Stabitha_Christie

About

Username
Stabitha_Christie
Joined
Visits
108
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
4,774
Badges
2
Posts
781
  • Trump vs. Harris: How to watch the September 10 Presidential debate online

    A debate at this point is unnecessary, Harris destroyed the cost of living in 4 years, we don't need another 4 years of that.

    Trump was better at literally every marker that impacts the majority of the USA population.

    MAGA.
    What I like about this claim is that economy data is knowable. So let's look at the actual data.

    Job Growth:

    Trump - 2.7 million
    Biden: +15.7 million

    Unemployment:
    Trump: 6.7%
    Biden: 4.2%

    GDP: 
    Trump 2.7%
    Biden: 3.5%

    Inflation:
    Trump: 11%
    Biden: 19%

    Deficit Spending:
    Trump: 8.18 Trillion
    Biden:  6.17 Trillion 

    Wages:
    Trump: +8.4% after inflation 
    Biden:  -2.3% after inflation 

    Corporate Profits:
    Trump: +17.4% 
    Biden: + 36% 

    Trade Deficit:
    Trump: +36%  
    Biden:  +22% 

    People Without Health Insurance:
    Trump: +3 million
    Biden:  -2.1 million

    So, for the claim that every is better under Trump to be true you would have to limit those markers to Inflation and Wage Growth after inflation. Since both of those numbers are based on the impact of inflation your basic contention is that inflation is the only economic number that matters. That is objectively false. Without a doubt inflation has been awful, but literally every other number is better under the Biden Presidency and the U.S. economy is in far better shape than it gets credit for. 

    And for giggles let's look at violent crime:
    Trump: +1.1%
    Biden:  -9.1%



    9secondkox2ronnmuthuk_vanalingamgatorguykurai_kageilarynxchasmpaisleydiscosphericwatto_cobra
  • Twitter loses half its ad revenue, still weighed down by debt


    When you buy a company you buy their assets and liabilities. The money you pay goes to thee owners, in the case of Twitter it went to the shareholders.

    Twitter had  2 billion in cash and less than  600 million in debt when Musk purchased it. He took out 13 billion in loans when he purchased the company and had Twitter to take on the loans. So the heavy debt load he is taking about is 100% his own doing. Somehow he failed to mention that. 


    tmaysphericeriamjhthtmuthuk_vanalingamretrogustoAlex_VronnFileMakerFellerbaconstang
  • Microsoft blames European Commission for global CrowdStrike catastrophe

    avon b7 said:
    Did the EU make Microsoft do this worldwide?

    The problem last week had nothing to do with the EU. It was sloppy coding, sloppy testing and with little to no resilience built into the whole process. 
    Not only did the EU not make MS do this worldwide it didn’t make them do it in the EU. MS could have locked kernel and provided APIs. The only catch would be that MS would have to use the APIs as well. Instead they opted to provide security companies kernel access. This is what Apple has done. 

    So, it’s not about the EU’s requirement for a level playing field. It’s about Microsoft's sloppy compliance. 
    nubus9secondkox2muthuk_vanalingamianbetteridgeLettucexyzzy-xxxmagman1979marklarkmacxpressspheric
  • Twitter loses half its ad revenue, still weighed down by debt

    sdw2001 said:
    jpellino said:
    So Twitter was the preeminent microblogging platform, doing well enough to have shareholders getting earnings.
    Musk buys it and starts pulling every lever he can find, many of which were clearly marked DO NOT TOUCH THIS LEVER.
    Now the company is bleeding value, invisible to the public, and got its lunch eaten by Meta in less than a week of competition. 
    Oh, and a new half-billion liability based on Lever #2.
    Remind me how this reflects on the legendary genius of Musk?

    Twitter was an absolute disaster and a fraud. That’s why he almost canceled the deal. It was a bloated company that was all smoke and mirrors. It’s going to take a while for even him to turn it around.
    Twitter was able to make a profit before Musk took ownership. So it may have been a disaster but it was certainly less of one that it currently is. Also, he didn't;t almost cancel the deal, that was smoke and mirrors as you put it. He was legally obligated to follow through the deal which is why he did. 

    You really should do some fact checking rather than just blindly repeating whatever he says. 
    Twitter was anything but profitable in the true business sense. Being publicly traded, it got “free money” from investors. And those investors were investing based on false pretenses with the old incompetent Twitter leadership lying about its stats. 

    Musk bought it and turned it privately owned. That in itself is cutting off quite a bit of money. The you have some political weirdness with advertisers that simply don’t like musks views. It was bound to happen as Twitter was a liberal echo chamber and was bought by someone with more conservative views. So of course there would be storms to deal with. It’s early days yet. Musk is s very smart and successful leader. It says something that his multiple businesses are so pioneering and risky, yet successful. 

    It was an impossible task to tackle Twitter. But he did it. And now he’s fixing the broken foundations he bought. It was s fixer upper with serious issues. And it’s taking time to get right. 
    As you said Twitter was a publicly traded company and as such they were legally obligated to publish their financials quarterly. Those publications are publicly available. Because of that we know your claim has no basis in reality. 

    Twitter whet public in 2013 and didn't do any post IPO funding from investors until 2021. From 2021 to being purchased in October of 2022 they did four and half to those were after Musk agreed to buy the company. So please, back up your statement. Using the publicly available data show how the 1.2 billion they made in 2018 and the 1.4 billion they made in 2019 were not actual profit and due to investor funding that wasn't happening and hadn't happened in years. Musk on the other hand has had to do investor funding since purchasing Twitter to keep it afloat. 

    At the time of purchase twitter had less than 600 million in debt and 2 billion in cash on hand. Their revenue for the final year was -221 million. Since Musk purchased the company they have jumped to over 13 billion in debt, have had to do a funding round of 3 billion to help pay for their debt and apparently seen their revenue cut in half. Twitter is demonstrably in far worse shape now than it was prior to being purchased by Musk and it 100% his doing. 

    And if you think Twitter's old leadership had an issue with lying bout business then you need to check out the following from Musk:

    In 2018 he said he had "secure" enough funding to take Tesla private, he hand't 
    Production of the Tesla semi was suppled to be in 2020, didn't happen and still behind it's scheduled ramp
    A fleet of Tesla robotaxis were supposed to happen in 2020, now he is saying 2024
    The Cybertruck was going to be released in late 2021, still not available
    Since 2016 Tesla has been charing customers 10k, now15k for full self driving as an add on, but has yet to ship the final product. 


    You, like the previous poster, could do with some fact checking rather than just accepting the myth of Elon. The only company he has involvement with that is profitable is Tesla. About half of it's profits are due to government credits rather than actual sales. The rest of his companies lose money and exist on investors. Somehow you have managed to get the entire situation backwards. The man is a fraud. 
    anonymousetmaysphericwilliamlondonthtmuthuk_vanalingamdewmeAlex_VronnFileMakerFeller
  • Apple stock bloodbath continues after China applies retaliatory tariffs

    Does this mean we are now great again?
    dadondtownwarriorspherictdknoxlordjohnwhorfinlondorbadmonkdecoderringtmaynubus
  • Twitter loses half its ad revenue, still weighed down by debt

    MplsP said:
    Elon has done well with Tesla and SpaceX but those were primarily tech companies. Twitter is a social media company - what makes a good social media company is different from what makes a good tech company. Elon is also not necessarily the same person he was when he was building Tesla and SpaceX. The bottom line is his prior successes do not guarantee he has the skill set to make Twitter successful.

    Many people like to quote Elon's saying "move fast and break things." That works in some areas but in Twitter's case the main thing he broke was its revenue stream. If you're building a ship on shore you can fix what you break. If you're out to sea and you break the hull you've got some issues. Beyond that, Elon & Twitter have been slow to fix what they've broken. The approach seems to be trade a small problem for a bigger problem then move on.

    Things were not all wine and roses but Twitter was doing OK but had its issues when Elon bought it. After purchasing he proceeded to make a series of changes that were universally considered to be ill-advised and poorly thought out. Even the changes that had potentially positive elements were poorly executed. The result has been the destruction of Twitter's reputation, image, with that it advertisers and revenue base.

    What's quite interesting that the people who are optimistic about Twitter's potential with Elon's leadership have little more to say than "well, he did good with Tesla and SpaceX so that's proof that he knows what he's doing!" we're 9 months into this debacle and while the bull has stopped (or at least slowed down) knocking over shelves, he's still in the china shop and the mess still remains. 

    Twitter had a very commanding position in social media. It was the social media platform and not just by a little. Its market dominance was astounding. Further, it had become a trusted, relied upon platform for many companies to make news and press releases. Even now most people have a hard time naming another significant platform. What that means for companies is they may decide to stay on Twitter simply because even with its faults and issues there's not a better choice. That also means Twitter still has a chance. The bull may have done a lot of damage but the china shop was big enough that it still has wares to sell and can potentially turn itself around. As long as the bull sits down and shuts up.

    Mark Zuckerberg said "Move fast break things" not Elon Musk. I guess it's yet another case of Musk getting credit for something he didn't do, par for the course. Based on his tenure at twitter it would seem Musk is more a "break things fast" kind of person. 

    Also, Twitter isn't a dominate social media market.  Facebook has 2.96 billion users, YouTube has 2.53 billion users, Whats App has 2 billion, Instagram has 2 billion all of which are more significant that twitter. Twitter ranks 19th with 450 million. It has done very well in certain areas, journalists, politicians, academics and celebrities have very much thrived on twitter but for the average person it isn't a huge deal hence why most people don't use it. 
    tmaysphericwilliamlondonmuthuk_vanalingamretrogustoarlorronnwatto_cobradav
  • Trump gives Apple a giant break with wide-ranging tariff exemptions

    So the Trump "logic" was that if we applied tariffs to imports then companies would be pushed to move production to the U.S, provide enough revenue to lower the national debt, allow for tax cuts and something about fentanyl. Howard Lutnick specifically said iPhone production would move to the U.S. Now Apple has all of its products exempt. How exactly does that push Apple other move manufacturing back to the U.S? And when the most expensive products imported form China are exempt how does that work for getting enough revenue to lower the debt and pay for tax cuts? What is the actual plan because it sure as hell seems like they are just making this up as they go along.
    avon b7siretmanqwerty52Afarstarravnorodomlondorlordjohnwhorfindanoxmuthuk_vanalingamTomPMRI
  • Elon Musk says Apple's 30% commission rate is 'definitely not ok'

    Is Elon about to announce that he's running for congress? 
    His words sound like those of a politician - lots of drivel.

    Either that or not content with about to **** twitter he wants to do the same to Apple.
    And to think that I almost bought a Model S in 2018. Now... I will never ever buy anything made by a company that he controls.

    I have been thinking, ever since he started trying to by TWITter, that he is going to run for President in 2024.
    He doesn't meeting the legal requirements. To run for POTUS you have to be naturally born citizen, his mother is Canadian and if father is South African and he was born in South Africa. 
    DogpersonlolliverdewmeMplsP12Strangerswatto_cobra
  • US and China temporarily lower tariffs to start trade negotiations

    Thatguy2 said:
    USA wins yet another trade deal, and this one where everyone said china would never cave. Now 90 days to make it permanent and help our farmers with more china purchases like last time. Impressive 
    Not even the administration is saying there is a deal. They are saying they have 90 days to work on one. What you are calling a “win” is The U.S. and China temporarily lowering tariffs but neither lowered them to pre-trade war levels. So close consumers in both countries are still paying more than they otherwise would have. Progress on the administrations stated goals, reducing the trade deficit and repatriating manufacturing? None. 

    That people see someone intentionally setting a house on fire and then putting out part of the fire as a “win” is why it’s a cult. Y’all can’t see anything beyond your idol worship. 
    teejay2012londortrainMan83muthuk_vanalingamalgnormhmlongcosinophiliadewmefreeassociate2williamlondon
  • President Trump is irritated about Apple not completely killing DEI initiatives

    Of all the issues that the President of the United States has to address how do Apple's business practices even rank? 
    jeffharrisretrogustosconosciutonarwhalmaccamlondorred oakjibwilliamlondoniooi