Search results

En route to the meeting pub in Marylebone now. Cash in some of those shares and come buy me a pint 😉.

It’s almost like the pressure from his investors expedited that move. Rebound somewhat, yes. Be interesting to see what the lasting damage to Brand Elon is though. The stock price is still down 25% YTD, despite a rally over the last couple of days.

The large majority of ‘investors’ are pensions funds and investment vehicles, not individuals who act with a singular conscience. But consumers are. And consumer demand is way down and unlikely to fully recover due to the damaged Musk brand. And that will still make it a less popular (and...

It’s almost like the guy who runs the company made some sort of announcement this week that he was going to concentrate on actually running his business and step away from politics which was damaging the brand.

And the Trump administration’s claims appear to be far-fetched. Well I never! https://bsky.app/profile/asharangappa.bsky.social/post/3lnntgdgiyk26 Going to war with your judiciary and universities. Definitely not an authoritarian regime.

It’s an utterly meaningless combination of words.

Why do you persist with such meaningless drivel?

So the Democrat judges that ruled against are activists but the Republican ones aren’t? Right.

Are you genuinely trying to out do everyone else on here in the being thick category? In a strong field, you’ve given it a massive go with that statement.

You can do better than that 😘

Alright, Baizuo bae

“Baizuo is a derogatory Chinese neologism used to refer to Western liberals and leftists, especially in relation to refugee issues and social problems.” The most online man in the world who has no original thoughts for himself.

You were the one that mentioned Jewish people. Twice.

Why do you think we think your enemy is the Jews? Different enemy, exact same tactics.

And five Republican ones also opposing Trump’s plan. Why didn’t you name those ones?

This is hugely clutching Penge.

You’ve picked out one so called ‘activist’ judge (always a good look to be dismissive about judges) out of the other 8 that agreed with the ruling, which is your opinion, not a fact. You’ve focused on the second most important thing to the electorate (how’s the first one going by the way?) and...

There’s no reasoning. They find their own ‘facts’.

If he’s not breaking the law, why is the judge issuing this?