shareholder lawsuit on behalf of Tesla stockholders but that seems less like than the one for Twitter.
-
45 minutes ago, Buffalo Timmy said:
We will see what happens, but there is one major misdirection in this tweet, that they will close at that price and terms. Elon will pay them the billion before buying them for that price. I will make my prediction now based on the little I know- Elon buys Twitter for around 32 billion
The board basically has to say that they are committed to the agreed upon price or else they are inviting shareholder suits. I agree that it seems unlikely at this point that Musk buys Twitter for the full price.
I'm not going to make a prediction other than the fact that it's going to be very messy unless Musk just cuts the $1 billion check (which I doubt he will).
-
4 minutes ago, B-Man said:
Green energy ? What they aren't saying above.
Texas Tells Consumers to Conserve Electricity as Wind Energy Falls Short
by Joel B. Pollak
The Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) has warned power consumers in Texas to conserve energy on Monday afternoon and evening because there will not be enough wind power to operate the power grid reliably in peak demand.
Though Texas is known for its role in the oil industry, it is also the nation’s number-one producer of wind energy. During a cold snap in the winter of 2021, however, wind turbines froze and many Texans found themselves without electricity.
Now that scenario is likely to repeat itself, albeit due to high temperatures that are accompanied by calm conditions.
ERCOT said in a statement:
With extreme hot weather driving record power demand across Texas, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) is issuing a Conservation Appeal, asking Texans and Texas businesses to voluntarily conserve electricity, Monday, July 11 between 2-8 p.m. ERCOT also issued a Watch for a projected reserve capacity shortage from 2-8 p.m. At this time, no system-wide outages are expected.
…
Factors driving the need for this important action by customers:
Record high electric demand. The heat wave that has settled on Texas and much of the central United States is driving increased electric use. Other grid operators are operating under similar conservative operations programs as ERCOT due to the heatwave.
Low wind. While solar power is generally reaching near full generation capacity, wind generation is currently generating significantly less than what it historically generated in this time period. Current projections show wind generation coming in less than 10 percent of its capacity.
The failure of wind power during peak demand comes as President Joe Biden and other leaders are pressing the nation to give up on fossil fuels in favor of “renewable” sources like wind and solar — and often without mentioning nuclear power.
https://www.ercot.com/news/release?id=90030206-5cf5-db8e-13d1-f8fe2bd0128f
So what you're saying is that ERCOT didn't sufficiently diversify it's power sources to prevent outages?
Also, turbines freezing wasn't the driver of the outage in the 2021 cold snap. Plus, wind turbines can be weatherized to prevent them from freezing. Texas just didn't do that.
-
1 hour ago, All_Pro_Bills said:
Isn't Orban serving his 3rd consecutive term as the democratically elected PM of Hungary.
Hungary is an illiberal democracy. Essentially, a one party state with a quasi-dictator that has the trappings of democracy.
How Victor Orban Hollowed Out Hungary's Democracy
Quote"A king”, Bruce Springsteen has pointed out, “ain’t satisfied ‘til he rules everything.” It was to thwart this route to royal satisfaction that 18th-century thinkers such as Montesquieu and James Madison came to prize the separation of powers. If the setting of policy, the writing of laws and the administration of justice were the preserve of different people, absolute power could not end up in one set of hands. This was especially true if the different branches of government had some degree of power over one another. Now it is accepted that a certain amount of friction is the guardian of freedom in a democracy.
Viktor Orban, the prime minister of Hungary, has other ideas. In the place of such strife, he and his colleagues in Fidesz, the governing party, have over the past nine years sought to align the executive, legislative and judicial powers of the state. Those branches now buttress each other and Fidesz—sometimes unobtrusively, sometimes blatantly. Mr Orban refers to the result of these efforts as the “system of national co-operation”. He used to speak more openly of an “illiberal democracy”.
Through this systematic entanglement of powers Mr Orban and his associates have turned Hungary into something akin to a one-party state. They have done so with no violence at all and broad public support. The achievement is bad for Hungarian liberty and its long-term prospects—and an object lesson in what is possible for autocrats and would-be autocrats elsewhere.
QuoteHaving gerrymandered the single-member districts after winning power in 2010, the party continues to win almost all elections. In 2011 Mr Orban granted voting rights to some 2m ethnic Hungarians who are citizens of neighbouring Romania, Slovakia, Serbia and Ukraine, and who overwhelmingly plump for Fidesz. They are allowed to vote by post. The roughly 350,000 Hungarian citizens living in the West are much less likely to support the party. They have to vote in person at embassies or consulates.
This all explains how, in the general election last year, Fidesz won 67% of the parliamentary seats—maintaining its supermajority—while taking just less than half of the popular vote. With the system so well re-designed, the party has no need to stoop to voter fraud, as cruder autocracies do. But the “system of national co-operation” is nothing if not thorough. In 2018 the National Election Office ruled thousands of postal votes invalid because the tamper-proof tape on the envelopes had been opened. In response, the government revoked the law requiring tamper-proof tape.
QuoteThe country’s biggest opposition newspaper, Nepszabadsag, was bought out and shuttered in 2016 by a company thought to be linked to Lorinc Meszaros, a boyhood friend of Mr Orban’s who is now the country’s second-wealthiest businessman. Lajos Simicska, a member of Mr Orban’s school and college cohort, built a large business and media empire that supported Fidesz in the 2010s. In 2015 he fell out with Mr Orban and lost most of his companies, but held on to Magyar Nemzet, another newspaper. After Fidesz’s overwhelming election victory in 2018, though, he closed it. Independent media are now confined largely to websites read by a few people in Budapest’s liberal bubble.
Content is controlled, too. After taking power in 2010, Mr Orban’s government began transforming mti, the country’s public news agency, into a propaganda organ. In 2011 parliament made mti’s wire-service free, driving competing news agencies out of business. Regional newspapers that lacked reporting staff became channels for mti’s pro-government messaging, and it is from those newspapers that Mr Orban’s rural base gets its news. The government uses its advertising budget, which has quadrupled in real terms to more than $300m per year, to bring any rogue newspapers in line.
The country’s domestically owned television and radio stations are nearly all pro-government. Last November the owners of 476 media outlets, including some of the biggest in the country, donated them free of charge to a new non-profit foundation known as kesma, whose goals include promoting “Christian and national values”. When opposition groups challenged kesma for violating the country’s media law, Mr Orban declared the foundation vital to the national interest, removing it from the media authority’s jurisdiction.
QuoteWhen control of parliament, the legal system and the media do not suffice, the government has other tools. Before the 2018 general election, the biggest threat to Fidesz came from Jobbik, originally a far-right party. It had moved towards the centre in a bid to go mainstream, and at times polled more than 25%. Enter the State Audit Office, headed by a former Fidesz mp who enjoys an election-proof 12-year mandate. In 2017 the audit office accused Jobbik of receiving illegal in-kind financing, and fined it 663m forints ($2m). In 2019, in the run-up to the European election, it tacked on another 272m forints, leaving the party close to insolvency. Two new liberal parties, Momentum and Dialogue for Hungary, as well as the Socialists, Democratic Coalition and the lmp (Green) party, were fined or investigated. Only Fidesz has been left untouched.
QuoteBalint Magyar, a sociologist and former education minister who is now at the ceu, argues that the state under Fidesz is essentially a vehicle for capturing the economy and distributing its revenue streams to allies. Unlike communist parties, which had real titles of office and rule-governed internal hierarchies, Fidesz is an ideologically flexible vehicle that can be reorganised as the inner circle wants. Mr Magyar calls Hungary a “mafia state”, run by a clique whose main creed is loyalty. Kim Scheppele, a political scientist at Princeton University, notes the cunning deniability of the “system of national co-operation”. No country’s separation of powers is complete. Most of Fidesz’s arrangements can be found in one country or another. It is the cumulative effect all in one place that makes Hungary special.
-
2 hours ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:
I’m uncertain why any dem, r or citizen would be against transparent, public testimony in this case. That’s not to say many will be completely and irrevocably disinterested, but that’s a different issue.
If you were running a serious investigation, you would not want their first testimony to be done publicly. You would want it behind closed doors. That way, you can fact check their statements and compare them to statements made by other witnesses to assess their credibility. Not doing this would allow a disingenuous witness to lie to the public and have that lie spread before it could be questioned or debunked by other testimony.
Additionally, you want to limit what is included in public testimony if the investigation is ongoing. Having someone publicly testify to a situation that you are going to ask someone else about later allows the latter person to coordinate their story to what they heard in the public testimony. It's like the old joke about the flat tire.
So, while we should want all of the testimony to be made public once the investigation is concluded, there are legitimate reasons why not every witness should testify publicly right away.
Trump Called a Jan. 6th Committe Witness - Referred to DOJ
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted
This is pretty telling. It’s almost as if some people cannot understand why someone would do something that didn’t benefit them personally.
Hearings held 5 months before an election are a terrible way to influence the election. If that’s what this was all about, they would hold the hearings in September and October instead.
But for people with no principles, where power is the only goal, it’s hard to understand that maybe some things are not done for personal gain.
If you’re judging the hearings based on the impact to the midterms, then you’re really just telling on yourself.