ChiGoose

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:

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.

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?

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?

No there wasn't.

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.

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:

Doctors Report Compromising Care Out of Fear of Texas Abortion Law 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

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.

Wasn't Monticello a plantation?

He didn't have much of a leg to stand on, honestly.

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.

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).

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.

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

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.

A simple way to build redundancy into the grid would be to connect it to either the Western or Eastern Interconnect grids (or both?): But that would require meeting federal standards and regulations, preventing ERCOT from price gouging your average Texan...

Twitter's Chairman has already announced that they are taking this to court: Seems like they aren't that worried about the discovery process.

It seems incredibly unlikely, even impossible, for Musk to back out due to the bots at this point. Which is why his lawyers are trying a different tactic: Essentially every expert I've read on this believes that Twitter is screwed at this point. Their absolute best outcomes here are that either Musk ends up buying them for $44 billion (which seems very unlikely) or they successfully sue him for damages exceeding the $1 billion breakup fee. In the latter case, the company's stock has taken a big hit, the board has absolutely failed and should be replaced and they will likely face shareholder lawsuits (Musk also may face shareholder lawsuits). Twitter is going to be severely damaged from all of this, with an uncertain future.

I am not an M&A attorney, but from what I've read from M&A lawyers commenting on this deal, this is not correct. Here's an example that might help: I own an apple orchard that is well liked, but it is known that some of the apples are rotten before they make it to market. You want to buy my orchard, in part, because you want to fix the rotting apples problem. You make a preliminary offer and I accept. We begin negotiations on the deal. I tell you that only 5% of the apples are rotten when they make it to market. I provide you with an internal audit the orchard did to arrive at these numbers. You are still skeptical, as this seems low given your experience with the apples. You ask for more information and for the opportunity to walk through the orchard to examine the apples yourself. I reject that and say that the report proves that it is only 5%. Now, the M&A agreement is in front of you, awaiting your signature. You have two choices: Do not sign it and walk away from the deal because of your concerns about the rotten apples Sign it, knowing that you are abandoning any claim about the rotten apples Musk went for option 2. I do not know what advice his lawyers gave him, but even if Twitter was knowingly lying, Musk has little chance of success to cancel the deal outright at this point.

That’s what due diligence is for. You investigate this stuff before you agree to buy a company. Musk pointed out the bot problem as a reason he wanted to buy Twitter. If they then said only 5% of accounts are bots, he probably should have been suspicious if he thought the problem was worse than that (which, again, is part of why he wanted to buy Twitter). Musk cannot use bots as an excuse to end deal

From what I can tell, the absolute best outcome for Musk at this point is that he owes Twitter $1 billion. This bot crap is what you figure out BEFORE you sign the M&A. If Twitter was actually hiding the bot numbers then either Musk’s team was too dumb to realize that and signed the M&A or they didn’t care and signed the M&A. In any case, this really seems like someone got out way over their skis and is now trying to find a way out of a bad deal.

https://www.ercot.com/news/release?id=90030206-5cf5-db8e-13d1-f8fe2bd0128f Texas is so amazing that they cannot provide power when the weather is too hot or too cold. But do not fear! The corporations will be able to price gouge their way to profits regardless of what happens to the average Texan.

If they wouldn’t disclose the bot info during negotiations, then he should never have signed the M&A agreement.