|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 21:14:01 GMT -5
Hard to find, usually no more public than the law requires, if that; I'm disinclined to google for more than a minute just to prove it, but feel free. All I am asking for is the evidence to support your assertion. If you are disinclined to provide such evidence, then you should retract your assertion. There is no point in me arguing with you if you are unwilling or unable to support your assertions. I heard a report that the judge donated 35 dollars to a Stop Trump org. The amount is irrelevant however...it is inappropriate as it shows political bias.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 1, 2024 21:14:30 GMT -5
Border wall pays for itself many times over. He'll fiinish it when he wins in November. Hopefully not enough dems to block the funding this time around. Wait a minute. How can the dems bloc funding? Mexico paid for the wall. Or did Trump lie about that too?
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 21:14:35 GMT -5
Fascism is a scary thing. Corrupt TDS libs in deep blue urban cess pools who are willing to hijack our justice system to try and damage a political opponent right before an election is both scary and disgusting. It's an attack on the justice system, it's an attack on the executive branch, its an attack on our elections, it's an attack on democracy, and its an attack on the country. Completely unaccetable, and that's why is backfiring so spectacularly on dems already as Trump raises 53 million dollars in the first 24 hours after the "verdict" from mostly small donors, 30 percent of whom were first time ever donors.
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Jun 1, 2024 21:29:03 GMT -5
What does Jackie's target DEMOGRAPHIC have remotely to do with the other people you named and their target demo's?
The initial post you responded to said that Jackie and the others were of the same generation. You disagreed with this point but that was just plain wrong. You seemed to have confused two artists being of the same generation and their audiences being of the same generation. Those are two different things and I don't think anyone here claimed Jackie and, for example, Olivia's audience were of the same generation. In fact, if there is one thing that everyone here would agree upon is that Jackie's audience was skewed so far in one direction that she would outlive most of her audience by decades. That, in fact, is one of the reasons a change was necessary: Jackie is of the same generation as the others mentioned but her audience was of the same generation as her grandparents. I even mentioned this when I said Jackie's audience skewed older than the others while JoJo Siwa skewed younger than the others. As for the target audience, Jackie is now aiming towards an alt-pop audience. Billie Eilish and Grace Vanderwaal are alt-pop artists. While I will assume Jackie is aiming towards the older end of that demographic, there is still some overlap.
I am not sure what you were trying to prove with the ticket map for the Billie Eilish concert. That show was just added because the first show was quickly selling out. Certainly in the next few months that one will sell out as well. Considering the prices range from about $150 to $1600 dollars, she will be making ridiculous amounts of money on the tour.
As far as the comments you added regarding concerts in general, I found those interesting because it illustrates most promoters and managers do not understand statistics. You really need some grasp of it in the age of streaming. One person mentioned that you could always tell an artist would sell tickets if they sold a lot of albums. This is true. What you need to do is look deeper than just a ridiculous streaming number for some song.
For example, if an artist has a song that got a billion streams but most of their songs are closer to a million streams, judge them by the lower end. The billion streams means the song is extremely popular - not the artist. That person should go for smaller venues If, on the other hand, the single gets a billions streams and every other song on the album is in the hundreds of millions, then you have a good chance at selling out an arena.
There is also the matter of momentum and press saturation. In the year after Billie Eilish's When We All Fall Asleep, Where Do We Go? was released, she became an absolute juggernaut rolling over the competition similar to Alanis Morissette after Jagged Little Pill in 1995. It seemed like you couldn't escape her at that point and she not only was able to tour in arenas but then starting touring in baseball stadiums. You had lots of people paying tickets to see her then because she was the next big thing ... Well, that phase is over and she can still sell out arenas but the baseball stadiums are probably out. I consider it up in the air how popular her future albums will be, but she will always be able to sell tickets in fairly large venues since she now has a whole backlog of songs a generation has grown up with as part of their lives.
The problem promoters have now is they cannot be lazy.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Outhouse on Jun 1, 2024 21:34:51 GMT -5
Assertions stated as "facts" but not providing links to legitimate sources that support those assertions will be dismissed and disregarded, and will be considered to be FAKE NEWS (aka lies).
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 1, 2024 21:40:52 GMT -5
I heard a report that the judge donated 35 dollars to a Stop Trump org. The amount is irrelevant however...it is inappropriate as it shows political bias. www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-trump-conviction/
Justice Merchan, who was randomly assigned to this case, made $35 in political contributions to Democrats through ActBlue in 2020, including $15 to Mr. Biden's campaign. Loren Merchan, the judge's daughter, has worked with some top Democrats through her role at a marketing company called Authentic Campaigns.
In 2023, Merchan asked the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics to decide whether this amounted to a conflict. The panel issued a caution to Merchan because political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules. But they ruled Merchan's ability to do his job was not impacted.
Merchan therefore denied Trump's request that he recuse himself — a decision which separate panel of judges from the New York Appellate Division recently upheld.
Bottom line is that there is no evidence that the judge was biased against Trump. If the judge made any impropriate rulings, Trump can appeal them to a higher court. Claiming the judge is biased doesn't make him biased - evidence is needed.
|
|
|
Post by The Real Outhouse on Jun 1, 2024 21:42:21 GMT -5
"Listen to the voice of your Messiah"
IMO the statements made here more accurately reflect what he really thinks - more than any of the crap he said in his "speech" this morning.
Warning: Your Messiah uses filthy disgusting language (he knows that's what you all can relate to).
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 1, 2024 21:53:53 GMT -5
Hard to find, usually no more public than the law requires, if that; I'm disinclined to google for more than a minute just to prove it, but feel free. All I am asking for is the evidence to support your assertion. If you are disinclined to provide such evidence, then you should retract your assertion. There is no point in me arguing with you if you are unwilling or unable to support your assertions. I'm satisfied that evidence exists, but I'm not going to do your research for you, although being borderline curious, I may keep looking, and if I find something may edit this post. I can assert that the moon is made of green cheese without being required to provide evidence or retract my assertion. I hereby assert that the entire left is either evil or fools, based on their tendency toward big government and authoritarianism and/or activist regulation, vastly exceeding if by devious means the notion of limited enumerated federal powers. The evidence is obvious by observation; whether or not one believes the theory that it's evil and corrupt is not a matter of evidence. Anyway, it's very definite that Bragg received $800K+ donations FROM Democrat supporting organizations, AND that he campaigned on something that he shouldn't have (action on a particular case). I don't know that it even matters who he donated to, by comparison.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 21:56:28 GMT -5
I heard a report that the judge donated 35 dollars to a Stop Trump org. The amount is irrelevant however...it is inappropriate as it shows political bias. www.cbsnews.com/news/fact-check-trump-conviction/
Justice Merchan, who was randomly assigned to this case, made $35 in political contributions to Democrats through ActBlue in 2020, including $15 to Mr. Biden's campaign. Loren Merchan, the judge's daughter, has worked with some top Democrats through her role at a marketing company called Authentic Campaigns.
In 2023, Merchan asked the New York Advisory Committee on Judicial Ethics to decide whether this amounted to a conflict. The panel issued a caution to Merchan because political contributions of any kind are prohibited under state judicial ethics rules. But they ruled Merchan's ability to do his job was not impacted.
Merchan therefore denied Trump's request that he recuse himself — a decision which separate panel of judges from the New York Appellate Division recently upheld.
Bottom line is that there is no evidence that the judge was biased against Trump. If the judge made any impropriate rulings, Trump can appeal them to a higher court. Claiming the judge is biased doesn't make him biased - evidence is needed. See and read my post above and watch the attached short video clips. It says it all. And yes, it will be appealed and overturned. But see, the D.A. and Judge are well aware of that. They don't care. The point of this whole exercise was to try and damage Trump right before the election. Appeals will happen months down the road, after the election. Fortunately, its already backfiring on dems. Nobody knows even now what crime Trump supposedly committed that raised a dead misdemeanor bookkeeping "error" by his bookkeeper to a felony. It's ludicrious and desperate. Oh, and if you think this judge was randomly picked, I have a $1,000 ticket to sell you to a Jackie concert. lol He magically got three Trump related cases all to himself..imagine that. What an incredible coincidence. Alan Dershowitz is a democrat, by the way, who voted for Hillary and Biden, and it seems he strongly disagrees with your contention that the judge isnt biased. He actually sat in the courtroom and witnessed the trial.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 1, 2024 22:06:56 GMT -5
I can assert that the moon is made of green cheese without being required to provide evidence or retract my assertion. Anybody can assert anything they want to without evidence. It's a free country. And I will give it all due consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Socal Fan on Jun 1, 2024 22:17:12 GMT -5
he campaigned on something that he shouldn't have (action on a particular case) Where does it say that the DA should not have campaigned on indicting Trump? He is a lawyer. If it is misconduct, he should have charged with misconduct. Or is this something you need me to do the research on?
|
|
|
Post by amg1977 on Jun 1, 2024 22:23:15 GMT -5
How bad is the political landscape in this country?
Somehow, MAGA on the right and the woke on the left have made a conspiracy theorist nutjob like RFK, Jr. look like the voice of reason.
|
|
|
Post by BOGC on Jun 1, 2024 22:25:30 GMT -5
Assertions stated as "facts" but not providing links to legitimate sources that support those assertions will be dismissed and disregarded, and will be considered to be FAKE NEWS (aka lies). Like "vaccine is better outcome for nearly everyone regardless of vulnerability" (BS) or "highly safe and effective" (at best variable BS on the effectiveness depending on how well it matches the current strain; flu shot effectiveness varies massively from year to year, why should COVID which also mutates fast and has multiple strains in circulation be all that different) or "masks significantly protect the wearer" (BS depending on the mask and it being fitted and worn correctly; but almost any mask protects somewhat FROM the wearer, yet that bit of harder-sell honesty was not the major selling point). Or "long shutdowns give better outcomes than keeping as much as possible open" (BS, as demonstrated by Florida). I suppose it's easy to say that in hindsight, but were it not for the temptation for public health officials to become control freaks, and for left-leaning butt-kissing social media to support that and prematurely declare anything to the contrary to be misinformation, those notions that generally did NOT match the science would never have been given such prominence. Or like "the Steele dossier is real" (it wasn't) or "Hunter's laptop is Russian misinformation" (it wasn't). Pre-existing bias reached a conclusion far in advance of the evidence. Or pre-deciding COVID was wet market vs lab leak; much later, it was decided that the latter was not just sensational or confrontational, but entirely possible. FAKE NEWS is a judgement call made by those throwing their weight around. "wait and see" is a far better response to something neither satisfactorily proven nor disproven than prematurely declaring misinformation. Conduct that at least violates established ethics standards that are at the level of "beyond even the appearance of impropriety" has certainly occurred, the appearance is there; there are hearings that are not just revenge investigating that. That at the very least makes plausible questioning the impartiality of the DA and judge.
|
|
|
Post by donkey on Jun 1, 2024 22:26:07 GMT -5
he campaigned on something that he shouldn't have (action on a particular case) Where does it say that the DA should not have campaigned on indicting Trump? He is a lawyer. If it is misconduct, he should have charged with misconduct. Or is this something you need me to do the research on? Because it demonstrates political corruption...you aren't supposed to select a political enemy and then go try to find or make up a crime for him. You find a crime, then prosecute whoever you find committed it. He had a political agenda to find something, anything, on Trump. He promised to prosecute him before he even knew if he had committed any crime, to make his Trump hating voter base happy. Come on socal, you are smarter than that. lol It's Stalin-esque: Lavrentiy Beria, the most ruthless and longest-serving secret police chief in Joseph Stalin’s reign of terror in Russia and Eastern Europe, bragged that he could prove criminal conduct on anyone, even the innocent. “Show me the man and I’ll show you the crime” was Beria’s infamous boast. He served as deputy premier from 1941 until Stalin’s death in 1953, supervising the expansion of the gulags and other secret detention facilities for political prisoners. He became part of a post-Stalin, short-lived ruling troika until he was executed for treason after Nikita Khrushchev’s coup d’etat in 1953. Beria targeted “the man” first, then proceeded to find or fabricate a crime. Beria’s modus operandi was to presume the man guilty, and fill in the blanks later. By contrast, under the United States Constitution, there’s a presumption of innocence that emanates from the 5th, 6th, and 14th Amendments, as set forth in Coffin vs. U.S. (1895). /
|
|
|
Post by The Real Outhouse on Jun 1, 2024 22:27:40 GMT -5
Again with the assertions with no factual support.
|
|