Elon Musk To Step Down As Head Of Twitter

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: tanstaafl
Twitter employs people across the globe. In other countries. In other words in places where US labour laws don't apply.

I don't care about socialist/communistic countries anti-liberty laws.

Local employment laws therefore count, not the deranged wishes of Musk.

So, you can link us to all of the massive lawsuits he is engaged in now due to violating their laws?

By the way, by your standards all forms of insurance, regulation and workers rights are also 'socialist', although I'd wage good money that you have no actual experience of that word means.

That would depend on which regulations/'worker's rights' you are talking about. A 'worker' doesn't have a natural Right to force anyone else to employ them. PERIOD.

Insurance is a voluntary contract.

Firstly, what you call the 'anti-liberty' laws of socialist/communistic countries, other people would call common sense, before pointing out that your 'right to work' boast is basically completely biased towards the employers, who can fire whoever they like, whenever they they, for little if any reason. There is a reason why parts of the USA are not seen as a place to want to emulate. The views of other people count just as much as yours in other words.
Secondly, I imagine that various lawyers have now explained to Musk, in detail, that the USA =/= the world and that that goes for US labour laws as well.
Thirdly, please stop wilfully distorting things. Musk can start a redundancy process for UK & EU Twitter workers. Yes, they will leave. No, it will not be instant. And no, it will not be cheap for Twitter. There are labour laws in place to prevent the wilful abuse of staff by employers. And if you try and tell me that employers can do what they like to staff, then I would like to point out that safety standards exist for a reason and that slavery in the USA was abolished more than 150 years ago.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Rumors DT Jr might be new twitter CEO. Waiting for heads to explode in 3.....2.....1.......

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: tanstaafl

Lol I know it does not mean that, I thought you understood sarcasm, my mistake

My bad, I didn't even consider that bots were capable of sarcasm.

As to your wild point on who should be allowed to vote , are you suggesting anyone in receipt of disability payments can’t vote?

What I'm saying is that those who are dependent on the charity of others shouldn't have the power to force them to provide said charity.

a reply to: tanstaafl

May I beep beep boop, sorry let me reset

Can you directly answer my question?

Are you stating people on disability payments should not have the right to vote

Shutting down now.........

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: tanstaafl

Can you directly answer my question?

Are you stating people on disability payments should not have the right to vote

Objection... assumes facts not in evidence, and is too broad.

What is the source of said disability payments?

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: tanstaafl

Vox Populi Vox DeI

Or translated , only the voices of the paying subscribers counts

It doesn't mean that, but whatever...

IMO just another 2 tier system , thankfully I have never signed up for twitter

Imo we should go back to only those who own their own homes/land are allowed to vote, and anyone who receives any government benefits whatsoever in any calendar year is NOT allowed to vote in the next election cycle.

Yes, I think that is fair.

I believe in the USA people with disabilities are entitled to support from the government and you clearly stated above that you believe anyone who is granted such payments can not vote

Perhaps my AI was off though

All I am asking is for you to clarify your stance

They we can perhaps move on to the next point of people who rent property and their right to vote under your proposal but we will go 1 step at a time for now so my CPU can keep up

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: tanstaafl
I believe in the USA people with disabilities are entitled to support from the government and you clearly stated above that you believe anyone who is granted such payments can not vote

If said disability payments come from the government, then no, they should not be allowed to vote.

You are aware that there are private disability payments that can come from private insurance policies... right?

a reply to: tanstaafl

Thanks for the clarification, someone born disabled and without the ability to ever work under your system , the one you said you believed was fair can’t vote

So point 2 now

Can you clarify if people rent property they can not vote either ?

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: tanstaafl
Twitter employs people across the globe. In other countries. In other words in places where US labour laws don't apply.

I don't care about socialist/communistic countries anti-liberty laws.

Local employment laws therefore count, not the deranged wishes of Musk.

So, you can link us to all of the massive lawsuits he is engaged in now due to violating their laws?

By the way, by your standards all forms of insurance, regulation and workers rights are also 'socialist', although I'd wage good money that you have no actual experience of that word means.

That would depend on which regulations/'worker's rights' you are talking about. A 'worker' doesn't have a natural Right to force anyone else to employ them. PERIOD.

Insurance is a voluntary contract.

Firstly, what you call the 'anti-liberty' laws of socialist/communistic countries, other people would call common sense, before pointing out that your 'right to work' boast is basically completely biased towards the employers, who can fire whoever they like, whenever they they, for little if any reason. There is a reason why parts of the USA are not seen as a place to want to emulate. The views of other people count just as much as yours in other words.
Secondly, I imagine that various lawyers have now explained to Musk, in detail, that the USA =/= the world and that that goes for US labour laws as well.
Thirdly, please stop wilfully distorting things. Musk can start a redundancy process for UK & EU Twitter workers. Yes, they will leave. No, it will not be instant. And no, it will not be cheap for Twitter. There are labour laws in place to prevent the wilful abuse of staff by employers. And if you try and tell me that employers can do what they like to staff, then I would like to point out that safety standards exist for a reason and that slavery in the USA was abolished more than 150 years ago.

Slavery was not abolished.

Slavery is refined, evolved, and mastered today.

Only the willfully ignorant, complicit, or responsible would disagree.

a reply to: tanstaafl

What I'm saying is that those who are dependent on the charity of others shouldn't have the power to force them to provide said charity.

Whoa, hossy! Slow down there...

I worked my butt off for others my entire life. I don't appreciate you calling it "charity." If I work for someone, it's a contract... I perform the work you need performed; you pay me the money we agreed to. I earned my pay! It was certainly not "charity."

I'm in a "right to work" state as well, and it works for us. I get the concept. But when you start calling my earning a living by the sweat of my brow "charity," we have an issue.

TheRedneck

a reply to: tanstaafl

If said disability payments come from the government, then no, they should not be allowed to vote.

Steeeee-rike two!

I paid for my disability. All throughout my working life, I paid thousands upon thousands of dollars, money that I was morally and contractually due and which I never agreed to pay, into an insurance policy that was enforced upon me by law whether I wanted it or not! A few years back, I had a legitimate claim against that insurance policy I paid for. I made that claim and received my disability payments as per the contract that was forced upon me and that was paid for by forcefully taking a portion of my wages against my will.

Now you would remove my right to vote because I used an insurance policy that I was forced to take out and pay for?

Dude... you need to get a grip on reality. Them's getting real close to fightin' words. I'm a legitimate citizen of this country, like it or not, and I'm not going anywhere.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

Firstly, what you call the 'anti-liberty' laws of socialist/communistic countries, other people would call common sense, before pointing out that your 'right to work' boast is basically completely biased towards the employers, who can fire whoever they like, whenever they they, for little if any reason. There is a reason why parts of the USA are not seen as a place to want to emulate. The views of other people count just as much as yours in other words.
Secondly, I imagine that various lawyers have now explained to Musk, in detail, that the USA =/= the world and that that goes for US labour laws as well.
Thirdly, please stop wilfully distorting things. Musk can start a redundancy process for UK & EU Twitter workers. Yes, they will leave. No, it will not be instant. And no, it will not be cheap for Twitter. There are labour laws in place to prevent the wilful abuse of staff by employers. And if you try and tell me that employers can do what they like to staff, then I would like to point out that safety standards exist for a reason and that slavery in the USA was abolished more than 150 years ago.

Having lived in Europe for a number of years, I was thoroughly impressed by the amount of protection and benefits that even the lowest level employee enjoys. The crap that U.S. employers get away with willy-nilly was a big no-go in the Eurozone. Musk is in for a seriously rude awakening.

That said, you are wrong about slavery being abolished here. It still exists. See the 14th amendment, and our private, for-profit prison industrial complex.

originally posted by: panoz77
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

Rumors DT Jr might be new twitter CEO. Waiting for heads to explode in 3.....2.....1.......

The only head that's gonna be exploding is Junior's when he realizes the amount of legal actions he's going to be getting. He already has his hands full with Trump Org.

originally posted by: UpThenDown
a reply to: tanstaafl

Thanks for the clarification, someone born disabled and without the ability to ever work under your system , the one you said you believed was fair can’t vote

Correct. They are 'on the dole' , so should not have any control whatsoever over the control of the dole.

So point 2 now

Can you clarify if people rent property they can not vote either ?

Correct - they should not be able to vote.

I know it sounds cold/callous, but it really isn't, when looked at with the proper lens.

Why should someone be able to vote themselves 'bread and circuses'?

Although, I would also stipulate that one exception to the 'land/property holder' rule would be a successful stint of military service (with honorable discharge). This is how Heinlein would have handled it - no service, no vote.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

If said disability payments come from the government, then no, they should not be allowed to vote.

Steeeee-rike two!

I paid for my disability. All throughout my working life, I paid thousands upon thousands of dollars, money that I was morally and contractually due and which I never agreed to pay, into an insurance policy that was enforced upon me by law whether I wanted it or not! A few years back, I had a legitimate claim against that insurance policy I paid for. I made that claim and received my disability payments as per the contract that was forced upon me and that was paid for by forcefully taking a portion of my wages against my will.

That is fine then... such payments would/should not be a disqualification for voting.

Now you would remove my right to vote because I used an insurance policy that I was forced to take out and pay for?

Nope, not at all, what makes you think that?

I'm talking about 'the dole'. Government handouts. Welfare. Unearned 'benefits'.

Dude... you need to get a grip on reality. Them's getting real close to fightin' words. I'm a legitimate citizen of this country, like it or not, and I'm not going anywhere.

My grip on reality is just fine, than you very much.

Again, I'll ask...

Why should those on the dole - receiving free/unearned welfare 'benefits' (handouts taken by force at gunpoint from those paying taxes) be able to vote to give themselves more of my hard-earned money?

Dude - if you can't see the insanity of such a system, then you are the one who needs to get a grip.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

I worked my butt off for others my entire life. I don't appreciate you calling it "charity." If I work for someone, it's a contract... I perform the work you need performed; you pay me the money we agreed to. I earned my pay! It was certainly not "charity."

I didn't say it was. You seem to be reading something into my words that is not there.

I'm in a "right to work" state as well, and it works for us. I get the concept. But when you start calling my earning a living by the sweat of my brow "charity," we have an issue.
As would I, but since that is nowhere near what I'm saying, I think you need to step back, take a breath, and try to see what you are missing when reading what I'm saying.

Also, when I say 'charity', I'm talking about FORCED charity - the government dole kind.

This would not apply to charity received from those giving it voluntarily - ie, through a Church, or whatever.

Again, I'm talking about money taken from others against their will (by coercion, ie, taxation).

a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm on disability now. Is that not part of your "forced charity"? Did I misunderstand that you want to take away my right to vote because of that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: InachMarbank

Elon should start being a man and stop letting the world decide what to do. That's not what a CEO does.

But, it means nothing. He outright owns the company and can move himself to a mail sorter position yet fire any replacement CEO and re-take the helm. He's the sole chairman and sole owner.

But it may be good for TSLA stock instead of tweeting all day. You can't make policy changes on the fly as he's been doing, and did so yet again after other recent policy blunders.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: tanstaafl

I'm on disability now. Is that not part of your "forced charity"? Did I misunderstand that you want to take away my right to vote because of that?

If the disability is coming from a private contract as you stated, then no, that should not disqualify you from being able to vote...

The question is the source of the funds. If the funds are coming from the government/taxpayers, then it is coming from funds extorted from others against their will, and yes, that should disqualify you from eligibility to vote to extort even more money from those it is being extorted from, against their will.

a reply to: tanstaafl

No, I am on SS Disability. I get a monthly check from the US government. My description was intended to point out that I did not ask to be included in Social Security; I was forced to participate in Social Security; the "premiums" were taken directly out of my pay before I ever had a chance to see them; when i had a claim against that insurance policy I was forced to take, it took 18 months to prove my claim; now someone thinks because I actually made a claim against that insurance that was forced on me by the US government, I should be denied my right to vote!

Dude, no wonder the Democrats keep winning! At least they're not wanting to strip me of the right to vote openly! They do it in secret and make excuses, so people at least get to think they're voting!

TheRedneck