placeholder

First off, this thread is about the decline in value of Twitter. No rational person could doubt that up to now, Musk has had a strong negative effect on the value of the company. And Musk's tweets have certainly had a negative effect on advertisers. That toxic enough for you? And Twitter had an obligation to its shareholder to ban blatant hate speech and lies if it was to retain advertisers. And, even so, the extent of the moderation has been greatly exaggerated. Take the most famous case; the Hunter Biden laptop Twitter delayed reports on it for a grand total of 24 hours. Moreover, Musk does not advocate free speech. In fact he has banned speech which was critical of him. He lied about reporters' doxxing in order to ban reporters whose comments he didn't like. Also, after he noticed a decline in the popularity of his tweets, he mobilized his engineers to game the system so that his tweets would be pushed onto people who had demonstrated no interest in following him.

And this says what about the main story that not even Fox's own news department will feature Carlson's documentary? A fact which you apparently believe isn't significant.

Yes one should. Mariupol is about 50 miles from the front lines, which is just outside of the range of Ukraine's HIMARS or M270 systems. https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/mariupol-strikes-raise-questions-about-possible-new-ukrainian-long-range-weapons

You don't think it's a story that Carlson's own network won't have anything to do with his "documentary"? But thanks for not sharing with us your reasoning. Maybe because there was none?

The Claremont Institute did their damnedest to overturn the election via very bad legal advice. So, can you name a specific fault you found? Or just reply with something feeble like there are too many to name?

Just to help you out a bit, look up the Hitchcock movie Gaslight. That's where the term comes from.

I'm sure you meant it. I'm also sure that's not what gaslighting means.

Still not the case. Possibly you are being libelled but not gaslighted. Was anyone trying to tell you that some event you believed happened didn't? Or that you got the facts wrong? It's not about your interpretation of the meaning of the event.

The Jonestown massacre. The people who killed themselves weren't being gaslighted. They were just being deceived.

No. Your interpretation of an event is being questioned. Not the reality of it, not your memory of it, and not your perceptions. And just to forestall what I'm guessing would be an attempt to make perceptions mean what it doesn't (I'm too familiar with your M.O.) Here it is: "the ability to see, hear, or become aware of something through the senses. "the normal limits to human perception" the state of being or process of becoming aware of something through the senses. "the perception of pain" https://www.google.com/search?q=perceptions&oq=perceptions&aqs=chrome..69i57.2796j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Rupert Murdoch's NY Post is now the far left?

But getting half of what you invested is just plain awful.

You know, there's a policy in this forum, that doesn't allow you to misleadingly edit a quote. I don't know if it also applies to misleadingly editing quotes for authorized sources. Here's the quote in full: "Reality Check verdict: It's true the economy was doing well prior to the pandemic - continuing a trend which began during the Obama administration - but there have been periods when it was much stronger." https://www.bbc.com/news/world-45827430 So Trump's claim is unequivocally false. I've also noted the doublethink of Trump's supporters when it comes to the economic ill-effects of the covid pandemic. They don't seem to allow that same effect to explain the high inflation and other ills that are currently affecting much of the world's economy including the United States. Unlike you, they are also blind to the fact that the economic recovery was well under way before Trump took office. And they virtually always fail to acknowledge the fact that Obama inherited the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. Thank you for your objectivity and sense of fairness. You are a model to all those misguided and biased right wingers.

First of all, everybody agrees he overpaid. He foolishly made an offer that he legally couldn't back out of although he tried mightily to do so. And since then advertising revenue has plummeted and most likely will continue to do so so long as Twitter has a toxic owner.

Please share with us why you think that polices that other nations take, particularly major nations, are dependent on the stances of the US or who is President? Do you believe that events adverse to what is deemed the interest of the US only happen because of what the US does or doesn't do? I would advise you to stop worshipping at the altar of absolute American power. It's a delusionary religion. And you still have no answer for my questions about why you believe that if Trump were President, Putin wouldn't have invaded Ukraine. When did Trump ever demonstrate toughness in standing up to Putin? On the contrary, he illegally denied weaponry to Ukraine for months while civil war rages in the Donbas despite their entreaties.

There's explaining and there's explaining away. That latter is what Trump's flunkies do. Maybe you should apply for a position on his campaign staff.

You mean, he might have meant he was only the 2nd or 3rd most innocent man in American history? Give it up, already.

We also know that the Republicans in Florida don't respect referendums, which most truly reflect the will of the people. For instance they gutted a referendum that passed giving felons the right to vote. And in response to that, they made it much harder for referendums to make to succeed in being put up for a vote: "The Republican-controlled Legislature — at the urging of groups such as the Florida Chamber of Commerce — have pushed to cut down on citizen initiatives after voters approved measures creating a $15 minimum wage, legalizing medical marijuana and restoring voting rights for many people with felony convictions. Some of the changes include raising the threshold needed to pass an amendment to 60 percent. But more recent changes affecting how voter signatures are collected, how long the signatures remain valid, when the Supreme Court reviews the ballot language have also made it harder to make the ballot." https://www.politico.com/newsletters/florida-playbook/2022/08/04/the-outlook-for-an-abortion-rights-amendment-in-florida-00049765 They've made it so difficult that the only issues that have a chance of being put on the ballot are those are sponsored by the legislature. A group spent 116 million dollars trying to get a referendum on the ballot and failed to make it in time.

Why do you think this somehow softens his statement?

And what kind of person wouldn't understand that he was speaking ironically?

More distortions from you. Show me where it's claimed they will be utopias. And why should there be a plan presented here? The question in this thread uses a misleading premise.. As though it has some actual relation to the 15 minute city premise. All we have to show is that it has nothing to do with a real 15 minute city premise which is simple enough. Here's the basic founding principle of a 15 minute city: "The 15-minute city (FMC or 15mC) is an urban planning concept in which most daily necessities and services, such as work, shopping, education, healthcare, and leisure can be easily reached by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from any point in the city." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15-minute_city#:~:text=The 15-minute city (FMC,any point in the city. And why 15 minutes? The actual idea of a 15-minute city is fundamentally mundane — a form of urban planning that recognises that for journeys that take much longer than a quarter of an hour we tend to use vehicles, and so aims to maximise the density of walkable amenities. https://www.ft.com/content/93d58155-5a4e-4135-ac6f-00d5a3c8e4d1

Only if you believe frequency doesn't enter into it.

Talk is cheap. Shell, BP boost profit, sink investment in renewable energy While the big five oil companies registered record profits on the back of the energy crisis, relatively little will be reinvested in renewables as climate goals are slashed. https://www.dw.com/en/shell-bp-boost-profit-sink-investment-in-renewable-energy/a-64656800

A very tiny exception. And it came well after Iran was already enriching its uranium despite the sanctions imposed by Trump. So this remark of yours: "Sanctions on sanctions no money no nukes. Why does everyone have to spell it out to you guys?" remains false.

You mean before mobile phones, droughts, hurricanes, and floods passed unnoticed by the scientific community?