1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:00 pm to Coeur du Tigre
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:00 pm to Coeur du Tigre
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:04 pm to Chromdome35
quote:yeah you're right, the government can't just print money lol
You can't just nationalize a company without compensating the owner for what you take. I don't think the US gov is ready to pay Musk $1.68T to $2T (That's trillion) dollars for SpaceX. That's going to be a glorious position for the Dems to take..." Hey let's make Musk even richer" Their base will eat that up.
damn they'll have to compensate musk after he gets sent to prison. damn
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:05 pm to Hog on the Hill
quote:I like the way you think. But as discussed before, fair value compensation would cost the taxpayer far too much.
just nationalize spacex. that's within the federal government's power
But why not hit them with the Standard Oil treatment? Break up SpaceX into individual business units, independently competing. Keeps them in the private sector, paying taxes instead of absorbing them and keeping them all in a controllable size regulations-wise.
Ok, SpaceX hasn't paid much in taxes since establishment due to those pesky $500 million reportable losses each fiscal year, but let's not get picky. Those returns can and will be revisited soon enough.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:11 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
But why not hit them with the Standard Oil treatment? Break up SpaceX into individual business units, independently competing. Keeps them in the private sector, paying taxes instead of absorbing them and keeping them all in a controllable size regulations-wise.
So your answer to Musk is to break SpaceX and Starlink into two independent companies? Both of which Musk would still control. Boy, you got him now....
See my previous post
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:13 pm to Chromdome35
https://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/display.aspx?sp=125341455&s=2&p=119249783#125341455
Your point? Or have you run out of things to say and just regress to personal insults?
Your point? Or have you run out of things to say and just regress to personal insults?
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:20 pm to LARancher1991
quote:
I can assure you that if the Dems prosecute Musk starlink access to Ukraine will be cut off.
StarShield is provided to the Ukrainian military via a DoD contract. The terms of the contract are not public but I seriously doubt the contract allows for arbitrarily throttling or terminating services.
StarShield is also currently contracted to the US military for use in the Iran war. Any interruption of services could put American lives and materiel at risk. That is why I believe an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the Ukraine degradation of StarShield services is patriotic and should have already been initiated.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:21 pm to Chromdome35
quote:No, break up all of the SpaceX components outside of StarShield. SpaceX is far more than just Starlink, and Starlink could be broken up itself as well.
So your answer to Musk is to break SpaceX and Starlink into two independent companies?
quote:
Both of which Musk would still control.
Again, no. Go read up on the Standard Oil case. Musk would have shares independently in each component, but no control. He would just be another shareholder in multiple companies. A non-controlling share holder. Or his trust account would be, depending on the terms of his sentencing.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:28 pm to cypher
quote:
StarShield is provided to the Ukrainian military via a DoD contract. The terms of the contract are not public but I seriously doubt the contract allows for arbitrarily throttling or terminating services.
StarShield is also currently contracted to the US military for use in the Iran war. Any interruption of services could put American lives and materiel at risk. That is why I believe an investigation of the circumstances surrounding the Ukraine degradation of StarShield services is patriotic and should have already been initiated.
Correct, its goverened by whatever contract is currently in place. Since we're not party to the contract, we have no idea what leaway it does or doesn't give Musk.
Were the Dems to lose whatever cognitive function they have and try to actually prosecute Musk, he just has to tell them that's the last contract the US Government will ever sign with his companies. They can go build their own LEO Constellation and while they are at it, figure out how they are going to put it in space....along with all the other payloads SpaceX is currently carrying for them.
Companies aren't required to do business with the government; Musk can take his toys and go home. If the Dems do actually go after Musk vs. performative noise, then expect Musk to play hardball back...don't forget the man has FU money.
There is an old adage about war, "the enemy gets a vote"; the Dems would do well to remember that.
This post was edited on 11/5/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:34 pm to Coeur du Tigre
I'm familiar with Standard Oil, are you? Please explain how the Standard Oil case would be applicable to use against SpaceX? We are a country of laws, you can't just make shite up because it suits your political purpose.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:44 pm to Chromdome35
quote:If this goes the way it looks like it's going, there won't be "his companies" as he will be staying in "their jail".
Were the Dems to lose whatever cognitive function they have and try to actually prosecute Musk, he just has to tell them that's the last contract the US Government will ever sign with his companies. They can go build their own LEO Constellation and while they are at it, figure out how they are going to put it in space....along with all the other payloads SpaceX is currently carrying for them.
The government will just continue using SpaceX for all their needs. Without Musk. He can read about it in the prison library.
And as to "expect Musk to play hardball back"... Again, what would he do? Specifically.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:47 pm to Coeur du Tigre
You obviously aren't from the US, or you would understand that what you are saying is completely lacking in any legal basis.
Were Musk to go to jail, he'd still own the companies; he'd still control the companies. He owns 80% of the voting rights.
The government can't just confiscate a company from someone because they don't like them; maybe where you're from they can, but not here.
This is what Claude said to that question:
Were Musk to go to jail, he'd still own the companies; he'd still control the companies. He owns 80% of the voting rights.
The government can't just confiscate a company from someone because they don't like them; maybe where you're from they can, but not here.
This is what Claude said to that question:
quote:
Short answer: no. A prison sentence wouldn’t remove him or strip his shares. It would cost him day-to-day control and might cost the company clearances.
Corporate control
Per the S-1 and Reuters, he can be removed as CEO, chair or director only by a vote of Class B holders. He holds about 93.6% of Class B, which adds up to roughly 79–85% of total voting power depending on the source. Class B also elects 51% of the board.
Neither the board nor a court can remove him under that structure, and a conviction doesn’t trigger any removal provision I’m aware of. SpaceX is incorporated in Texas and is a Nasdaq “controlled company,” so it skips independent-board requirements.
Selling or transferring shares outside his circle converts Class B to Class A. That’s a way he could lose control, but only if he chose it.
Courts don’t normally strip voting stock as punishment. Criminal forfeiture generally reaches proceeds of the crime, and I’m not aware of anything here that would reach his SpaceX equity.
This post was edited on 11/5/26 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 11/5/26 at 4:55 pm to Chromdome35
quote:If you were familiar with the Standard Oil case you wouldn't make this statement:
I'm familiar with Standard Oil, are you?
quote:
Both of which Musk would still control.
quote:It was a suggestion as an alternative to expropriation. If you want a legal explanation, Google it.
Please explain how the Standard Oil case would be applicable to use against SpaceX?
quote:Oh absolutely. As Musk is belatedly finding out.
We are a country of laws
Posted on 11/5/26 at 5:04 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:
It was a suggestion as an alternative to expropriation. If you want a legal explanation, Google it.
I did...
quote:
Relevance: real but limited. Standard Oil is the template for a structural remedy, but the legal test and the facts fit SpaceX poorly. I haven’t checked whether any antitrust action against SpaceX is actually underway, so this is analysis, not a status report.
What carries over
The tool exists. Standard Oil (1911) was a Sherman Act §2 monopolization case, and the remedy was a structural breakup into about 34 companies. A court can order divestiture if it finds unlawful monopolization.
The AT&T breakup (1982) is a closer analogy, since it split a vertically integrated network operator. A SpaceX version would separate Starlink (the network) from launch.
Why it fits poorly
Monopoly isn’t illegal. Exclusionary conduct is. The modern test (Grinnell) requires monopoly power in a defined market plus anticompetitive acquisition or maintenance of it. Growth from a superior product or “historic accident” is explicitly not a violation.
Standard Oil’s conduct was predatory. It used rebates, predatory pricing and suppression of rivals. SpaceX’s position comes mostly from lower cost and reusability. The reason it’s the only operational NSSL rocket right now is that Vulcan and New Glenn failed, not that SpaceX shut them out.
Consumer welfare cuts the other way. Antitrust today focuses on price and output. SpaceX has driven launch prices down, which weakens a harm theory.
Market definition is contested. Starlink competes with cable, fiber and 5G as well as satellite rivals like Amazon Leo and OneWeb. Launch is a thin market with few buyers, and the government is the biggest one.
National-security concentration isn’t an antitrust harm. Dependence on one provider is a procurement and resilience problem. Breaking up SpaceX wouldn’t create a second certified heavy launcher.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 5:10 pm to Coeur du Tigre
quote:Look, we're getting ahead of this topic but if Musk is found guilty of a felony, the sentencing can take any form the Court/Congress finds appropriate under guidelines. And if the Court/Congress finds Musk is a threat to national security, they will make sure he is removed from that position. He will under no circumstance control those companies from a jail cell.
You obviously aren't from the US, or you would understand that what you are saying is completely lacking in any legal basis. Were Musk to go to jail, he'd still own the companies; he'd still control the companies. He owns 80% of the voting rights. The government can't just confiscate a company from someone because they don't like them; maybe where you're from they can, but not here.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 5:13 pm to Chromdome35
quote:And do you have a point? A cut-and-paste adds nothing.
I did...
Posted on 11/5/26 at 6:20 pm to Coeur du Tigre
What U.S. law has Musk violated?
Congress has no power to indict or prosecute. All they can do is make a referral to the DOJ, It will be up to professional prosecutors to decide if the case goes to a Grand Jury.
Until 1/29 it's still the Trump DOJ.
Congress has no power to indict or prosecute. All they can do is make a referral to the DOJ, It will be up to professional prosecutors to decide if the case goes to a Grand Jury.
Until 1/29 it's still the Trump DOJ.
Posted on 11/5/26 at 6:21 pm to Coeur du Tigre
Posted on 11/6/26 at 3:22 am to bigjoe1
quote:Yes, I agree. This is all correct. The investigation will continue until there is a Democrat in the White House, hopefully in Jan. 2029.
Congress has no power to indict or prosecute. All they can do is make a referral to the DOJ, It will be up to professional prosecutors to decide if the case goes to a Grand Jury.
Until 1/29 it's still the Trump DOJ.
Congress, as an investigative arm, has all the time and far more resources than a normal court operating with a normal prosecutorial team. The disadvantage is that it is a political body and investigations are normally subject to political pressure. But with Tuesday's results, that may not be as large a hindrance.
And once again, this will be an investigation of Elon Musk, not SpaceX. Outside of some reputational harm, SpacesX and all those jobs will not be effected at all.
quote:Culpable homicide. He was in the United States when he disabled the Ukrainian defensive drone guidance or directed this disablement. This predictably and directly caused the deaths of multiple civilians in Ukraine.
What U.S. law has Musk violated?
Here are two of them:
We will almost certainly be seeing this photograph and many others during the Congressional investigation. Plus the videos of their funeral. This child could, from the grave, bring down the richest person in the world.
If anyone thinks there is insufficient evidence to support this, well, a significant number of investigators on both sides of the Atlantic will have two years to produce this evidence. And if you believe the Ukrainians, it has already been assembled with all the necessary technical records put together by their well-experienced war crimes investigation units.
Finally, does anyone wish to question the Ukrainian's IT capabilities? Musk's legal team will try, but the best they can aim for is confusion caused by contradicting experts. That will be the point where the prosecutor will again display this photograph and others just like it. And that's the point when juries realize that someone must pay for this.
Posted on 11/6/26 at 3:33 am to Coeur du Tigre
Here's the latest bot campaign phrase: "Stand. Fight. Defend the Republic."
Over 18,000 repeats of this phrase in one day. What's he worried about...?
Over 18,000 repeats of this phrase in one day. What's he worried about...?
Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.Posted on 11/6/26 at 3:39 am to Coeur du Tigre
Page 913 of 920
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News