Donald Trump Doesn't Have $3B To Spend

We know that on January 08, 2021, Twitter had permanently suspended the @realDonaldTrump account due to Donald Trump purportedly inciting violence. 

Methinks, whether his tweets are considered incendiary or not, is a matter of debate. 

But we’re seeing epic double-standards here! I am reminded that Reuters reported on March 10, 2022 that Meta Platforms have allowed Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians in the context of the Ukraine conflict, in a temporary change to their hate speech policy. 

Not only that, but the social media company have also temporarily allowed some posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, according to internal emails to their content moderators seen by the news agency. 

Utter hypocrisy!

Anyway, coming back to Twitter, Elon Musk's purchase of $3 billion worth of company stock earned him a seat on the company's board and influence over their direction, product and policy development. Twitter the company said in a filing yesterday, a day after the billionaire and Tesla chief executive (right) disclosed he had become the social media platform's largest shareholder with a 9.2% stake. 

If Trump had $3 billion to spend (or to leverage), why couldn't he have bought himself a board seat (and perhaps his account back) on Twitter? He obviously wants it even more than Musk. 

Probably, he doesn't really have anything like that kind of money. When columnists and pundits talk about the personal wealth of billionaires, they imagine every stake liquidated, every debt repaid, and plain sailing all the way there. 

Another way of putting it: as rich as Trump is, he's still churning what he inherited and it's all leveraged up to his tidemarks. And with such a long history of misrepresenting his assets and obligations, what counts as wealth is really just a measure of his creditors' tolerance for risk.