Twitter management job is to make share holders money. Elon is offering a quick 38% and they are going to fight that. Another myth of capitalism on display right now. These public markets are frauds. Twitter execs would be marched into jail under a functioning free market system.

— Cernovich (@Cernovich) April 14, 2022

Look at the timing here with the feds. This comes across as Elon desiring to un censor twitter and the US government/elite having a major problem with it.

BREAKING: As @elonmusk offers to buy the rest of @Twitter a legal source tells @FoxBusiness @SECGov and @TheJusticeDept have launched what he described as a "joint investigation" into a myriad of Musk regulatory issues primarily involving @Tesla https://t.co/TDFLED1XuI

— Charles Gasparino (@CGasparino) April 14, 2022

I'm glad you started this. It deserves its own thread.

He has them painted into a corner a bit. I assume he is buying up as many shares as he can at this price.

BearFan33 said:

---

I'm glad you started this. It deserves its own thread.

He has them painted into a corner a bit. I assume he is buying up as many shares as he can at this price.

---

Yeah this is a huge deal.

US social media and our news is becoming more like the single party propaganda we see in China every day.

Rich people can't buy media outlets....well CERTAIN rich people can't.

What's the big deal with @elonmusk buying Twitter? #ElonMusk pic.twitter.com/Hp5Y3aeoDO

— Anthony B. Bradley, PhD (@drantbradley) April 14, 2022

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

Musk to Twitter:

so I will buy you out instead of sitting on your silly board.

Just so you guys are aware, half the stuff we discuss in good faith on this site would be censored and get you banned on twitter.

Also, big tech censorship isn't private companies making decisions. That's total BS. Democrats have repeatedly threatened big tech if they don't censor more.

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

MSNBC's @KatyTurNBC: "There are real and devastating consequences for using [Twitter] to lie ... @elonmusk wants to buy it, but there are — massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” pic.twitter.com/VVjsIvuHsa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 14, 2022

Okay, some of these are too good.

Quick 🧵 of the wackiest @elonmusk potentially buying Twitter takes vs. what those folks had to say when Twitter booted President Trump. ⤵️

— Drew Holden (@DrewHolden360) April 14, 2022

Jack Bauer said:

---

MSNBC's @KatyTurNBC: "There are real and devastating consequences for using [Twitter] to lie ... @elonmusk wants to buy it, but there are — massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” pic.twitter.com/VVjsIvuHsa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 14, 2022

---

Even if they're right, the consequences of prolonged censorship and control is far worse.

Jack Bauer said:

---

MSNBC's @KatyTurNBC: "There are real and devastating consequences for using [Twitter] to lie ... @elonmusk wants to buy it, but there are — massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” pic.twitter.com/VVjsIvuHsa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 14, 2022

---

Ironic assessment since over half the world's population lives in places where access to Twitter is either blocked or heavily censored by the government.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

MSNBC's @KatyTurNBC: "There are real and devastating consequences for using [Twitter] to lie ... @elonmusk wants to buy it, but there are — massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” pic.twitter.com/VVjsIvuHsa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 14, 2022

---

Even if they're right, the consequences of prolonged censorship and control is far worse.

---

Only a stupid leftist believes in order to have free speech you need more moderation and control over speech.

Do these idiots actually believe this chit or are they evil enough and don't care and know that if they lie, their idiot followers will believe them

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

Rawhide said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Jack Bauer said:

---

MSNBC's @KatyTurNBC: "There are real and devastating consequences for using [Twitter] to lie ... @elonmusk wants to buy it, but there are — massive, life and globe-altering consequences for just letting people run wild on the thing.” pic.twitter.com/VVjsIvuHsa

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 14, 2022

---

Even if they're right, the consequences of prolonged censorship and control is far worse.

---

Only a stupid leftist believes in order to have free speech you need more moderation and control over speech.

Do these idiots actually believe this chit or are they evil enough and don't care and know that if they lie, their idiot followers will believe them

---

Do we think that someone who demands the right to murder their own child would give a second thought to silencing every single person they disagree with?

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

---

Boards can do all sorts of silly things. The bottom line is that musk has the money to buy Twitter if he wants it or make the shareholders pay dearly should he change his mind.

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

---

I think Elon has them over a barrel. They can sell to him at his offered price or he will dump his 9% holdings on the open market and crush the stock. He may have some other trick up his sleeve too. I'm sure the regime/msm do not want him to be able to get twitter bc then they won't be able to control the narrative.

muddybrazos said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

---

I think Elon has them over a barrel. They can sell to him at his offered price or he will dump his 9% holdings on the open market and crush the stock. He may have some other trick up his sleeve too. I'm sure the regime/msm do not want him to be able to get twitter bc then they won't be able to control the narrative.

---

That could be true. My take on Musk is he's a visionary CEO. (PayPal, SpaceX, Tesla are all wins)

I wonder if anyone else sees them as valuable? (Acquisition target)

It's their decision to take his offer or not.

muddybrazos said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

---

I think Elon has them over a barrel. They can sell to him at his offered price or he will dump his 9% holdings on the open market and crush the stock. He may have some other trick up his sleeve too. I'm sure the regime/msm do not want him to be able to get twitter bc then they won't be able to control the narrative.

---

Why can't he continue to purchase shares in the open market (at a price below his offering price)? Once he gets to 51% he calls the shots right?

every day he gets more shares and increases his leverage

BearFan33 said:

---

muddybrazos said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

Amal Shuq-Up said:

---

tommie said:

---

I'd be surprised if Twitter didn't have clause that prevent a hostile takeover. That being said, will their board agree to the buyout?

---

LOL. Yeah, the clause that prevents willing buyers from acquiring stock from willing sellers at an agreed upon price.

If only Anacot Steele had such a clause, we could avoided all of this nastiness:

---

Thank you for letting us know what you don't know.

---

I know what you think I don't know. The way you wrote about what you think you know makes me think you don't know.

---

I've done it with a staggered board. There are other ways (poison pills etc).

---

Quick, tommie, to the Wikipedia page.

---

I've done it. You?

Your comments led me to believe you think a company has to accept any takeover attempt because they're public. (Or accept funding)

My point being, I'd be shocked if Dorsey and team hadn't considered ways to protect the company from a hostile takeover. They could very well sell to Musk. Or they can get a $50/share offer from another suitor or they can thwart the Musk offer and stay the course.

I don't know what they will do. I just know what we did in our formation.

---

I think Elon has them over a barrel. They can sell to him at his offered price or he will dump his 9% holdings on the open market and crush the stock. He may have some other trick up his sleeve too. I'm sure the regime/msm do not want him to be able to get twitter bc then they won't be able to control the narrative.

---

Why can't he continue to purchase shares in the open market (at a price below his offering price)? Once he gets to 51% he calls the shots right?

every day he gets more shares and increases his leverage

---

As far as we know he is doing that. Musk tanked bitcoin last year summer when he said Tesla was going to stop taking it bc of environmental concerns. BTC went from the 60k range down into the upper 30s. The rumor was that he did that so his buddy Ray Dalio could load up at a cheaper price. He knows what he is doing and this is going to be fun to watch.

Liberals are perched upon the horns of a dilemma. Go too far down the he's a racist! path and their beloved Teslas will get caught in the net. Hard to yell racist at someone and virtue signal at the same time.

"Elon is on of those dangerous characters who's financial solvency can outlast other players irrationality"

Poison pill adopted by Twitter board

I got to think a bunch of lawsuits coming

that sound you hear is the collective pavlovian salivation of 10,000 securities lawyers........

- kkm

https://www.npr.org/2022/04/15/1093077611/twitter-board-poison-pill-elon-musk

Incredible, the board is going to blow up the shareholders to make sure they can continue to silence conservative voices. At least Musk got them to show their hand.

My understanding of the poison pill is to add shares to dilute Musk's % of shares owned. But if they are offering current shareholders the ability to buy shares at a discounted rate, don't they have to offer Musk the same?

BearFan33 said:

---

Incredible, the board is going to blow up the shareholders to make sure they can continue to silence conservative voices. At least Musk got them to show their hand.

My understanding of the poison pill is to add shares to dilute Musk's % of shares owned. But if they are offering current shareholders the ability to buy shares at a discounted rate, don't they have to offer Musk the same?

---

Musk got them to show their hand but so many in this country are brainwashed by propaganda and think that Musk is the bad guy here.

BearFan33 said:

---

Incredible, the board is going to blow up the shareholders to make sure they can continue to silence conservative voices. At least Musk got them to show their hand.

My understanding of the poison pill is to add shares to dilute Musk's % of shares owned. But if they are offering current shareholders the ability to buy shares at a discounted rate, don't they have to offer Musk the same?

---

I'm sure whatever the requirements are is in their bylaws. Tesla likely has similar restrictions otherwise they could become Volkswagen or GM via a hostile takeover.

I bet this has nothing to do with "conservative voices"