__________
#4 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-09-27 03:50 PM
So...where are all of the "free market capitalists" who should be coming to Swift's defense?

Why should anyone be coming to Swift's "defense"? She is a big girl and can handle business negotiations all by herself (and her agent, if she has one).

It's not like NFL "made an offer she couldn't refuse" - and she will probably be at a nice private guest party booth at Superbowl if Chiefs will be playing.

|------- The speculation about Taylor Swift's possible performance at the Super Bowl has now reportedly come to an abrupt end. Industry insiders claimed that Swift made some demands to perform for the halftime show. However, the NFL refused to meet her terms, and the deal has thus fallen through. Taylor Swift wanted a Super Bowl deal that reflected her 'value,' says source.

For years, fans have eagerly anticipated Taylor Swift's performance at the Super Bowl. The anticipation increased this year after rumors of her deal with the NFL hit the headlines. **

The NFL reportedly does not pay the Super Bowl performers, and Swift was not okay with it. She demanded that the NFL let her reserve full ownership of her performance while also asking for slots to advertise her own projects during the show. The NFL, however, did not agree to the terms. A music executive told Shuter, "She wasn't asking for favors, she was asking for respect. ... She wanted a deal that reflected her value." ...
-------|

So where is the problem here? Looks entirely like "free market capitalism" to me, where the parties negotiate the value of the deal but can't come to an agreement on each other's terms. Happens every day.

Swift is also very cautious about not having ownership and control of her content, after selling her portfolio early and then having to re-record and eventually buy back her own songs. She may not want to be in the same situation again.

Frankly, I think half-time shows are much ado about nothing and was unimpressed by most recent ones, and not a fan of Swift material... but that's just me. It makes money for some and gives 'exposure' to some, and apparently many "capitalists" and "socialists" enjoy them.

** Sounds like NFL wanted to put some pressure on Swift and leaked that there are 'negotiations.'
__________

__________
#27 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-09-24 09:20 PM
So yeah, so long as PM Netanyahu retains his office, he apparently will not have to face the legal charges against him.

Apparently you have no idea of how democracy in Israel works - Netanyahu has been investigated for since 2016 and charged with 5 [specious] counts of corruption against him in 2019, with trial starting in early 2020. It took so long because prosecution has no real case against him and not one of 333 "witnesses" they brought to the stand testified against him or took a plea. They had to rest and defense took over in December of 2024, starting with Netanyahu's testimony. He has been testifying still last month, and judge panel ordered for case testimonies to be 3-4 times a week to speed up the case.

That's while in office, through COVID, October 7 2023 and war against Hamas, neutralizing Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hezbollah, Iran, Assad and Putin in Syria, Yemen's Houthis, Iran nuclear threat, etc. etc.


I'm not looking for an explanation.
Why?
Maybe because of this ...

- - - - - ...Netanyahu is corrupt and holding onto power to save himself. ...

So how exactly is he "saving himself" while on trial and how could he be "holding onto power"?

There are parliamentary elections in Israel, just like in many European countries. Unlike Gaza, under "Hamas management" since 2007 and West Bank where Abbas is into his 21st year of 4-year term he's been "elected" to.


Re "corrupt" you are just echoing what you have "learned" right here, on "this most august of the august sites."

Check the cases 1000, 2000 and 4000 against Netanyahu and see if those qualify as "corruption" by our "democratic" standards, e.g., case 1000:

|------- In Case 1000, Netanyahu is accused of having a conflict of interest while he was the Minister of Communications and handled affairs related to Arnon Milchan's business interests. The prosecution alleges that Netanyahu received expensive cigars and champagne worth $195,000 from Milchan and James Packer, a friend of Milchan's, over a period of 20 years.

... As per the allegations, in the years 2013 " 2014, Netanyahu asked John Kerry on three separate occasions, to help Milchan in securing a US Visa. ...
-------|

Again, I do not disagree. So, how does all that affect the NYC Mayoral campaign?

Because propaganda rules demand (and pays only) that any thread is turned into anti-Israel, anti-Netanyahu, anti-Joo discussion (see Effeteposer et al) whenever possible.

BTW, the word HAMAS didn't appear once in this thread about "belligerent people"... that Israel and their governments had to defend against since its establishment in 1948.
__________

__________
Reuters: "A loan for an Atlanta home purchased by Lisa Cook... shows that Cook had declared the property as a 'vacation home.'" Case closed.

People who Trump publicly accuses of mortgage fraud are credit-worthy enough to get loans at the best possible rates regardless of the properties' stated purpose so, unlike Trump - who was convicted of multiple counts of real estate fraud - they didn't actually need to commit fraud to get favorable terms.

#9 | Posted by visitor_ at 2025-09-20 05:14 PM
I've never claimed more than one primary residence at a time on loan or tax documents.

Good for you.

For taxes there may only be one "Primary" residence. For loans there may be several "Principal" residences if you spend substantial amount of time there (e.g., working or taking care of a relative in other city or state, etc.) and they are not "vacation" / "secondary" / "rental" or "investment" properties.

This is not unusual.

What is unusual - and much more interesting - is WHO dug this generally non-public info and WHY it was done the way it was:

WHO : Bill Pulte, current head of FHFA, who inherited PulteGroup real estate empire, currently worth $26B.

HOW : Did Pulte or his staff just happen to read some randomly chosen (from millions held by Fannie and Freddy) past mortgage applications and stumbled into the alleged abuses by NY AG Letitia James, Sen. Adam Schiff and Fed Gov. Lisa Cook? Mortgage files are not public, so what was the 'primary' reason for him to even start looking for this information?

WHY : If he really thought they committed a fraud, why announce it publicly instead of going through usual procedures of informing IG and eventually referring the case to DOJ for prosecution?

Obviously, as was the case with Jerome Powell, the intent is to intimidate and force out a member of supposedly "independent" agency to staff it with lapdogs who would do his bidding of lowering interest rates and devaluing the USD, regardless of inflation or other economic issues.

Pulte's RE company can also potentially profit from lower interest rates... but Trump's and his cabinet of flunkeys issue of conflicts of interests seems to be a feature, not a bug.

Maybe Pulte himself has some 'splaining to do?
__________

__________
#26 | Posted by BillJohnson at 2025-09-17 09:25 PM
These late night shows are tanking in the ratings and it's no wonder why.
We need another Johnny Carson.

Actually, the reason you don't understand "why" is because you blinked and missed the rapidly changing "content creation and delivery" business landscape - "free TV" today is far from what it was when Johnny Carson was "on the air" competing only with a couple of similar OTA networks and a few "cable" news/entertainment channels, mostly CNN and MTV.

Today, number of digital CDNs ("Content Delivery/Distribution Network") is huge (YT / TikTok "channels" etc.) and content more fragmented than 3 or 4 OTA TV networks then, and people don't have to stay up late, especially in Western time zones, to watch "live" late-night network content.

So comparing today's "late night" ratings to old times or any other available content is nonsensical. If networks were really losing money on these shows, they wouldn't keep them on the air - the programmers and accountants there are not idiots and understand "ad and aux revenue" and change shows all the time - if they could make more net $$ doing that they would do it without "input" from Trump and FCC chair.

So maybe we should leave programming and accounting to the networks? We don't have to like or watch it. Or do you really want to be hypocritical and maintain that the reason Colbert and Kimmel are being "cancelled" is because they have "no talent" and their "low ratings," and Trump's clearly stated desires and threats had nothing to do with it?

Q: What were the ratings of the whatever show that replaced Kimmel's this week and how much money DIS made / lost with it?

Q: Do you really want your content choices decided by the Programmer-in-Chief? Be careful what you wish for.

__________

Trump has never stopped trying to make his boss his BFF: