Musk Election Interference

[T.M.P.]

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Special Counsel John Durham slams the FBI’s investigation – dubbed Crossfire Hurricane – of Trump campaign for its “serious lack of analytic rigor.”

www.usatoday.com

 

[TomEric4756]

The old maxim is that the remedy for free speech is more free speech.

Musk seems to be delivering more free speech, and not just for himself.

The AWS (et. al.) corporate assassination of ‘Parlor’ deserved more attention, perhaps from the FTC, than it got.
— this will become a classic B-school business planning case exercise … choose your IT partners well.

Google search still amplifies democratic leaning positions over competing ideas.

 

[Stuffshot]

Check out this article from USA TODAY:

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Trump was right: 'Russian collusion' was a hoax. Good luck regaining public's trust.

Special Counsel John Durham slams the FBI’s investigation – dubbed Crossfire Hurricane – of Trump campaign for its “serious lack of analytic rigor.”

www.usatoday.com

The political opinion you linked is dated 5-17-23.

You guys are right on top of things.

 

[stollcpa]

The political opinion you linked is dated 5-17-23.

You guys are right on top of things.

I knew the date. Political opinion?

 

[Stuffshot]

View embedded media

That Tweet is dated July, 2023.

You MAGAs are right on top of things.

 

[Stuffshot]

I knew the date. Political opinion?

It's expressly identified as "Opinion" and highlighted in yellow right at the very top -- the first thing you see.

 

[mcmurtry66]

The political opinion you linked is dated 5-17-23.

You guys are right on top of things.

So what

 

[stollcpa]

It's expressly identified as "Opinion" and highlighted in yellow right at the very top -- the first thing you see.

I am asking what your point is. Political opinion is pretty much this board.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I am asking what your point is. Political opinion is pretty much this board.

Go read the report. @Stuffshot

 

[Stuffshot]

Go read the report. @Stuffshot

I already read it. Go embarrass yourself some other way.

 

[mcmurtry66]

I already read it. Go embarrass yourself some other way.

You just weren’t able to understand it? Like everything else….

 

[Stuffshot]

You just weren’t able to understand it? Like everything else….

YAWN.

Grow up.

 

[mcmurtry66]

YAWN.

Grow up.

 

[Stuffshot]

This one is more instructive.

 

[Spartans9312]

That Tweet is dated July, 2023.

You MAGAs are right on top of things.

^ ^ ^ ^

Doesn’t understand the meaning of “Again”

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

Yo boy and man-crush Musk is out there muting voices on X and coordinating with the face of the Repub Party and Project 2025, Trump, to prevent negative info about the face of the Repub Party and Project 2025, Trump, on X.

Not surprising given that the Repub Soros, Peter Thiel, backed high jumping and fear mongering Musk in his purchase of Twitter.

All you can do is shake your wank at this point.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/11/us/politics/elon-musk-donald-trump-pennsylvania.html

Hang on, where does your article go into suppressing voices on X? If you are going to accuse X of doing what Facebook and Google have been proven to do, you need to show proof.

As for “election interference “, I find it obnoxious how vocal Musk has been. But, what criteria determines such a designation in your eyes?

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

This board is afflicted with the inability to separate facts from opinion.

 

[IUclover]

Hang on, where does your article go into suppressing voices on X? If you are going to accuse X of doing what Facebook and Google have been proven to do, you need to show proof.

As for “election interference “, I find it obnoxious how vocal Musk has been. But, what criteria determines such a designation in your eyes?

There’s proof in the pudding if you do a quick google search.

And my criteria is based off of Repub Water Cooler examples, presented by Project 2025.

 

[IUclover]

This board is afflicted with the inability to separate facts from opinion.

Great opinion, bro.

 

[JamieDimonsBalls]

There’s proof in the pudding if you do a quick google search.

And my criteria is based off of Repub Water Cooler examples, presented by Project 2025.

No, there isn't. Perhaps my Google search preferences aren't as bias, but Alphabet has always been a steward of Dem behavior. If you have proof that he is doing what Facebook did in 2016, etc., then show your proof.

I don't know much about or follow Project 2025, so it's disappointing that you cannot lay out some simple criteria for what you personally believe (yes, I'm literally asking for your opinion) constitutes "election interference". For example, you may think famous people pushing their agenda is worthy of such and I would probably agree.

 

[larsIU]

Staahhhhhhhpppp

 

[mcmurtry66]

Staahhhhhhhpppp

You know I think she’s totally worthless in office but of the four and we’re goin out tonight she’s the only one I’d say I’m in. She’d be fun out

 

[Stuffshot]

I am asking what your point is. Political opinion is pretty much this board.

You guys should trust the Republican prosecutor who actually investigated those events. He wrote:

"The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systemic fashion."

Mueller Report, Vol. I, p. 1.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/5955118/The-Mueller-Report.pdf

Here's Vol. 2 as well. Happy reading!

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/21200695/mueller-report-vol-ii.pdf