Sungold Supremacy
@sungolds.bsky.social
Who is the mother of this one and what is it about this one that makes him feel this way?
December 10, 2024 at 4:24 AM
Who is the mother of this one and what is it about this one that makes him feel this way?
I’ve seen pics that capture enough for Clearview to ID them - is this a moment when the other side of this story comes to the forefront?
December 5, 2024 at 4:48 PM
I’ve seen pics that capture enough for Clearview to ID them - is this a moment when the other side of this story comes to the forefront?
Even for a publicly traded company, it is blowing my mind for a judge to declare that *they* know better than something that the shareholders have overwhelmingly approved *twice*.
That market is informed. The shareholders informed.
This seems like a big deal.
That market is informed. The shareholders informed.
This seems like a big deal.
December 3, 2024 at 5:04 PM
Even for a publicly traded company, it is blowing my mind for a judge to declare that *they* know better than something that the shareholders have overwhelmingly approved *twice*.
That market is informed. The shareholders informed.
This seems like a big deal.
That market is informed. The shareholders informed.
This seems like a big deal.
So this really does come down to a judge overturning the clear will of the shareholders of a company?
That just seems like a huge deal (bigger than the issue of Musk’s specific compensation package).
How unusual is it for a judge to overrule shareholders like this?
That just seems like a huge deal (bigger than the issue of Musk’s specific compensation package).
How unusual is it for a judge to overrule shareholders like this?
December 3, 2024 at 4:47 PM
So this really does come down to a judge overturning the clear will of the shareholders of a company?
That just seems like a huge deal (bigger than the issue of Musk’s specific compensation package).
How unusual is it for a judge to overrule shareholders like this?
That just seems like a huge deal (bigger than the issue of Musk’s specific compensation package).
How unusual is it for a judge to overrule shareholders like this?
Material mistakes that ultimately serve to mislead the voters?
I would think “after” is better because there is more clarity to the situation.
(I’m a NYT subscriber FWIW & very much appreciate you taking the time to engage)
I have a hard time believing that shareholders didn’t understand.
I would think “after” is better because there is more clarity to the situation.
(I’m a NYT subscriber FWIW & very much appreciate you taking the time to engage)
I have a hard time believing that shareholders didn’t understand.
December 3, 2024 at 4:43 PM
Material mistakes that ultimately serve to mislead the voters?
I would think “after” is better because there is more clarity to the situation.
(I’m a NYT subscriber FWIW & very much appreciate you taking the time to engage)
I have a hard time believing that shareholders didn’t understand.
I would think “after” is better because there is more clarity to the situation.
(I’m a NYT subscriber FWIW & very much appreciate you taking the time to engage)
I have a hard time believing that shareholders didn’t understand.
I agree that it’s a big package. And I wouldn’t vote for it were I a shareholder… but isn’t that their call to make if fully informed?
They own the joint.
They own the joint.
December 3, 2024 at 4:24 PM
I agree that it’s a big package. And I wouldn’t vote for it were I a shareholder… but isn’t that their call to make if fully informed?
They own the joint.
They own the joint.
They literally attached the previous order to this round of the proposal which was voted on. How can she say people weren’t informed?
How can 70+% of ownership of a company not make a decision for that company?
It seems bizarre for a judge to overrule the owners of the company.
How can 70+% of ownership of a company not make a decision for that company?
It seems bizarre for a judge to overrule the owners of the company.
December 3, 2024 at 4:13 PM
They literally attached the previous order to this round of the proposal which was voted on. How can she say people weren’t informed?
How can 70+% of ownership of a company not make a decision for that company?
It seems bizarre for a judge to overrule the owners of the company.
How can 70+% of ownership of a company not make a decision for that company?
It seems bizarre for a judge to overrule the owners of the company.
A dude with nine shares can sue and a judge will overturn the will of 70+% of shareholders…who voted twice?
This is insane. On principle.
This is insane. On principle.
December 3, 2024 at 6:04 AM
A dude with nine shares can sue and a judge will overturn the will of 70+% of shareholders…who voted twice?
This is insane. On principle.
This is insane. On principle.
That is shockingly prescient
December 3, 2024 at 4:37 AM
That is shockingly prescient
That’s a thin slice.
I didn’t vote for him, but I can see that he faced charges that were a massive twisting of the law to bring those charges. Sometimes even changing the law. Truly lawfare.
And the left cheered it. Doing the very thing we accuse Rs of.
And “breaking the promise” is the issue.
I didn’t vote for him, but I can see that he faced charges that were a massive twisting of the law to bring those charges. Sometimes even changing the law. Truly lawfare.
And the left cheered it. Doing the very thing we accuse Rs of.
And “breaking the promise” is the issue.
December 2, 2024 at 11:30 PM
That’s a thin slice.
I didn’t vote for him, but I can see that he faced charges that were a massive twisting of the law to bring those charges. Sometimes even changing the law. Truly lawfare.
And the left cheered it. Doing the very thing we accuse Rs of.
And “breaking the promise” is the issue.
I didn’t vote for him, but I can see that he faced charges that were a massive twisting of the law to bring those charges. Sometimes even changing the law. Truly lawfare.
And the left cheered it. Doing the very thing we accuse Rs of.
And “breaking the promise” is the issue.
Good joke. Gets at the hypocrisy nicely.
December 2, 2024 at 3:36 PM
Good joke. Gets at the hypocrisy nicely.
You’d judge Trump so harshly for the same thing. Huge blind spot.
December 2, 2024 at 10:51 AM
You’d judge Trump so harshly for the same thing. Huge blind spot.
Sprout delivering, Warmflash needs to step up his game
November 21, 2024 at 7:15 PM
Sprout delivering, Warmflash needs to step up his game
Have sex (not gender) on an ID. Police take one look and have the answer.
November 21, 2024 at 5:57 AM
Have sex (not gender) on an ID. Police take one look and have the answer.
Ha - so much kindness.
No, I don’t have to subscribe to the lies. The emperor has no clothes.
If you wanna gaslight yourself, knock yourself out. The rest of us can live in reality.
No, I don’t have to subscribe to the lies. The emperor has no clothes.
If you wanna gaslight yourself, knock yourself out. The rest of us can live in reality.
November 21, 2024 at 2:11 AM
Ha - so much kindness.
No, I don’t have to subscribe to the lies. The emperor has no clothes.
If you wanna gaslight yourself, knock yourself out. The rest of us can live in reality.
No, I don’t have to subscribe to the lies. The emperor has no clothes.
If you wanna gaslight yourself, knock yourself out. The rest of us can live in reality.
No call the police and let them ask and investigate it. This isn’t complicated.
November 21, 2024 at 1:21 AM
No call the police and let them ask and investigate it. This isn’t complicated.
Fake problem. Easy to do. Mostly just ask.
November 21, 2024 at 12:30 AM
Fake problem. Easy to do. Mostly just ask.
I’m not confusing anything.
Gender is a made up social construct. That’s why there are infinite numbers of them. Said another way: it’s nonsense.
Sex is biological reality.
Women are protected on the basis of sex. Gender is irrelevant.
Men are still men. No matter how they dress.
Gender is a made up social construct. That’s why there are infinite numbers of them. Said another way: it’s nonsense.
Sex is biological reality.
Women are protected on the basis of sex. Gender is irrelevant.
Men are still men. No matter how they dress.
November 21, 2024 at 12:17 AM
I’m not confusing anything.
Gender is a made up social construct. That’s why there are infinite numbers of them. Said another way: it’s nonsense.
Sex is biological reality.
Women are protected on the basis of sex. Gender is irrelevant.
Men are still men. No matter how they dress.
Gender is a made up social construct. That’s why there are infinite numbers of them. Said another way: it’s nonsense.
Sex is biological reality.
Women are protected on the basis of sex. Gender is irrelevant.
Men are still men. No matter how they dress.
Martina Navratilova (for instance) is wildly liberal and a lesbian icon: she has been raising this as an issue for YEARS.
People can dress how they want, but it doesn’t change their sex. True love is being honest with people even when it’s not comfortable.
People can dress how they want, but it doesn’t change their sex. True love is being honest with people even when it’s not comfortable.
November 20, 2024 at 11:55 PM
Martina Navratilova (for instance) is wildly liberal and a lesbian icon: she has been raising this as an issue for YEARS.
People can dress how they want, but it doesn’t change their sex. True love is being honest with people even when it’s not comfortable.
People can dress how they want, but it doesn’t change their sex. True love is being honest with people even when it’s not comfortable.
That’s not hypocrisy - that’s intellectual consistency with the idea that it’s not about “trans-ness” at all: it’s about protecting women. Full stop.
Women have fought hard for protections and safe spaces on the basis of sex.
Women have fought hard for protections and safe spaces on the basis of sex.
November 20, 2024 at 11:53 PM
That’s not hypocrisy - that’s intellectual consistency with the idea that it’s not about “trans-ness” at all: it’s about protecting women. Full stop.
Women have fought hard for protections and safe spaces on the basis of sex.
Women have fought hard for protections and safe spaces on the basis of sex.
All of it as been an issue the entire time. Part of why Harris lost. Insanity.
November 20, 2024 at 11:38 PM
All of it as been an issue the entire time. Part of why Harris lost. Insanity.
Again: men don’t need the sex-based protection.
This only is an issue in one direction.
This only is an issue in one direction.
November 20, 2024 at 11:34 PM
Again: men don’t need the sex-based protection.
This only is an issue in one direction.
This only is an issue in one direction.
Trans men are women. That’s fine.
And there is no threat to them using the men’s room, either: men don’t need the sex-based protections.
And there is no threat to them using the men’s room, either: men don’t need the sex-based protections.
November 20, 2024 at 11:32 PM
Trans men are women. That’s fine.
And there is no threat to them using the men’s room, either: men don’t need the sex-based protections.
And there is no threat to them using the men’s room, either: men don’t need the sex-based protections.
Those definitions are solid.
She has no issue per se with trans people, she’s fighting for women.
And she voted in support of gay marriage multiple times.
First woman to graduate from the Citadel. True feminist.
She has no issue per se with trans people, she’s fighting for women.
And she voted in support of gay marriage multiple times.
First woman to graduate from the Citadel. True feminist.
November 20, 2024 at 11:29 PM
Those definitions are solid.
She has no issue per se with trans people, she’s fighting for women.
And she voted in support of gay marriage multiple times.
First woman to graduate from the Citadel. True feminist.
She has no issue per se with trans people, she’s fighting for women.
And she voted in support of gay marriage multiple times.
First woman to graduate from the Citadel. True feminist.