47
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2023
47 points (96.1% liked)
politics
18894 readers
3317 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This was stupid. This is playing Trump's games by Trump's rules. When you do that, anyone not named Trump loses money. And lots of it.
These people simply didn't want to deal with the fallout (political, financial, and social) that would come with the site being abruptly shut down. Pushing it off for another year is just them not wanting to admit they lost all their money. It means they're hoping that they can push this off until after the election (which will require another vote) in order to not have to deal with the political and social fallout. This is how Trump wins. He gets everybody in so deep that they feel they can't get out and the only option available is to do it Trump's way and hope for the best. And we all know how that works out.
These people haven't learned, to paraphrase Joshua from Wargames: "A strange game. The only winning move is not to deal with Trump."
What benefit could waiting another year possibly get them? Dollar-Store-Twitter's only "asset" is Trump himself. If he leaves or simply stops using the site, the site will dry up within days at most. There's absolutely no source of revenue coming in, and I very seriously doubt that advertisers are going to line up to advertise on Trump's platform for a site that probably generates about 1% of the traffic in a month that Twitter does in an hour. There is zero value to the site itself. The stock has already lost over 90% of its value, and waiting another year only means that next year's stockholders will long for the days when their shares were worth $12.
This wasn't a vote to extend Trump's deal. This was a vote to not deal with any of this shit at all for another year.
You are assuming that these investors want a return on their investment. This is just another dark money political op.
Hanlon's razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. And god knows there's plenty of stupid in this country to go around.
We've seen countless times when someone with even the slightest amount of name recogntion launches a product that investors think consumers want. There's all sorts of hype to get in on the ground floor because this time, this idea is going to make all the money, and you don't want to miss out on that, do you? Then as usual, the product flops, the celebrity quickly distances themselves from the failed product, and a whole bunch of people lose a whole bunch of money.
That's all this was.
Saying that it's another dark money political op would imply that (a) mega-rich people are just gleefully throwing hundreds of millions of dollars into the void, (b) they don't already have about eleventy billion other dark money ops going on that are more well established, and (c) they're all-in on some dollar-store conspiracy to turn a dime-store Twitter rip-off into the next Fox News in the worst way possible.
Nah. This is just another example of a bunch of people throwing their money into the Trump Void, then wondering where their money went.