Elon Shield
Probably satirical.
https://imgur.com/gallery/elon-shield-W4pSQJ1
He is far from being hated, not like that UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson dude. From what I understand the hatred of health insurance industry has been long established, the comic book movies and TV series I think finally created a real vigilante.
Also liberals don't know that much about guns.
Anyway I wonder if health insurance companies fall under the purview of CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau), and did they ever do anything about it?
Musk has gone from the getting approval of the EV crowd, which was mostly liberals, to the darling of the MAGA for his valuable support in helping get Trump reelected. https://www.forbes.com/video/e1253b13-c37c-48c6-9850-3f0d4cc7ea04/how-elon-musk-spent-over-200-million-to-help-trump-get-elected/
I think your claim that liberals do not know much about guns is naive, in the extreme, to say the least. I used to work at a gun range. While the typical conservative crowd (I'm conservative, but not typical) was always present, there were a significant number of liberals who were open about their political views and other who were more private. Ever heard of the Pink Pistols? Gay gun owners lobbying group, not really conservative.
The reason I'm not a typical conservative is that I do not approve of trump's anti-gun agenda. The MAGA overwhelmingly approve of Trump's anti-gun agenda, if they even admit that it exists. But those half million guns did not grab themselves in 2019. https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf
Regulations vary. https://www.kff.org/health-policy-101-the-regulation-of-private-health-insurance/?entry=table-of-contents-introduction
Well, that is just the stereotype I guess.
And if you haven't heard of it. I guess they don't regulate more specialised insurance such as health insurance.
I just asked AI, it seems HHS, CMS and OPM regulate health insurance in the US.
"which was mostly liberals, to the darling of the MAGA for his valuable support in helping get Trump reelected."
I take issue with this, the Right warmed up to Elon when he started fighting the Lefts desire for censorship and free speech regulation (both being absurd). Not because he suppports Trump, that was just icing on the cake.
What "free speech and censorship"? Are you talking about Musk restoring Twitter accounts after he bought it so he could influence the election? Surely you are aware that Twitter, a private company, was entirely within their rights to ban anyone that was violating their rules?
shareIt was not about rules, was it?
Banning Trump was about elections.
I think you and I both know the "rules" is just a ruse.
Of course when Musk bought it and did the same thing, suddenly it is wrong.
The media is always a tool of media moguls, when they censor people somehow it is media freedom and free speech.
I always thought calling corporate censorship "free speech" is kind of absurd.
Trump has always been an abusive, pathological liar. Says a lot about his cult followers.
shareHave you looked into Biden much? He bombed out of his first presidential bid for plagiarism and lying, and he's known for his mean temper.
shareAll politicians are, that is hardly something shocking. That is what they do for a living.
I always thought the best liar award should go to Obama. He just looked so honest.
Some pin the needle. Biden has had the abusive, pathological liar label for as long as he's been in politics.
shareThat just means he has been in politics for a long time.
shareKeep saying that, but he's long been known to be one of the worst of the worst. He likes to pretend he's sweet ol' Uncle Joe, but he's not. Some wanted to say his temper was because of dementia, but he'd been caught tearing people up before. And if ALL politicians were plagiarists and liars on his level, he wouldn't have made the news back when he first ran for President. It would have just been an, "Oh, well!" and everyone would have changed the subject.
I will give you this, LBJ was a liar and mean-spirited on a Bidenesque-level, too. His lying was so rampant that LBJ was singled out with what the pundits called the "Credibility Gap." The mean-spiritedness was merely whispered about. It didn't make headlines like the Credibility Gap.
He and his German Shepherd Commander can retire together. The CNN link mentions 11 bites on Secret Service members and many more on staff, while most went unreported.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/04/politics/commander-biden-white-house/index.html
I have a friend on Twitter who's a dog trainer. While the press was trying to blame the aggression on the change in environment, the dog trainer was blaming the owner. Biden's other dog, Major, had biting issues, too. Not likely that two dogs would have biting issues, my friend said. The common denominator was Biden.
Maybe Biden talked to the dogs the way he talked to people.
Surely you are aware that Twitter, a private company, was entirely within their rights to ban anyone that was violating their rules?
shareYeah, and that is media freedom and free speech, right?
I think we can drop the pretense of "rules", when the owner started Bluesky, a twitter similar for liberals. It is not like he was hiding his political affiliation.
And you are apparently unaware that under Jack the people who were called out always seemed to be conservative, and the people who weren't were always liberal. Once Elon came along and leveled the playing field, the libs all cried, "Unfair!" And after he allowed journalists to dig into the bias and write about it, he became utterly despised by the people who used to idolize him and his cars.
But now that there is BlueSky, the libs all run over there for an echo chamber. Unfortunately, so, also, have a lot of people who deal in child pornography. They aren't allowed on Twitter, so they go where they're welcomed.
Always? Where is your proof to support this claim?
share"Always seemed to be." Is English a second language for you? Or do you cherry-pick your facts so you can "win"?
Just say you have nothing to support your claim then. No reason to be a baby about it.
share"Always seemed to be," since you need a primer in English, is obviously written from my perspective. The second always would have had a "seemed to be" attached as well if I'd known I had to explain basic English to you. 🙄
Since the bias in Jack's Twitter was documented by journalists, my opinion seems to have been upheld. (See Matt Taibbi, Bari Weiss, Lee Fang, and Michael Shellenberger: "The Twitter Files.") But since you argue with a hair-splitter in one hand, I do concede that even all of those journalists and myself could not possibly see every single case of bias, so possibly you could prove that it wasn't "always," as in every single time, without exception. Just "always seemed to be," from my point of view, and as a general trend and in the specifics documented in The Twitter Files.
Where are you getting that from?
share"The Twitter Files"? Substack, where it began to be published December 2, 2022. It made a stir at the time. Sorry you missed it and don't know how to Google.
If you didn't mean "The Twitter Files" but some other part of my post, I had to take a wild guess. Next time provide the antecedent for "that."
Oopsy! He ended that sentence with a preposition. ;D
shareCan you tell what he's referring to by "that," or is it just me?
shareIt is not you. Take it from someone who has a thread called "Today, on the Grammar Police." ;D
😂
shareHe did it again, only this time he merely called whatever he was referencing, "it." I answered him -- by pointing out I'd answered before -- but I can only hope I'm answering the right "that" and "it."
Are we sure he speaks English as a first language, or does he do that on purpose so he can unleash the snark on his victim when they don't address the right "it" or "that"?
In other words, you just made it up. Meh.
shareNo, I didn't make it up. I gave you several well-known (assuming you pay attention to the news) journalists' names, and told you it was posted on Substack. I can give you the information, but I can't understand it or believe it for you. And yes, you can always say you've "won" when you just say, "In other words, you just made it up."
I think I'll do that with everything you post when you start your petty arguing. 🙄
Give me a link then. Don't be lazy. You make a claim, you prove it. It really is that simple.
shareWhy? You can look it up in a quick Google, if you know how. The ridiculous thing is that this made headlines. Twitter quashing Tweets about the laptop story ALONE was headline news all over the place, and here you are pretending you don't know anything about it.
If you don't, you're just a know-nothing with a lot of opinions. If you do, you're the kind of person who'd know a fact, pretend he didn't, and if the sap who's citing the fact goes to the trouble of giving him a link will say, "That's a biased source." Or "That doesn't prove what you say it does." And when said sap quotes the part where it DOES prove the point, you'll just amble off, happy that you've got said sap -- in this case, me -- to waste their time.
You're either a troll trying to waste my time or a know-nothing. Go chase yourself.
Everybody watch -- he'll claim I "couldn't" provide a link that a two second Google would get him. Then he'll spike the ball, give himself high-fives, and otherwise pretend he's had a day well-spent.
shareI'm not spiking the ball. I'm just noting that you would rather make an unsupported claim than post the results of a two second google search.
Why are you so afraid of posting your search results?
Curiosity, the cat killer of myth and legend, caused me to unblock you.
Destinata is not your personal research assistant. I have known her since the IMDb boards and as long as she is here, you will never be the smartest person in the room. You have no idea with whom you are engaging.
You only care to read what feeds your illness. Man up and do your own research, even if the truth is displeasing.
It is only polite to prove the claims you make without anyone having to ask. Wouldn't you agree? I'm not trying to be smarter than anyone else here.
I'm certain that many people here are smarter than I am. Too bad they do not act like it.
I know who I am engaging with. I'm engaging with a person who is reluctant to support their claims and is happy to let others assume that she does not really know what she is talking about.
That can change if they simply support their claims. See how simple that can be?
ETA; correct the word how to who.
I'm not afraid. I don't think you're being honest about never hearing about it.
Did you honestly never hear about The Twitter Files and in particular how anyone who posted about Hunter's laptop was punished so that the information could be suppressed? It's the reason why Musk bought Twitter in the first place.
I did not make any claim about hearing something or not. I asked you for evidence to support your claim and you are too lame to provide it.
Why would you not always offer evidence to support your claims anytime you make a claim? doesn't posting a link make your claim even stronger?
I have posted about Hunter's laptop and I was never punished. Where do you get this crazy stuff form?
I have posted twice on Twitter since I made an account years ago. I'm not really interested in what twitter has done in the past or now that Musk has nearly driven it into the ground.
So if you want to use Twitter as evidence of anything, then perhaps you can post a link to what you are talking about?
I did a brief search on "twitter files" and "hunter laptop", it revealed nothing about people being punished. It's boring. What else you got?
You've posted twice on Twitter, but you know that "Musk has nearly driven it into the ground." YOU offer no proof of that. Ironic.
Of the 245 million daily active users, 83%-94% are there for the news. It's arguably the biggest purveyor of news in the world.
https://blog.x.com/en_us/topics/insights/2022/how-many-people-come-twitter-for-news
Because you have tweeted a grand total of twice, it is likely you don't know about the Community Notes program, which corrects false information quickly and notifies everyone who's retweeted or liked a post that contains false info. That's one reason people like Twitter/X now -- it's reliable.
Here's the Twitter Files on Substack. Enjoy:
https://twitterfiles.substack.com/p/1-thread-the-twitter-files
Now, specifically the laptop story and all the sources that tried to censor it: https://nypost.com/2024/05/24/opinion/hunter-bidens-laptop-was-denied-disparaged-censored-now-its-evidence-of-a-crime/
Again, since you posted a grand total of twice, you weren't there to be harried and harassed if you were so brassy bold as to post the truth, including and especially about Hunter's laptop. I get that "crazy stuff form [sic]" personal experience. I posted more than twice.
Now, miss the point by telling me they had the right to do censor as a private company. Of course they did. And Musk had the right to buy it and turn it into what is, on the whole, a bastion of free speech. There are still some bugs to work out, but it's much better than Jack's leftist site.
This won't be enough citations for you, or the right ones, or something, because all you want to do is waste people's time.
Oh, the news that Musk is destroying Twitter is news to you? Sucks to be you then. https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/business/elon-musk-twitter-x-fidelity/index.html
I do not have to post on Twitter to read other news that says Twitter is only worth a fraction of the value it had prior to its sale to Musk.
Looks like Twitter did such a poor job of attempting to censor stories about the laptop, that they might as well had not even tried. If they suck so bad at censorship, is it even censorship :)
CNN and any other leftwing news company hates Musk now. Do you have any unbiased sources?
Twitter censored it long enough to get Biden elected, and that was the point.
What do you think the "true" figures are relating to how much Musk has devalued Twitter?
Which sources are unbiased according to you?
Your assumption is that Musk has devalued Twitter/X. I haven't read all of this, but Twitter isn't shrinking. It's growing: https://backlinko.com/twitter-users
shareOr not, according to your link.
X/Twitter as a private company claims to have “200 to 250 million” daily active users across the world.share
According to Apptopia analysis, X/Twitter is estimated to have around 121 million daily active users, significantly lower compared to company announcements.
Since 2023, the growth of X (formerly Twitter) has been mixed, with various reports offering different perspectives:
User Base Growth:
X reported reaching a new high of 541.56 million monthly users in July 2023, suggesting significant growth at that point. However, this figure was for "monthly users," not necessarily "active" users, which can be a different metric.
By November 2024, the platform claimed around 570 million monthly active users, indicating a year-over-year increase of 6%. However, this growth seems to have plateaued in terms of daily active users, with only a 1.6% increase from Q2 2023 to Q2 2024.
User Engagement and Retention:
There have been reports of significant drops in user engagement, particularly in the U.S., with a 30% decrease in usage from 2023 to 2024 according to Edison Research.
Daily active users were noted to be down 23% from October 2022 to March 2024, suggesting a decline in daily engagement despite the increase in monthly users.
X faced competition from Meta's Threads, which grew to 175 million monthly active users in its first year, potentially impacting X's user growth.
While researching this, I realized I'd forgotten that there's a concerted effort in the liberal community to paint Musk negatively. Musk is also facing a lot of law fare attacks on his companies.
I can remember the good old days, when Musk's farts didn't stink because he believed in climate change and had the most popular electric cars. Then all he had to do was make a hostile takeover of Twitter, change it to allow us to say pretty much what we think, and all the libs had a crying fit, started boycotting advertisers, and folks like you say he's ruined Twitter.
He doesn't sound like he's interested in selling it. In fact, he keeps trying to find ways to improve it. I think he realizes that the jury is still out. And there's some reason the CEO of Axis was having a fit, and Morning Joe seconded him, regarding citizen journalism.
Of course, not every idiot with a camera on their phone is a journalist. But there are a number of people with cameras on their phones that get the news first and the legacy media uses their content -- content we see first on X.
It seems they know people are turning to X for news.
[–] Ranb (9732) 8 hours ago
Surely you are aware that Twitter, a private company, was entirely within their rights to ban anyone that was violating their rules?
We are very aware, everyone is also aware that this private company followed orders from the FBI to supress certain info to try and influence the 2020 election. So much for private. You can be damn sure Elon wont have any of that nonsense.
Jack Dorsey doesnt have a spine, Elon does.
Link to these FBI orders?
share[deleted]