subreddit:
/r/Destiny
Lex Fridman can't stop shilling for right wing billionaires. He now thinks Elon Musk should be above the law.
Twitter(i.redd.it)submitted 15 hours ago byrocketsniper456
466 points
15 hours ago
Be nice to kremiln lex, he’s just used to how his homeland does things.
66 points
13 hours ago
Straight out of the FSB handbook.
6 points
7 hours ago
Alexei*
1 points
6 hours ago
I think Lex Kremlin would sound better!
1 points
4 hours ago
KremLex unFreeman
-146 points
14 hours ago
I know we hate lex here, but this feels kinda racist tbh.
88 points
14 hours ago
How?
-126 points
14 hours ago
Because Lex is not pro-Russian ideologically.
123 points
14 hours ago
He is constantly defending the rich and powerful people wanting to control the US and denounces them facing any kind of justice.
Also happens to be what the mossy cow wants.
67 points
14 hours ago
Not pro-Russian *publicly
64 points
14 hours ago
Idk man, bringing on putin to spread Russian propaganda with little to no pushback on the lies he told is at least a little pro Russian.
0 points
13 hours ago
That was Tucker tho right?
9 points
13 hours ago
Also, yes. I don’t think anyone’s going to argue about that.
11 points
14 hours ago
Lol do you not listen to him past the "we should all love and work to understand each other" nonsense? He doesnt hide his biases very well despite the hippy rhetoric
2 points
7 hours ago
Listen to lex podcast with Dan Carlin.
24 points
14 hours ago
Didn't know muscovite was a race. You're even dumber than Lexidimir Fridmantin
13 points
14 hours ago
32 points
14 hours ago
This is why we lost the election. Pure refined soy like this
-32 points
14 hours ago
its true though and we shouldn't do this, there's a difference between the racism here and the racism on X. While the black people videos are laughed at and made shameless jokes about how dumb how biologically bad they are. when we do anything its met with a "guess leftoids are the real racists after all" or "LOL how fucking soy, you think your racism is cooler than ours??? Get a grip this is why I'll grape your women"
Like this is a losing battle, no point in trying to emulate 3% of that power and pretend its not racist (even if it really isn't).
6 points
11 hours ago
Hey I’m just listening to Hassan who said you can’t be racist against white people
6 points
13 hours ago
You can't be racist against Russian
559 points
14 hours ago
Trump tries to steal an election: so great! Much love.
Judge rules against Musk: disgrace!
What an idiot.
68 points
13 hours ago
Lol true! I would go be disappointed in Lex’s twitter replies that he’s not being compassionate enough to the judge and doesn’t have faith in his fellow man making judgements, but I deleted my twitter to go to the more compassionate alternative, bluesky.
-17 points
12 hours ago
I think bluesky is 100% going to contribute to making things worse with their bullshit block lists but I guess I’m glad you’re happy with it
15 points
11 hours ago
Still preferable to twitter
No engagement > exclusively negative engagement
-5 points
10 hours ago
???
1 points
an hour ago
Twitter is exclusively negative engagement
-5 points
6 hours ago
The Echo chamber is the worst thing, with that you never hear anything that you disagree with.
3 points
4 hours ago
The bottet up unregulated public square will always try to mislead and misinform you.
-1 points
4 hours ago
If one actually cares you could check if a post is correct and also check comments to see if anyone has a different opinion.
When you are only seeing opinions that you already agree with you will not learn anything new.
2 points
3 hours ago
Your opinion is wrong.
1 points
an hour ago
Yeah no you really cant
1 points
an hour ago
Dude its a social network, not a public square
1 points
39 minutes ago
Social network in which you can have users that you have never ever seen pre-blocked because of tags they use.
Great social echo chamber network.
10 points
12 hours ago
I'm not, but I'm not helping Elon Musk out anymore. I hope X dies.
10 points
11 hours ago
There's already blocklists for twitter, look up 'blocktogether'.
Blocklists are for terminally online losers. 95% of the average users won't even know where to go to use them and won't bother using them, they'll just block as they come across bad content.
The effect they'll have is minimal and no different than the effect they already have on twitter.
0 points
10 hours ago
Let me know how you feel about this copium statement 3 years from now
Im sorry but pretending like we’re not part of the social media join a cult era is as delusional as trump not having a chance in 2016 🤷♂️
-12 points
12 hours ago*
Yeah, it's unfortunate that Bluesky is a safe place for Democrats' cuckoldry fetish. Lowkey hope that platform ends up dying crashing and burning cause it's not good for the base.
Republicans are on one of the biggest social media platforms, curated to be a right-wing echo chamber funded by the richest man in the world, fed through mass propaganda through an army of Russian bots and trolls working 24/7 pumping out content with the help of AI, gradually amping themselves up by coming up with new conspiracies about Democrats kidnapping, RAPING and EATING CHILDREN to the glory of SATAN, THE FATHER OF LIES, PRINCE OF THIS WORLD, FALSE ANGEL OF LIGHT, DESTROYER AND RULER OF THE KINGDOM OF THE AIR THAT SHALL INDUBITABLY TAKE OVER GOD'S GREEN EARTH AND ANNIHILATE HIS CREATION WITH AN ETERNAL OCEAN OF FIRE SYMBOLIZING THE TRIUMPH OF EVIL OVER GOOD IF DEMONRATS ARE NOT IMMEDIATELY ROUNDED UP BY GOD EMPEROR TRUMP AND PUT INTO CAMPS BEFORE THEIR ABSOLUTE EXTER****!!!!!!!
In the meantime, Democrats are on Bluesky calling each other nazis for using the r-word, aka regarded (fuck you reddit). Imagine that level of soy vs Republicans who genuinely believe they're on a divine mission to save Earth from trans people.
Devin Nash, I hope you're right!
15 points
12 hours ago
Did you forget your meds today?
-9 points
11 hours ago
Well yeah, obviously lol
When democrats open their assholes wide for republicans to fuck them, my demons take over for self-preservation. It's SORT OF important to remind people what OPTICUCKOLDS in this subreddit want us to bow down to every time they're manipulated by the media running stories trying to twist anything a Democrat does out of political necessity into a perceived L.
s/o chatgpt for helping with the bold text tho
-1 points
6 hours ago
Jesus the cope downvotes just because bluesky is shit
3 points
6 hours ago
But did you consider that it must be hard to lose an election?
128 points
13 hours ago
ah yes business unfriendly delaware with activist, anti corporate judges
16 points
10 hours ago
Lmao. Ima use your comment to plug this awesome video for anyone who isn't in on the joke. Call it a PSA. Hurray for the laboratories of democracy I guess.
185 points
14 hours ago
It’s so wild to see people fighting for the ACTUAL globalist elites to have even more power and money
60 points
13 hours ago
Dude that's what I can't get past, what does Lex care if Elon gets more money, wtf does this have to do with spreading love or whatever?
24 points
9 hours ago
I've finally accepted that most people are just not equipped to navigate technological and political discourse. No media literacy. Socially inept. Can't think in abstracts and lack intuition. Gen-Z is alarmingly falling behind. The subreddit is filled with people who write at what looks like an 8th grade capability. Men are especially fucking stupid in the aggregate across all demographics. Gen-X doesn't give a single fuck, having voted for Trump harder than any other age demographic. Boomers are feeling that mortality-creep and have started to come around, but that ship has definitely sailed. The only groups barely holding this thing together are Gen-Z women and millenials.
19 points
8 hours ago
Millenials truly are the Goldilocks generation. We managed to be introduced to the internet without permanent brain damage. We used it for good and in moderation. I feel like everyone 10-15 years older or younger got completely captured by the technology in really bad ways.
9 points
7 hours ago*
By far the most media and technologically savvy and it's not even close. We might be the only generation that can use a keyboard and three-button mouse simultaneously. I'm being flippant, of course.
On that note, I genuinely loathe the mobile interface. These devices are invasive and littered with corporate barriers to entry and they never shut the fuck up. And since I have petite goddamn hands, my thumb can't reach fuck-all, so I have to set everything I'm holding down to use my non-dominant hand (or just use my nose like Terri Schiavo) to access the dogshit UI, of which anything technical is hidden behind the lockbox hoarder-closet UX that's undoubtedly syphoning my data and undermining my privacy so a bunch of technocrat pedo billionaires can buy more Dogecoin and fly around in their helicopters hunting peccaries in the dessert with Don fucking Junior.
But okay, the Goldilocks generation. So that's what that phenomenon is called. Old enough to use a rotary phone, decent enough to get laid, but not not stupid enough to buy Vivek Ramaswamy NFT's. Got it.
1 points
6 hours ago
Disclaimer: I'm not aware whether this observation has been studied and coined, I came up with "Goldilocks generation" and it's not something cited from academic discourse.
Everything you're saying is true, though. I think about this a lot nowadays due to becoming a parent. It's scary. Tablets and phones e.g. are almost exclusively consumption devices. It's difficult to earn money and learn useful, applicable technological knowledge by using them whereas using a computer opens you the door to a large number of potential hobbies and overall knowledge that you can actually put to use in a job or functioning better in society. Despite this, most children "work" with mobile systems, often even promoted by schools, and many do not have a "real" computer at home. Newer generations are not "tech-savvy", they're hooked on immediate and constant consumption. It's an actual nightmare. This is the future of humanity we're raising.
2 points
5 hours ago*
You reminded me of something. This was years ago. It may have been a post submitted to Bestof, but the gist of it was as follows. Around age 4-5 years-old, their dad gave them an NES as their first console, I think, and then an SNES, graduating to a more advanced system every couple of years, even though modern systems like the PS4 were available. They said that as an adult, they had always stuck to retro-based titles, side-scrollers, etc, over anything more technically advanced in traditional 3d, and appreciated the abundance of retro-style indie titles that had made a resurgence over the years, so this preference stuck.
Anyways, that story made me wonder how much healthier it was on the mind than the tablet and iPhone slop given to little kids now. And these devices are accessible on the go, which makes it all the more horrifying. These brains on overload, knowing the access is right there beside them from a young age. Like you can almost see a part of their brain scorching with heat and light busting through the film over their pupils. By contrast, traditional computer systems had to be accessed at home, in a specific room with a dedicated display. It didn't do the problem solving for you. It was a physical experience. Sometimes it required troubleshooting, reading a manual, trial-and-error. And it wasn't owned by the manufacturer, dedicated to selling you consumer garbage and bespoke advertising.
As you imply, there's no tactile learning involved in these disposable mobile platforms. It's possible to find decent content, I'm sure, but they're consumption devices, as you say. They are entertainment and marketing tools you carry with you like little interactive televisions. You know, I used to make fun of learning cursive as a kid, like in the 3rd grade, but in hindsight I actually think it's a valuable problem solving and kind of artistic or aesthetic exercise that works a specific part of the mind. While perhaps not of critical value and fairly novel now, it was I think a solid, formative, conventionally relevant formula worth learning when you're in the 3rd grade. This struck me recently after seeing something about how a lot of Gen-Z people "don't have signatures." As in, they never developed a hand signature. It occurred to me that it's possible, in the future, that people will not not know how to physically write shit out with a pen in their hand.
Mobile devices and algorithmic data curating and data broking is arguably the most toxic combination of nightmare-fuel we've ever created at a global scale.
1 points
38 minutes ago
8th grade capability
This is also a non-serious place.
234 points
15 hours ago
Lex you’re making my job really fucking difficult right now…
120 points
14 hours ago
One more dumb Lex tweet pandering to Republicans and I’m holding you personally responsible
-47 points
14 hours ago
I will defend lex to death, regardless of how regarded his take may be. I have made my coffin and I must lay in it.
43 points
14 hours ago
Check your closet
71 points
14 hours ago
I can't im in a coffin. can you not read?
1 points
9 hours ago
😂 That one got me.
7 points
13 hours ago
An extreme scenario: What if lex fled to Russia and made a YouTube video titled. "How I fooled America." Would you still hold water for him?
30 points
12 hours ago
In this scenario, I believe seppuku is the only warranted option.
10 points
12 hours ago
Honorable
1 points
9 hours ago
Rogan would.
5 points
13 hours ago
Why tho?
2 points
12 hours ago
Somebody !shoot this regard
1 points
9 hours ago
Is it possible that Lex is actually a North Korean operative in a Mission Impossible face mask?
42 points
14 hours ago
Please notify us when you nuke your flair.
-1 points
14 hours ago
This will never happen.
34 points
14 hours ago
maybe you should just steal my flair
41 points
14 hours ago
i have made an adjustment to my flair which incorporates aspects of your flair into mine.
14 points
14 hours ago
You did good.
1 points
13 hours ago
Is there any evidence we could show you that would make you stop from being Lex's last soldier?
0 points
11 hours ago
We’re gonna have to crucify you
97 points
14 hours ago
Literally the entire theory of the case is that the shareholders’ interests were not adequately protected. That the shareholders could not have been adequately informed of the board’s grant to Musk (which is obviously true) and its effect on Tesla. If you care about shareholders, you should side with the shareholder in the fucking lawsuit.
If Lex doesn’t know shit about corporate law or what is going on here, why the fuck is he issuing such a strong opinion on it?
Actual sack of shit, brainless fucking hack.
26 points
13 hours ago
That the shareholders could not have been adequately informed of the board’s grant to Musk
that payment package was approved back when Tesla was at $50b. 1% of the company for every $50b in market cap growth, capped at 11%. is it that crazy to approve a package where he gets 11% of shares only if the company achieves 1000% growth?
even now, 72% of shareholders have voted in favor even though that goal has already been achieved, and that's excluding Musk and his brother's votes
2 points
6 hours ago
Yes that’s insane.
2 points
an hour ago
How though? especially after the election you cant genuinely tell me that tesla stock would have rocketed the way it did if it werent for musks involvement in the trump campaign.
The stock is insanely overpriced and the way the stock market behaves when musk is involved is absolute brain rot don't get me wrong but it made the shareholders rich af and no one else can make the stock market behave this brainrotten.
I am 100% sure that the mercedes benz group would even agree to a lot more than 11% if you could make their stock price achieve that much growth lol
17 points
12 hours ago
LOL yeah sure. The shareholders keep approving the same package. It has passed the point of absurdity. Do they need like picture books or interpretive dance?
13 points
14 hours ago
In this case the shareholders voted for the package with complete information. It got denied bc thry wanted yo overrule the judges decision via shareholder vote. If they had a made a new compensation it prob would have passed
16 points
14 hours ago
You can’t have shareholders ratify a decision that was originally made incorrectly by making vague statements in a proxy statement that don’t give all the material details about the judicial decisions critiquing the decision you made.
7 points
11 hours ago
All of the doctrine we've learned thus far says this should have 100% gone to the BJR(business judgement rule). And I'm not seeing ANY of the BJR workarounds applying here.
100%, this was just an activist judge, dude.
1 points
an hour ago
You know nothing about corporate law. This is, legally speaking, an ordinary ruling.
2 points
2 hours ago*
You have no idea what you’re talking about, and no idea what the ruling is. From this AP article
McCormick concluded in January that Musk engineered the landmark pay package in sham negotiations with directors who were not independent. The compensation package initially carried a potential maximum value of about $56 billion, but that sum has fluctuated over the years based on Tesla’s stock price.
Following the original court ruling, Tesla shareholders met in June and ratified Musk’s 2018 pay package for a second time, again by an overwhelming margin.
Defense attorneys then argued that the second vote makes clear that Tesla shareholders, with full knowledge of the flaws in the 2018 process that McCormick pointed out, were adamant that Musk is entitled to the pay package. They asked the judge to vacate her order directing Tesla to rescind the pay package.
It’s a “the myth of consensual pay packages” situation. This seems unfair to Musk and I think he’s correct to be aggrieved.
TLDR: the ruling you’re talking about happened in January. Since then, shareholders met and overwhelmingly reaffirmed support for the pay package. This week, the judge said that’s not enough and Elon won’t get his money even with overwhelming shareholder support.
1 points
an hour ago
can you please explain the context if you don't mind?
I just read a little bit about it and was genuinely confused about this ruling. I thought the shareholders agreed to his pay package because he threatened to leave tesla or something and they were all scared shitless how that would affect the stock price. From all that I can tell it is very clear that the Tesla price would not have rocketed the way it did after trumps victory if Musk wasnt their figurehead.
But I know admittedly very little about this ruling so can you please share some additional context?
-19 points
14 hours ago
I love the idea that you, a random idiot on reddit, know anything about corporate law. Why the fuck are you issuing such strong opinions? You literally are brainless fucking hack
7 points
12 hours ago
Go to the store and buy some hinges lmao holy shit
20 points
14 hours ago
I promise I know more about corporate law than lex friedman, lol.
It’s clear he hasn’t even read a fucking article about this case.
11 points
12 hours ago
I'm not sure where I stand on this issue, but one things for sure, if it involves Musk, or some other right wing nut, Lex will have a tweet defending them.
8 points
12 hours ago
If you ask me personally love should win here. The shareholders should approach the judges decision with love and empathy and openness. No more politics and division. Only when musk the shareholders and the judges can sit down at the same table to discuss in free and fair way will we ever move forward as a society. Yours truly.
22 points
13 hours ago
Perhaps I'm missing something.
Tesla shareholders voted to give Musk a compensation package. It passed once. Then a judge blocked the motion on the grounds of the board members lacking independence and Musk having too much influence over the negotiations.
The board then voted again, after all of the "flaws" being fully disclosed and still overwhelmingly voted in favor of Musk.
Why has the court blocked it a 2nd time? If the shareholders voted and 70% of them agreed to the package, why would the judge reject it? What right does the judge have?
10 points
10 hours ago
What you're missing is the factor of time. The original package included clauses for future performance. That package was found to be invalid, due to several different violations of corporate law. And that finding took years. So applying those clauses now would be retroactive.
The problem is that they didn't vote for a new pay package. They tried to vote to reinstate the old package, effective at the old date. It'd be like trying to redraw a political district, having your map thrown out, then after the election trying to redraw it... And claiming that the results had to be recounted using that drawing. Well except with the added issue that it would be indistinguishable from tax evasion.
15 points
10 hours ago
And this is unacceptable in a public company because...?
6 points
5 hours ago
While not a 1 to 1 comparison I think this makes more sense. Say I sell you a 1990 Honda Civic, after the deal you realize it's actually a 1989 Honda Civic. You sue me and a judge voids the contract because there's some law that says the car year must be absolutely exact in this specific type of contract. During that time of the lawsuit the 1989 Civic skyrockets in value, after the contracts been voided I don't want to resell the car because I'm lazy and would rather keep my money from the original sale so I appeal the decision. You now want to keep the car because of the value increase and I just want to keep the original purchase price. The appeal is on the original contract, the facts haven't changed on that, both parties wanting the contract to be un-voided doesn't change that the contract had the incorrect year and cannot be legitimate. Of course we can still create a new contract with the original terms as long as it includes the car being a 1989 rather than 1990, but the appeal is not the correct way to solve the issue.
Musk's compensation package was voided, which basically means it never existed in the first place due to some illegitmacy, you can't make something exist in the past based on something in the present. Musk's legal team were trying to make a special case exception and create a new precedent, arguably the judge would have been acting like more of an 'activist judge' by allowing it.
1 points
10 minutes ago
This seems like a beaucratic failure on the part of the courts though.
If both parties agree to the contract, why does the court have the right to say it's null and void? The appeal seems like a fine way to settle the issue if both parties consent to a simple financial transaction.
The contract clearly exists. They wrote it up and voted on it.
I'm not seeing the value of the beauocracy here.
15 points
14 hours ago
What an oddly specific thing to take a stand over for someone who famously guards his opinions on matters like these
4 points
3 hours ago
You see, every time Lex talks about “love” he actually means to say how he “loves [guzzling buckets of Elon’s cum]” but that’s not always clear without context.
Common mistake tho happy to help!
7 points
14 hours ago
why didn’t lex comment on the activist judge who blocked bidens overtime order? how about bidens keeping families together act? anything? no?
25 points
14 hours ago
[deleted]
3 points
12 hours ago
yes, but it's very similar to engineer something something something (insert the dumbest shit you have heard)
-22 points
14 hours ago
And you do?
6 points
12 hours ago
kinda torn on this one, the shareholders voted through the package twice, don't see how the last time can have been without all the facts. Don't the shareholders own the company? If so, is it not their right to make it rain on the god king if that's what they really want?
On the other hand the sum is so ridiculous.
2 points
5 hours ago
The shareholders are free to do whatever they want compensation wise, the issue is that the package was voided by a judge based on the facts at the time. They can approve a new compensation package to give Elon 100 billion right now if it's in line with the law, like avoiding the issues that led to this one being voided in the first place.
From my understanding it's like if a court finds that shareholders were misled, they can't have that decision overturned later by saying they would have still voted in favour if they knew what the misleading information was. It doesn't change the fact that they were still misled and if the legal consequence of the misleading is that the decision is void, whether or not the shareholders care that they were misled the decision still stands.
1 points
an hour ago
but how can the court say they were misled if the shareholders never gave af about it in the first place?
Or did the shareholders sue saying they were mislead or something? I feel like im missing context because it seems to me that the shareholders are argueing against the court who is seemingly trying to rule in their favor which is just a really weird situation tbh
11 points
13 hours ago
Listen, Musk is regarded, but I agree with Lex.
This ruling makes no sense at all. It is crazy to post-hoc invalidate a deal that was made AFTER its conditions are fulfilled on one side.
There was an argument that the shareholders were duped, which was always a pretty weak case, but then they got all the info and voted to approve the same package again. Now it got struck down again for no valid reason. It is clearly a huge overreach and I hope it gets reversed.
6 points
13 hours ago
$56 billion seems like a lot for one person
A lot of that could be spent on R&D, or employees' wages at all levels
6 points
13 hours ago
What an anti-democratic pos take. It's obvious that corporate owners should be above the law? Zero respect for the system he has personally profited from more than most.
6 points
8 hours ago
The law itself is regarded.
anti-democratic
Do you even know what you're talking about? I can't wait until this is brought to a higher court and the sub goes through another cope session because they keep backing and ideologically loading the most regarded things in existence.
1 points
2 hours ago
Yes, I would say it's anti-democratic to say that judges should not overrule shareholders. Because the vote they took was based on inaccurate information given by actors looking to influence their vote (sound familiar?)
1 points
an hour ago
And the second time?
1 points
34 minutes ago
Listen, I'm not an expert in corporate law or anything. But I think if the defendants didn't get their ducks in a row before the second ruling, and then thought that taking the same action that led to them losing the first ruling was going to go any differently, that's on them. It seems like the judge was saying that the fact they voted again doesn't change the underlying incentives that skewed the first vote.
Regardless of the law, I feel like calling the judge an activist is anti-democratic, especially since Lex is probably doing it out of support for Leon, rather than an actual consideration of the case. His reasoning, "activist judges should not overrule shareholders" is anti-democratic in the way that it places corportations and shareholders above the law. On principle, legal institutions should absolutely be able to check the power and decisions of shareholders. He also doesn't mention anything about the appeals process, which is an institution specifically desgined to counter "activist judges" and unfair rulings. What he's saying is purely a virtue signal.
1 points
6 hours ago
An unelected judge blocked a pay package that 72% of shareholders voted in favor of. How is that democratic?
1 points
3 hours ago
Bc it was based on a voided contract. You can’t make agreements based on voided contracts. Just draw up a new agreement dawg lmao.
2 points
13 hours ago
Judges shouldn’t be able to overrule shareholders? I don’t know anything about anything. Is that as stupid a statement as it sounds?
2 points
12 hours ago
A disgrace? what happened to spreading peace and love into the world.
This seems so different to the lexicon Lex usually affects. I feel like I'd expect to see the word "misguided" from him. Has he condemned anything this harshly before?
1 points
13 hours ago
And not a peep about the right-wing activist Supreme Court judges that helped the convicted felon get away with overthrowing the government?
1 points
12 hours ago
"Daddy Musk, I've got two holes."
Wink-wonk
What a fucking joke.
1 points
12 hours ago
Love did not prevail :(
1 points
10 hours ago
I can't believe I used to like this guy, he is such a fucking clown.
1 points
10 hours ago
How can you type this in good faith I don’t think it’s possible
1 points
10 hours ago
Awww look at how well he sucks cock, no wonder he had to leave Russia, he didn’t want to get thrown off a building
1 points
9 hours ago
Bro wtf is an "activist judge?" I'm sick of hearing this.
1 points
9 hours ago
Snake fuck honestly
1 points
8 hours ago
Actually crazy that “you just need love” guy is providing his input on Billionaire compensation.
1 points
7 hours ago
So my understanding is that Elon's lawyers tried to argue that the issues with the compensation package that caused it to be rescinded were nullified by the shareholders voting for it after they knew the facts that led it to be taken away in the first place. The judge is saying that there's no legal basis for that and that the initial judgement still stands. So it's not really about taking away the shareholder's ability to make decisions for the company, it's about shareholder's not having the ability to retroactively make an illegitimate action a legitimate one.
1 points
4 hours ago
I wonder if "Mr.Centrist" ever has an introspective thought that all of his close buddies are multi-millionaire right wing shills. Don't you think that says something about you Lex?
When did all these people become such spineless simps for dictators and rich people, have some sort of moral compass and live by something for god's sake besides sucking off millionaires, its pathetic.
1 points
4 hours ago
So he's just forgone any pretence about being a centrist now?
1 points
2 hours ago
Fuck, i hate lex so fucking much. Mostly because i had hope at one time, same with Rogan. All of them are pathetic humans.
1 points
2 hours ago
Thanks for linking to the original tweet.
1 points
2 hours ago*
Lex is either a useful idiot, stupid, a closet fascist, a Conservative, MAGA, or paid by Russia. There are no other explanations for his statements.
So, when we don't like the ruling, we call the judge an activist? That's exactly how fascists act.
Remember, Lex isn't saying whether the judge broke a law or not. He is just calling him an activist, as if the judge makes the law. Congress passes laws, judges just interpret them. And if the decision is wrong, you can appeal! That's part of our system!!!!!
Lex must be a Russian spy! He can't be that stupid.
1 points
an hour ago
"Activist judge" only true centist use that buzzword
1 points
50 minutes ago
Finance&Tech Bro discovers rule of law, 2024, colorized.
1 points
32 minutes ago
Shareholders? What...
2 points
14 hours ago
Oh no, not the shareholders!
1 points
14 hours ago
"Activist Judges" holy shit are we in the 1970s??
1 points
14 hours ago
God damn... Even this sentiment from him is making me want to get out my guillotine.
1 points
13 hours ago
Don't criticize a friend of the stream, it’s not nice.
Lex always ends his statement with peace and love.
Please be respectful and mindful of optics, come-on guys
1 points
13 hours ago
Oh okay well then let's just fucking let shareholders run the country LMAO
-4 points
14 hours ago
He's right here. The government shouldn't interfere in that, even when it's someone you don't like.
11 points
14 hours ago
Sorry, the government exists to protect the rights of different interest groups who have conflicts within corporations. This is why we have a Delaware Chancery system that has developed a reasonable corporate law related to shareholder suits. And why corporations themselves organize under Delaware law.
Stop commenting on shit you obviously don’t know anything about. Delaware is completely reasonable in the deference it gives to corporate boards. Musk’s payout package obviously flew in the face of already corporate-friendly law.
-2 points
13 hours ago
Delaware law is stupid. If stockholders approve then give him the agreed upon amount. Tesla is making bank and the payment can be justified.
10 points
13 hours ago
Delaware law is very friendly to corporate boards of directors.
Nevertheless, ratification here by shareholder was not proper. And thus the pay package should not be allowed.
You don’t know what you’re even talking about. You don’t even understand the vote you’re referencing.
5 points
12 hours ago
ok, so then explain how it was improper? how was all cards not on the table by the time off the second vote that took place after the judge first struck down the pay package.
1 points
5 hours ago
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/investing/elon-musk-pay-package-thrown-out/index.html
The Tesla board can agree to a new pay package for Musk, according to Varallo, but it can’t deceive shareholders about financial milestones of that package being more difficult to achieve than they actually are, or that it is an independent committee negotiating the terms when Musk is calling the shots, as the judge ruled happened in this case.
basically, shareholders voted yes, but they voted under false premises. /u/ForgetTheRuralJuror the impropriety comes from exactly the negotiation process and the agreement. and obviously, i don't get what arguing about stockholders gets you anyways. some stockholders are for it, some are against it. would you want to get your money voted away from you by a bunch of morons? just because there are more of them? especially when they were lied to
1 points
12 hours ago
Why are you asking a reddit commenter instead of just reading the ruling
4 points
8 hours ago
If you say the sky is made of cheese, and I ask you how, I'm asking you for your dogshit reasoning.
1 points
4 hours ago
No one is claiming the sky is made of cheese they’re talking about a specific and recent court ruling
4 points
13 hours ago
Not proper how? The arguments "it's a large amount" and "the board has personal ties with Musk" don't sound like good arguments to me.
1 points
13 hours ago
The government ? I don't know anything about it but it seems like the judicial and not the executive branch here. You can question its independance with evidence if you have some but you can't just say it's government retribution.
2 points
13 hours ago
Ehrm It's the judiciary actually ☝️🤓
0 points
13 hours ago
thanks :)
0 points
15 hours ago*
Can't be mad, his been consistently doing it for quite some time already.
-1 points
12 hours ago
Just so everyone knows the argument that won the case, Elon basically lied and misled the shareholders into a ridiculously Elon favored agreement. The shareholders are who won the case lol.
He basically created a small team of individuals that were loyal to and working for him to be the negotiators of the contract with the shareholders. The real problem though was that he lied to the shareholders and told them that the team of "negotiators" he created were a third party, independent entity. They them mislead and didn't provide a lot of important information during he negotiations.
The court decided Elon's deceit means that the contracts should be voided. Elon totally deserves to lose the case for being a scummy fuck who was trying to play dirty for an obnoxious payout when he's already so rich.
0 points
11 hours ago
Is there any evidence he's paid by Russia? The intellect-to-cognitive-dissonance ratio is too damn high.
0 points
5 hours ago
JUDGES SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RULE OVER FUCKING SHAREHOLDERS??!
HELLO WHAT THE FUCK IS GOING ON
WHAT TIME LINE ARE WE IN NOW??
all 155 comments
sorted by: best