

I’m confused. I thought the hostile takeover was supposed to work by appealing to the shareholders directly, presumably through some mechanism that allows a vote. If it just went back to the same board that had rejected their previous offers and accepted the deal from Netflix, how was this “hostile takeover” any different from a normal bid?





I really hate how many people resent the idea of any kind of student loan forgiveness.
Billionaires set up vast financial systems for the sole purpose of dodging taxes. No bid contracts get handed out like candy to politically connected scumbags. An obscene amount of money gets dumped into insurance companies that only make your healthcare worse. Giant corporations violate laws and rob both workers and customers, and if anything is done at all it will be a tiny fine that’s smaller than the profit from their crimes.
All those things that actually harm the rest of us? No big deal. But you suggest that maybe it’s a bad idea to keep generations ensnared in crippling debt? THAT’S A FUCKING OUTRAGE!
I mean obviously it wouldn’t be fair to have a policy that directly benefits some people but not others. Why should student loan borrowers get special treatment? Sure, I’ll fucking riot if anyone touches my tax credits for having kids and a mortgage, but that’s different, that’s good for society… unlike education. Besides, it’s not my fault your generation don’t buy houses and start families. Oh don’t bitch to me about how you can’t afford it, maybe you shouldn’t have taken those loans out then…