placeholder

If they've got something to offer. But you don't give someone like Kim an audience with the POTUS in exchange for nothing. That's what subordinates are for. Just another empty, grandiose negotiating failure.

Not if Kim has as little to offer to Biden as he did to Trump. I will say this for Trump though. Unlike in his business history, he only lost a little in the negotiations with Kim.

The reason twitter has so few ads is because Musk doesn't want them?

If by facing the issue head on you mean giving Kim the attention and respect he craved, then yes.

As the latest elections showed, running on a fake elections platform was not exactly a sterling idea. Now you want to yoke together 2 candidates who are obsessive about the Issue? I hope Trump follows your plan.

Climate change: trees grow for extra month as planet warms - study https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-65037659

Great choice of fish. Due to global warming, great whites are extending their range northwards. Now if you had chosen to be the kind of fish that inhabits coral reefs...

Propaganda is being set out continuously. Only now it's a lot more subtle. The evidence for climate change caused by emissions became too overwhelming for oil companies to refute. So, now instead, they've refocused their efforts. One way is to shift the responsibility to consumers. Another is to shift emphasis to carbon capture, removing CO2 from the atmosphere instead of not burning fossil fuels in the first place. ExxonMobil wants you to feel responsible for climate change so it doesn’t have to To understand why ExxonMobil has been so effective at shaping the US narrative about climate change in the US for some 40 years, look no further than the words of one of the company’s communications strategists, Mobil Vice President of Public Affairs Herbert Schmertz: ”Your objective is to wrap yourself in the good phrases while sticking your opponents with the bad ones,” he wrote in 1986. From the 1970s through the 1990s, most of the company’s PR efforts focused on casting doubt on the scientific consensus that burning fossil fuels was warming the planet. But by the mid-2000s, it was taking a more sophisticated, nuanced approach... https://www.vox.com/22429551/climate-change-crisis-exxonmobil-harvard-study If you want to see some of this in action just go here https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change#:~:text=Reducing emissions in its operations,engaging on climate-related policy or here https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/sustainability/environmental-protection/climate-change/understanding-the-exxonknew-controversy Another way big oil propagandizes is putting its employees in academic or education settings. Exxon in the classroom: how big oil money influences US universities https://www.theguardian.com/education/2023/mar/27/fossil-fuel-firms-us-universities-colonize-academia

That was his claim. Elon Musk does not have a great history of being honest. Did you know that even before he offered to purchase he had already seriously questioned their numbers? No, he behaved like an idiot in making that purchase by waiving due diligence and then tried to wriggle his way out of it. If the "fraud" was as serious as he alleged, then he would have had a good at at convincing the Delaware Chancery court to abrogate the deal. But it wasn't, so he had to go ahead and make the purchase.

Your mind-reading act is refuted by the facts. Why did Musk try so hard to extricate himself from the deal? Because it didn't matter to him that he was about to lose a ton of money?

I did. Another exercise in deflection.

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.