Kansas Crimson

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:56 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:41 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:20 pm

I hate to get in on this conversation on the side of crazy...but:

According to a 2023 report by the Institute for Public Accuracy, BlackRock and Vanguard are the two largest shareholders in the six major media companies that control more than 90% of the U.S. media landscape. Together, BlackRock and Vanguard own 18% of Fox, 16% of CBS, 13% of Comcast, 12% of Disney, and 12% of News Corp.

...none of which, even combining these competitors' interests, are control investments.

Correct.

But:
A. No one said "control."
B. I answered Gutter's question.
C. This too is more complicated than it seems. "Competitors" is a term of nuance, and so, for that matter, is "control."

Fine. But I think you understand that the talking point being weaponized by/against (it's a loop) certain groups of people has to do with conflating plurality with majority. There's a massive, massive substantive difference. And saying that BlackRock and Vanguard are the largest shareholders of these companies is, absent context, highly misleading to/of certain groups of people.

For context, you see activist investors buy < 10% of a corporation's stock and then use that influence on the co. to get their way, all the time.

For instance: When Starboard took over Darden, (the co that owns Olive Garden, Longhorn Steakhouse, Capital Grille, etc., etc.,) in 2014, they only owned 8.8 percent of Darden stock but took control of the company’s board by winning 12 of the 13 seats and put in place its own chief executive officer and chairman.

Of course. There's nuance (which is why the combined holdings are all below a threshold).

But it remains highly misleading to say things in a way that lets people erroneously conclude that these two companies control the media.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:16 pm Of course. There's nuance (which is why the combined holdings are all below a threshold).

But it remains highly misleading to say things in a way that lets people erroneously conclude that these two companies control the media.

^^^

Because, as we all know, George Soros does.

What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:12 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:01 pm I dont think its in our best interests to allow China to strengthen its foothold inside our country and simultaneously gain more control over the global food and grain markets.

And you're willing to put restrictions on who can own American property, which means you don't beliieve in a "free market", whether I agree with you, or not.

I think you have to be a player in the game for your baskets to count. In this case citizenship allows you to be a player in the game.

free market is semantics beyond that.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:58 pm What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

Why do you hate non-Christian brown people who are sons of immigrants so much?

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 6:23 pm

Feral wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:12 pm

TDub wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 4:01 pm I dont think its in our best interests to allow China to strengthen its foothold inside our country and simultaneously gain more control over the global food and grain markets.

And you're willing to put restrictions on who can own American property, which means you don't beliieve in a "free market", whether I agree with you, or not.

I think you have to be a player in the game for your baskets to count. In this case citizenship allows you to be a player in the game.

free market is semantics beyond that.

And if you are restricting potential participants from becoming "a player in the game", it is by definition, not a "free market".

I agree we're having a semantic argument, but words have meaning, and words matter.

A "free market" is one based on the laws of supply and demand, with little to no government control.

There's no such thing as a truly "free market" in existence, but people are willing to make concessions in exchange for a degree of stability.

I'm not comfortable with the Chinese owning land next to military installations, either.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 6:32 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:58 pm What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

Why do you hate non-Christian brown people who are sons of immigrants so much?

I hate all people of all races and all religions so much.
Hate is a very strong word. I do not hate VGR! I do dislike VGR as a presidential candidate.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:52 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 6:32 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:58 pm What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

Why do you hate non-Christian brown people who are sons of immigrants so much?

I hate all people of all races and all religions so much.
Hate is a very strong word. I do not hate VGR! I do dislike VGR as a presidential candidate.

Interesting. I felt and said essentially the same thing about Obama, but I was told that, no, I didn’t dislike him as a Presidential candidate because he was a socialist ass clown, but because he was brown, non-Christian, and the son of a foreigner. Not sure I’m ready to extend the benefit of the doubt to all of you Ramaswamy haters around here.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:58 pm What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

He really should take some tennis lessons, then he wouldn't avoid his backhand like that.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:01 pm
I am an investor and own stock in many companies. Can/should I now refer to some/many/most/all of them as Gutter owned globalist ____________ ?

Do you have a large enough interest to engage with management (or, more accurately, to get management to engage with you) about issues you have with the company's operations?

Do you have a shareholder lobbying effort to bring other large investors around to your positions on proxy statement matters if the aforementioned engagement efforts don't pan out?

If so, then yes, please refer to yourself thusly.

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:16 pm Of course. There's nuance (which is why the combined holdings are all below a threshold).

But it remains highly misleading to say things in a way that lets people erroneously conclude that these two companies control the media.

To reiterate, "controlled" was your addition after the fact.

Additionally, it is nowhere near as simple as: "you own less than a majority of outstanding shares, therefore you have no control."

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:08 pm

Fine. But I think you understand that the talking point being weaponized by/against (it's a loop) certain groups of people has to do with conflating plurality with majority. There's a massive, massive substantive difference. And saying that BlackRock and Vanguard are the largest shareholders of these companies is, absent context, highly misleading to/of certain groups of people.

In this case, however, the is an enormous amount of context. He wrote a book in which BlackRock (and Vanguard and State Street) played a significant role. He also spent more than a year discussing this issue on CNBC and Fox, in addition to starting an asset management firm the purpose of which is directly and explicitly derived from this specific complaint.

If, say, Trump were to wander down this road, you'd be more than justified in accusing him of making claims that lack context. But not Vivek.

You can say that he's wrong or that he has exaggerated certain issues -- and on the latter, I'd agree. But you can't (accurately) accuse him of not providing context.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 9:49 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:01 pm
I am an investor and own stock in many companies. Can/should I now refer to some/many/most/all of them as Gutter owned globalist ____________ ?

Do you have a large enough interest to engage with management (or, more accurately, to get management to engage with you) about issues you have with the company's operations?

Do you have a shareholder lobbying effort to bring other large investors around to your positions on proxy statement matters if the aforementioned engagement efforts don't pan out?

If so, then yes, please refer to yourself thusly.

1st question.... Two companies, yes, definitely. The rest, probably not.
2nd question.... One company, maybe but probably not. The rest, no.

As dumb as I am, I do somewhat understand the "power" BlackRock and Vanguard have. You helped educate me to a further extent and I sincerely thank you.

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 9:03 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 7:52 pm

JKLivin wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 6:32 pm

Why do you hate non-Christian brown people who are sons of immigrants so much?

I hate all people of all races and all religions so much.
Hate is a very strong word. I do not hate VGR! I do dislike VGR as a presidential candidate.

Interesting. I felt and said essentially the same thing about Obama, but I was told that, no, I didn’t dislike him as a Presidential candidate because he was a socialist ass clown, but because he was brown, non-Christian, and the son of a foreigner. Not sure I’m ready to extend the benefit of the doubt to all of you Ramaswamy haters around here.

Like I said, I am NOT a VGR! hater. My dislike for him has nothing to do with his skin color, religion, or where his parents were born. I also dislike Trump. Has nothing to do with his skin color, religion, or where his parents were born either.
Although...... In regards to religion, I tend not to care for people who claim they are religious - while shitting on the morals and principals their religion teaches and preaches. Not saying that necessarily applies to VGR! but it sure as heck applies to Trump.

japhy wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 9:04 pm

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:58 pm What world am I living in? I don't know if I was supposed to laugh, cry, puke, or be impressed. I did/was none of those during and after watching the video.

He really should take some tennis lessons, then he wouldn't avoid his backhand like that.

Is it bad when I first saw the video before playing it I thought it was of a "little person" playing tennis?
As far as his skill/s, I can't help but wonder if he feels playing shirtless and in black socks make/s him a better player.


As far as him as a candidate and his affinity for tennis, here is an article for VGR! fans to read - (perhaps in the bathroom with the door closed?). Enjoy!

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article ... ofile.html

Anyone watch the interview with Kaitlan Collins and VGR!?
I'm probably not the only one on here who feels Kaitlin Collins is not good - if not terrible - at her job.
While I do give her and those who gave her the questions some credit, I am not at all surprised he came off as being a better interviewEE than she is an interviewER.
Heck, it might not be a stretch to say I might come off as being a better interviewEE than she is an interviewER.
Sometimes I wonder if CNN realizes they do more to HELP Republican candidates than they do to hurt them. My wish is that they would be "indifferent" no matter the political party of the candidate but clearly they are not.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:19 pm

jfish26 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 5:08 pm

Fine. But I think you understand that the talking point being weaponized by/against (it's a loop) certain groups of people has to do with conflating plurality with majority. There's a massive, massive substantive difference. And saying that BlackRock and Vanguard are the largest shareholders of these companies is, absent context, highly misleading to/of certain groups of people.

In this case, however, the is an enormous amount of context. He wrote a book in which BlackRock (and Vanguard and State Street) played a significant role. He also spent more than a year discussing this issue on CNBC and Fox, in addition to starting an asset management firm the purpose of which is directly and explicitly derived from this specific complaint.

If, say, Trump were to wander down this road, you'd be more than justified in accusing him of making claims that lack context. But not Vivek.

You can say that he's wrong or that he has exaggerated certain issues -- and on the latter, I'd agree. But you can't (accurately) accuse him of not providing context.

Ships passing in the night here. We’re talking about entirely different things.

RainbowsandUnicorns wrote: ↑Tue Aug 22, 2023 6:14 am Anyone watch the interview with Kaitlan Collins and VGR!?
I'm probably not the only one on here who feels Kaitlin Collins is not good - if not terrible - at her job.
While I do give her and those who gave her the questions some credit, I am not at all surprised he came off as being a better interviewEE than she is an interviewER.
Heck, it might not be a stretch to say I might come off as being a better interviewEE than she is an interviewER.
Sometimes I wonder if CNN realizes they do more to HELP Republican candidates than they do to hurt them. My wish is that they would be "indifferent" no matter the political party of the candidate but clearly they are not.

I had started watching the Kaitlin Collins - VGR interview, but stopped early when he kept interrupting and talking over her. I don't know if he persisted, but it was wearyingly familiar and disrespectful, so I swept right. Or left, I forget.

You're aware that AT&T divested some of its assets to Time Warner Discovery, including CNN, to a Trump supporter not long ago? Not long after, in an effort to be "more balanced" CNN held the Trump Town Hall in May where he continued his lies while an audience filled with his supporters cheered wildly. That, along with some other changes, led to the firing of the CNN CEO by the Time Warner Discovery CEO, and now we wait to see how that impacts CNN going forward. But it's reasonable to expect they'll continue to have more Trump apologists on and will spend lots of time doing bothsiderisms whether what their "conservative" spew unfounded conspiracy theories, or not.