Why would a court be able to “easily find this was handled improperly”?

Also, did you just admit CFIUS doesn’t apply?

Ahhh my bad. I noticed you seemed to fail at reading comprehension earlier but I didn’t realize it was a chronic condition. Carry on!

You wouldn’t be able to use TikTok as a personal thing. This isn’t critical infrastructure.

I’m sorry, but this is irrelevant. Look at the list of CFIUS cases. Among them:

CFIUS requested that Chinese gaming company Beijing Kunlun Tech Co Ltd. sell Grindr, citing national security concerns regarding a database of user’s location, messages, and HIV status, after the company acquired the gay dating app in 2018 without CFIUS review.

Would you agree that Grindr probably doesn’t count as “critical infrastructure”?

(BTW, before you mention it, the CFIUS case on that list vis a vis TikTok was reversed by the court because they ruled the executive exceeded the bounds of the IEEPA, not because the IEEPA itself was unconstitutional).

(CFIUS) is a powerful interagency panel that screens foreign transactions with U.S. firms for potential security risks.

So again. Not personal use.

LOL security risks are literally the justification for the bill. The bill even says as much:

To protect the national security of the United States from the threat posed by foreign adversary controlled applications, such as TikTok and any successor application or service and any other application or service developed or provided by ByteDance Ltd. or an entity under the control of ByteDance Ltd.

So if CFIUS is constitutional, then I fail to see why this law is any different.

Look, again, I get it, I think the law is dumb, too.

But it is absolutely not a slam dunk that the law will get struck down by the courts, whether you like it or not.

The difference between your position and mine is I can acknowledge I may turn out to be wrong.

Furthermore, ByteDance absolutely is not operating within US borders. It’s incorporated in China and the Caymans (in the latter case as a variable interest entity so that Americans can buy economic exposure to ByteDance shares that otherwise don’t trade on any US stock exchanges).

TikTok, a wholly own subsidiary, is incorporated within the US. A forced divestiture affects the parent company (ByteDance).

The real question is whether the ban itself, if divestment doesn’t occur, would be constitutional, given that would affect TikTok Ltd., and that, to me, is unclear, and I expect it’s that portion of the law where TikTok is most likely to succeed in courts.

Huawei was banned from critical infrastructure. You can still buy their products for personal use.

In what way does that invalidate it as an example?

The executive cannot just declare something punitive.

CFIUS and OFAC would beg to differ.

Also, if there aren’t rights for foreigners in the US then there aren’t rights for citizens. Because the loss of your rights is always just one declaration away. Which is why rights for everyone inside our borders has been the standard for 70 years.

Bytedance isn’t inside your borders and the constitution doesn’t protect extra-nationals. There’s a reason Guantanamo Bay still exists.

I couldn’t agree more. IMO the right solution is to regulate data collection, mandate algorithmic transparency, and require opt out for algorithmic curation.

But the discussion isn’t about whether this is the right remedy (IMO it’s not) but about whether the remedy will be held up by the courts.

See my reply to your sibling comment. This is wishful thinking. You could be right, but it’s just as likely (I’d argue more likely) you’re wrong.

They basically remap wavelengths, so yes, absolutely those would be representative of real features, either in the atmosphere or on the ground.

That said, absolutely, sometimes there’s a bit of artistic license in how the wavelengths are mapped.

Edit: the space.com article on the image describes some of the physical features depicted:

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-saturn-moon-titan

You’re missing my point.

In the case of antitrust law, the government has to prove its case in court because that’s the way the Sherman Act and related laws are written, not because the constitution necessarily requires it. And it’s the constitutional interpretation that matters as this is a law passed by Congress. A constitutional challenge is the only way to reverse it.

That said, TikTok is owned by a Chinese organization. So if I’m wrong and the constitution does protect corporations from forced divestment in a situation like this, it wouldn’t apply to TikTok. This is much closer to protectionist trade policy and I’m not aware of any cases where such acts were found to be unconstitutional. To the contrary, as a recent example, Huawei was banned from American markets on national security grounds (see: CFIUS) and while challenged in court, those challenges were defeated. And then there’s OFAC and the entire American sanctions regime (e.g. Russian asset seizures).

To be clear: I am not saying I support this ban one way or the other. I’m saying the belief that this will easily be struck down in court is misguided and that it’s not an obvious slam dunk.

In infrared. Titan basically looks like a brownish grey blob to the naked eye due to its incredibly dense atmosphere.

On what basis? The legal power of the US government to break up or otherwise force divestment of corporate assets is the basis upon which antitrust law is built. The only way this law could be overturned is it’s found unconstitutional, and if that happens, you can say goodbye to the FTC.

My tenants are living in a house that they wouldn’t be able to afford on their own in today’s market.

Yes, but: why is the market in the state it’s in? It couldn’t be because a large supply of housing is locked up by landlords, thereby artificially curtailing supply and driving up prices…

Not funny once you realize all doctors are actually lizard people in human skin suits performing experiments on us. QED sucker!

Hah, well, I would be more than happy to be completely wrong!

Yeah but to make any real money on a short position taken prior to listing, the stock would have to drop well below that $17 price. Will that happen? Maybe. But I personally wouldn’t bank on it. My bet is that pre-listing price will be a bit of a floor since so many retail meme stock types got in on that price pre-merger and won’t want to get out.

Shorting before the merger wouldn’t have made any sense: the stock price went from around $17.50 to over $50 within the first week of trading and probably won’t come back to earth for a while. Meanwhile borrowing costs, after that initial spike when the stock was at its highest, were astronomical, so it wasn’t economical to do it right after, either.

The real 4D chess would be to get that lockup waived, short the stock now (borrowing costs have since fallen back to earth), sell your shares, then close out the short after the price drops (sure, you run the risk that the SEC goes after you for stock manipulation, but I doubt Trump cares).

Nope. Unless the lockup is waived or modified by the board, Trump cannot “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares (this language is well-tested boilerplate for any lockup agreement). In case it’s not clear, that covers using them to get a leveraged loan.

Far more likely is the board simply waives the lockup which frees him to do whatever he wants, in which case my bet is he just sells off some or all of his stake 'cuz who gives a shit if one of his cult members catches the falling knife.

The board can vote to waive it. That’s… how boards work. They could vote to waive Junior’s and Nunes’ lockups, too, if they wanted to. The only recourse shareholders would have is a lawsuit.

Edit: And if you don’t want to believe me, maybe you’ll believe a professional financial writer:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2024-03-19/banks-can-get-emissions-off-the-books

Also, Trump’s shares are subject to a lockup agreement, so he’s not allowed to “lend, offer, pledge, hypothecate, encumber, donate, assign, sell, contract to sell … or otherwise transfer or dispose of” his shares for six months, which presumably covers using them as collateral for a loan (or appeals bond). But the agreement is between Trump and DWAC, and DWAC could just waive it. It is not best practices or anything, as a capital markets matter, to waive the lockup an hour after the merger, but I think it is possible. Ordinarily you don’t do it because shareholders will be mad about additional shares flooding the market, but (1) if he just pledges his shares to a bank, they won’t flood the market, and (2) the shareholders are presumably Trump fans and will be happy to help him fund his legal bills. Probably the stock would go up if they gave him a limited waiver for this.

Edit 2: This, by the way, is why folks are so critical of the Tesla board and why Elon’s recent pay package was rescinded by a judge, who determined the board did not act in the best interests of the shareholders by approving that package; rather, they concluded the board was too close to, and too beholden to, Elon to be able to effectively negotiate that package.

Boards are basically the last line of defense when it comes to things like pay packages and so forth, but that doesn’t stop shenanigans from happening, hence shareholder lawsuits, which are basically the final recourse for shareholders to hold boards to account.

People keep saying trump wasn’t prevented from selling for 6 months, and I have no idea why.

So, yes, he’s currently subject to a lockup agreement. But, the board can always waive that agreement, and given the board is made up of Trump acolytes, there’s no reason to take it too seriously (yes, if they did that, it could be subject to a shareholder lawsuit if a sale resulted in a plunge in the share price, based on the claim that the board was failing in its fiduciary duty, but by the time any such trial made its way through the courts, it probably wouldn’t matter).

My Momentum 4s have 60 hours of battery life…

deleted by creator