Posted on 05/22/2024 9:26:02 AM PDT by Sam77
That is typical of Vivek.
He’s a shrewd dude—and a Deep State cutout/front man.
And nowhere is less than 8% an all-caps “MASSIVE” stake.
And nowhere is less than 8% an all-caps “MASSIVE” stake.
*If he’s not planning on making changes, then this is a very bad investment.*
Crazy like a fox. The MSM will be in full swing this year. Ride it up-might be profitable. Then he sells short just before Trump wins. Take the money and run.
You want it right or straight down the middle?
I’m not sure about that. The Murdochs were distancing themselves from Trump and maybe they took Ryan on board because he was also anti-Trump. I doubt he’s the major player in the company.
If he’s deep state, why would Trump consider him for VP? Or even make the nomination?
Ramaswamy is following a suggestion I made in an earlier post.
Yeah, he’s listening to me. ;)
But, my suggestion was that, to turn MSNBC or CNN read, conservatives need to buy them out. Problem there is that, democrats would likely outbid any conservatives to insure that democrats keep control of those ‘news’ outlets.
So, fellow FReepes, what say you about us pooling all our money together and going after MSNBC or CNN? A little at a time, until we have majority votes on all of them.
Buzzfeed staff will revolt if he tries to make major changes.
Maybe he will succeed in changing the site. Maybe the former owners will use their new money in more anti-Trump activities.
TBD
Are you really asking that? And he has been ruled out, as I understand it, anyway.
He knows DJT will win so why not make $$$$$ from lib heads EXPLODING:-)
I agree. He is an opportunist.
that never once came from DJT, just the media. yes, vivek went to mal, etc., but he’s an opportunist imo. he was never seriously considered for VP
I will withhold judgement on this until I see what exactly he is up to.
Trust, but verify.
“And nowhere is less than 8% an all-caps “MASSIVE” stake.”
############################
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/controllinginterest.asp
“With the majority of large public companies, for example, a shareholder with much less than 50% of the outstanding shares may still have a lot of influence at the company. Single shareholders with as little as 5% to 10% ownership can push for seats on the board or enact changes at shareholder meetings by publicly lobbying for them, giving them control.”
Less than 8% is not a MASSIVE share of anything. It might be consequential, but it is not a MASSIVE share.
“Less than 8% is not a MASSIVE share of anything. It might be consequential, but it is not a MASSIVE share.”
#################
“Massive” is a relative term. If one owned 8% of Apple, you’d be worth almost $240 billion from that alone.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.