Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.
Ok? But that’s not what the Twitter board claimed. I agree with your premise but that isn’t what happened here.
No, I don’t think that’s true. Twitters board had to sue for specific performance because Musk backed out of a formal offer in the late stages for fabricated reasons. It’s not like it was “sue musk or go to jail” but their job as board members comes with a fiduciary obligation, and musk was paying 38% over the share price. Twitter is FAR from blameless but sueing musk isn’t a failing https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2022/07/14/twitter-vs-musk-the-complaint/
Not that they are blameless - far from it - but they had a fiduciary responsibility to pursue the deal because it was good for their shareholders
Wait are you trying to tell me that the kid who took a gun he didn’t own to a state he didn’t live in to shoot protestors he didn’t know ostensibly to protect businesses he’s unaffiliated with wanted to kill people?? Wow I am shocked. Shocked!
Honestly of course he wanted to murder people, anyone who disputes that is and has always been deliberately lying.
I mean clearly those people do exist, so I’m curious if you have something specific in mind? Kinda feels like asking how people feel about folks with anger issues. Not great but they exist?
Define victim mentality with examples perhaps?
I assume taxing the rich is obviously impossible so the only solution is squeezing the poor \s
Rest easy knowing that this didn’t happen
“His”
No, no, see it was the right of private gun ownership in Afghanistan. Just the guns nothing else necessary. And, by the way, “we could be like Afghanistan “ is actually a very good argument and not at all an admission.
\s
Why? The people weren’t injured by cops. The cops were nearby when their service weapons shot bullets at a deadly armed suspect. They can’t be held accountable for the suspect’s actions! He made their guns fire. \s
Honestly the cops were barely involved. They’re practically victims here, at least as much if not more than the people who were shot. \s
Legally a mass shooting
Pick who you want to be farting next to the entire flight. For me, it’s 4.
But they literally HAVE a fiduciary obligation. I agree with you that people use that as an excuse for heinous shit, but in this case they had a formal, legally binding offer. Musk was in breach of contract and they sued for specific performance or damages. Musk didn’t want to pay the damages. If they didn’t sue, Twitter would forfeit I think $1bn in damages and their stock would tank. Not suing would open the door for hostile investors to come in, pretend to buy, back out when they wanted to and time the stock movements. I get what you’re saying, but this is a case where if the board didn’t sue then Twitters shareholders pay for it.
You and I may agree that they never should have been in that place to begin with but that’s definitionally a fiduciary obligation