Tik Tok
-
@89th Which ironically enough may have saved some of his supporters lives.
Interesting times.
-
wrote on 2 Aug 2020, 14:26 last edited by
It may be a good idea to ban TikTok since it is essentially Spyware, but I have the feeling that Trump has some other motive.
I repeat Tim Tok is being sold to a US company. Trump’s comment is essentially meaningless.
I repeat again...it’s in the sales process.
-
wrote on 3 Aug 2020, 11:51 last edited by
Nice company you have there. Shame we have to ban it.
Now, that's the art of a deal you can't refuse!
-
wrote on 3 Aug 2020, 13:56 last edited by
Interesting to see if they can get it done in 45 days.
I am sure that Byte Dance has a higher expectation of what they think Tiki's Tok is worth.
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 10:45 last edited by Catseye3 8 Apr 2020, 10:45
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_ae0cf56403b2a18518874d5f971120ef
"After days of whiplash over the future of TikTok, President Donald Trump said he would allow an American company to acquire the short-form video app — with a catch.
"In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury.
"The President's requirement that some of the money from the deal go to the US Treasury doesn't have a basis in antitrust law, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel for the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division . . . 'This is quite unusual, this is out of the norm," Kimmelman said. "It's actually quite hard to understand what the president is actually talking about here.'"
Welcome to the world, Gene.
-
https://lite.cnn.com/en/article/h_ae0cf56403b2a18518874d5f971120ef
"After days of whiplash over the future of TikTok, President Donald Trump said he would allow an American company to acquire the short-form video app — with a catch.
"In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury.
"The President's requirement that some of the money from the deal go to the US Treasury doesn't have a basis in antitrust law, according to Gene Kimmelman, a former chief counsel for the US Department of Justice's Antitrust Division . . . 'This is quite unusual, this is out of the norm," Kimmelman said. "It's actually quite hard to understand what the president is actually talking about here.'"
Welcome to the world, Gene.
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 11:25 last edited by Doctor Phibes 8 Apr 2020, 11:25
Conservative support for free enterprise at it's finest.
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 12:32 last edited by
"In an unusual declaration, Trump also said any deal would have to include a "substantial amount of money" coming to the US Treasury
Lolwut?
He went on to say 'because he made the deal possible'.
If Obama said that Sean Hannity would have set himself on fire.
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 12:37 last edited by
“I did say that if you buy it, whatever the price is that goes to whoever owns it, because I guess it’s China essentially … I said a very substantial portion of that price is going to have to come into the Treasury of the United States because we’re making it possible for this deal to happen,” Trump said.
Trump later defended his push for a cut, adding “nobody else would be thinking about but me, but that’s the way I think.”
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 12:45 last edited by
We should be thankful he isn't expecting the money to go to him personally.
-
wrote on 4 Aug 2020, 13:01 last edited by
Sounds like after the fact bribery. Which the Chinese might actually respect.