Trump / Musk (other than DOGE) Omnibus Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 11K
  • Views: 320K
  • Politics 
“…
Former President Donald Trump’s campaign flew in a blue Gulfstream jet formerly owned by sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, using it to travel to several campaign fundraisers over the weekend, the Miami Herald has confirmed.

Trump, enroute on his own private plane to a campaign event in Bozeman, Montana last week, unexpectedly landed in Billings because of mechanical problems, a campaign spokeswoman said. He and part of his staff then flew on a small charter to Bozeman for a rally Friday night.

The next day, he switched to another larger Gulfstream with a serial number that matches a plane once owned by Epstein, his former neighbor in Palm Beach, the campaign confirmed.

“The campaign had no awareness that the charter plane had been owned by Mr. Epstein,” the spokeswoman said, adding that the charter was commissioned by a vendor that has often been used by the campaign. “We heard about the former owner through the media.”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article290986070.html#storylink=cpy
 
(Cont’d)

“…
The campaign spokeswoman confirmed that a decal with the words “Trump 2024” was placed on Epstein’s old plane for the trip. Trump’s own private plane, a 727 named “Trump Force One,” was having mechanical difficulties, which led them to land in Billings, about two hours east of Bozeman.

After Bozeman, Trump used Epstein’s old plane to travel Saturday to a fundraiser in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, and then to Aspen and Denver. “Trump Force One” was then able to pick Trump up in Denver. Epstein’s old plane was only used one day, the spokeswoman said. …”

Read more at: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/article290986070.html#storylink=cpy

——
Rumor has it the “mechanical issue” was more like a mechanic’s lien — municipalities he owes money refusing to let his campaign plane land without first clearing outstanding bills from his 2018 campaign swings through Montana.
 
Kraftyheel89 said:
Seriously, how do you sue an advertiser for NOT buying ad space on your media platform?

And yes, not only joining the ridiculous lawsuit but telling MAGA types to boycott Dunkin.
Click to expand...
The claim was that it was a coordinated boycott. That can be actionable under antitrust law. This lawsuit . . . well, I doubt it goes anywhere but it might survive a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The problem here is that 1) the boycott as alleged didn't have any way of enforcing any boycott terms; and 2) it was not aimed at twitter specifically. While a group boycott doesn't HAVE to be aimed at a single market participant (or a handful of related participants), it's certainly more comprehensible as a group boycott that way.

For instance: 1) makers of blueberry muffins decide they are paying too much for blueberries. They ask the blueberry farmers to cut their prices. Some agree to do so. One doesn't, and the blueberry muffin makers agree not to buy from that blueberry farmer unless it lowers its price. That's actionable under the Sherman Act. By contrast:

2. makers of blueberry muffins put out a statement saying, "we are only interested in buying blueberries that meet the following quality standards: the blueberries cannot be more than 1% bug by weight." Some blueberry farmers cannot meet the standard, and the makers don't buy from them. Not actionable. The motivation was not anti-competitive. It was not trying to use market power (at least not on this hypothetical). The statement was just trying to communicate to blueberry farmers a minimum level of quality that the muffin makers were looking to buy.

I certainly view the Musk lawsuit as much more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. That twitter was the only platform to backslide on content moderation doesn't mean it was uniquely targeted.

Plus, Musk's statement that the advertisers can all go fuck themselves is likely to be a very bad fact for him.
 
superrific said:
The claim was that it was a coordinated boycott. That can be actionable under antitrust law. This lawsuit . . . well, I doubt it goes anywhere but it might survive a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The problem here is that 1) the boycott as alleged didn't have any way of enforcing any boycott terms; and 2) it was not aimed at twitter specifically. While a group boycott doesn't HAVE to be aimed at a single market participant (or a handful of related participants), it's certainly more comprehensible as a group boycott that way.

For instance: 1) makers of blueberry muffins decide they are paying too much for blueberries. They ask the blueberry farmers to cut their prices. Some agree to do so. One doesn't, and the blueberry muffin makers agree not to buy from that blueberry farmer unless it lowers its price. That's actionable under the Sherman Act. By contrast:

2. makers of blueberry muffins put out a statement saying, "we are only interested in buying blueberries that meet the following quality standards: the blueberries cannot be more than 1% bug by weight." Some blueberry farmers cannot meet the standard, and the makers don't buy from them. Not actionable. The motivation was not anti-competitive. It was not trying to use market power (at least not on this hypothetical). The statement was just trying to communicate to blueberry farmers a minimum level of quality that the muffin makers were looking to buy.

I certainly view the Musk lawsuit as much more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. That twitter was the only platform to backslide on content moderation doesn't mean it was uniquely targeted.

Plus, Musk's statement that the advertisers can all go fuck themselves is likely to be a very bad fact for him.
Click to expand...
It would seem to be a classic strategic lawsuit against public participation. Unfortunately, last I looked, the 5th Circuit refuses to apply Texas anti-SLAPP law. The feds really need to pass a national SLAPP law to assist with BS cases like this.
 
superrific said:
The claim was that it was a coordinated boycott. That can be actionable under antitrust law. This lawsuit . . . well, I doubt it goes anywhere but it might survive a motion to dismiss on the pleadings. The problem here is that 1) the boycott as alleged didn't have any way of enforcing any boycott terms; and 2) it was not aimed at twitter specifically. While a group boycott doesn't HAVE to be aimed at a single market participant (or a handful of related participants), it's certainly more comprehensible as a group boycott that way.

For instance: 1) makers of blueberry muffins decide they are paying too much for blueberries. They ask the blueberry farmers to cut their prices. Some agree to do so. One doesn't, and the blueberry muffin makers agree not to buy from that blueberry farmer unless it lowers its price. That's actionable under the Sherman Act. By contrast:

2. makers of blueberry muffins put out a statement saying, "we are only interested in buying blueberries that meet the following quality standards: the blueberries cannot be more than 1% bug by weight." Some blueberry farmers cannot meet the standard, and the makers don't buy from them. Not actionable. The motivation was not anti-competitive. It was not trying to use market power (at least not on this hypothetical). The statement was just trying to communicate to blueberry farmers a minimum level of quality that the muffin makers were looking to buy.

I certainly view the Musk lawsuit as much more like scenario 2 than scenario 1. That twitter was the only platform to backslide on content moderation doesn't mean it was uniquely targeted.

Plus, Musk's statement that the advertisers can all go fuck themselves is likely to be a very bad fact for him.
Click to expand...


IMG_5209.gif

This is the kind of post that makes this whole thing worthwhile. I love it.
 
Calheel said:
It would seem to be a classic strategic lawsuit against public participation. Unfortunately, last I looked, the 5th Circuit refuses to apply Texas anti-SLAPP law. The feds really need to pass a national SLAPP law to assist with BS cases like this.
Click to expand...
1. Does anyone use antitrust law for SLAPP purposes. I didn't think anti-SLAPP laws would apply to Sherman Act claims. I know CA has a strong anti-SLAPP law so you probably know a fair bit about that, more than I do, but it doesn't make sense to characterize and antitrust suit that way.

2. I might regret asking, but on what basis does the Fifth Circuit refuse to apply Texas' law? I'm not aiming that comment at you. I mean, do I really want to know what BS that rogue circuit has come up with now? And the answer is, yeah kinda but also it won't break my heart if I never find out.
 
superrific said:
1. Does anyone use antitrust law for SLAPP purposes. I didn't think anti-SLAPP laws would apply to Sherman Act claims. I know CA has a strong anti-SLAPP law so you probably know a fair bit about that, more than I do, but it doesn't make sense to characterize and antitrust suit that way.

2. I might regret asking, but on what basis does the Fifth Circuit refuse to apply Texas' law? I'm not aiming that comment at you. I mean, do I really want to know what BS that rogue circuit has come up with now? And the answer is, yeah kinda but also it won't break my heart if I never find out.
Click to expand...
1. Yes. But apparently not in the 5th Circuit.
2. It unduly interferes with federal rules of civil procedure.
 
nycfan said:
Tbh, I was going to ignore this until the Miami Herald confirmed … talk about weird.



I mean, I doubt it is haunted and it was probably available cheap!
Click to expand...

Probably has a good-sized bed. Might want a new mattress and sheets.
 
I saw this posted this morning. Initially I thought, well it’s about time he actually state SOMETHING. But after reading this list, it should be called Trump’s 20 generic wishes that he still hasn’t told anyone HOW he wants to achieve:
 
CLT Heel said:
I saw this posted this morning. Initially I thought, well it’s about time he actually state SOMETHING. But after reading this list, it should be called Trump’s 20 generic wishes that he still hasn’t told anyone HOW he wants to achieve:
Click to expand...

You say this and then go and vote for someone who has stated nothing, and refuses to do a sit down with anyone. You don’t care about the “how”, you’re just blue no matter who. It’s okay to admit it.
 
Heel62695 said:
You vote with your feelings instead of logic.
Click to expand...
Logic would dictate that Donald Trump has never once uttered any promise based in reality or fact. Not in his personal life, not in his professional life, and not in his political life. Everything and anything he ever says is based on his read of what gets the reaction he wants in the moment. Any eventual occurrence that aligns with his promises is mere circumstance.

So whatever it is that you think you might use in motivating your support of Donald Trump, it most certainly is not logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top