• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

RJ's political-1947 NYC vaccinated 6M in <1 month -Lin Wood says he's 2nd coming

It's supposed to be Mar-A-Lago. I wonder if he committed voter fraud? :)

EDIT: He did list it as his residence to register to vote...
 
Last edited:
RJKarl said:
How great will it be for Trump not to be able to live at Mar-A-Lago after the presidency? According to the rules HE created to allow Mar-A-Lago to become a club, he can't live there. He can't go back to NYC lest he'll get arrested. Can someone contribute a studio apartment for him?

https://thehill.com/homenews/admini...1Ph_B40q2HP5__bbiVKIb9o2yLW1ZggNNrBWGeJrYjDAg

"In the letter to Palm Beach officials obtained by The Washington Post, the residents cited an agreement Trump signed in 1993 to convert the facility to a private club, which they said bars him from using it as a primary residence. The agreement bars members from spending more than 21 days per year there or for more than seven days straight."

"{“There’s absolutely no legal theory under which he can use that property as both a residence and a club," Glenn Zeitz, a Palm Beach homeowner who did not sign the letter, told the Post.

“Basically he’s playing a dead hand. He’s not going to intimidate or bluff people because we’re going to be there,” Zeitz added."
Click to expand...


haha, i was just reading that yesterday. i am not surprised they don't want him to live there...look at his followers!
 
warak said:
haha, i was just reading that yesterday. i am not surprised they don't want him to live there...look at his followers!
Click to expand...

The people who live in the neighborhood around Mar-A-Lago have money to hire lawyers to fight any changes to the stipulations Trump agreed to. Private citizen Trump v. Neighbors of Mar-A-Lago.
 
Deaconblue said:
The people who live in the neighborhood around Mar-A-Lago have money to hire lawyers to fight any changes to the stipulations Trump agreed to. Private citizen Trump v. Neighbors of Mar-A-Lago.
Click to expand...

I wonder if he tries to sue them if they sue him in return to make him return all the membership buy-ins and dues to the members. That would be hilarious.
 
RJKarl said:
I wonder if he tries to sue them if they sue him in return to make him return all the membership buy-ins and dues to the members. That would be hilarious.
Click to expand...

haha, don't forget he tripled the cost of membership when he was made president.

he would go broke....broker
 
I still think the mug shot (with his hair down) T-shirt would outsell Farrah Fawcett poster totals.
 
I do have a puzzling, existential question- How come 20,000 person audiences in an arena or 50,000 in a stadium sound so good when they sing a song? Two thirds of them couldn't carry a tune in a suitcase and the loudest people in those venues are usually the drunkest in the group. Why and how do these sing-alongs sound so good?
 
I wonder if Biden's people released Trump documents and emails of lackeys if it drive enough ReTrumplicans back into sanity that the loons will be phased out.
 
RJKarl said:
I do have a puzzling, existential question- How come 20,000 person audiences in an arena or 50,000 in a stadium sound so good when they sing a song? Two thirds of them couldn't carry a tune in a suitcase and the loudest people in those venues are usually the drunkest in the group. Why and how do these sing-alongs sound so good?
Click to expand...

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...s-the-audience-never-heard-as-off-tune/382534

There are likely several effects in play.

Firstly, most people have some awareness of their singing competence, and in the average population there are a fair number of reasonable singers (even if they have bad voices or limited range).
In particular, most people can sing tolerably in relative pitch over a small range of notes (that is, they know whether the pitch needs to go up or down, and by roughly how far relative to other notes in a sequence).
In a large crowd, good singers are likely to belt out the notes in the manner expected, whereas inveterate poor singers are more likely than not to moderate their output (or even stop singing altogether) when they do not believe they are subject to attention.
(There was a famous case in the 90s of a politician here in the UK, John Redwood, choosing to mime the words of a Welsh song that he did not know - but because of his individual prominence, he was broadcast on TV anyway gawping like a fish gasping for air).
In a small singing group (or if you're a prominent individual in a large group), this is a less feasible strategy, since all participants will be expected to contribute and be heard (even if what is heard is discordant), and all participants usually can be clearly heard as individuals. So sometimes extremely poor singers, or even momentary mistakes by good ones, will be heard clearly in small groups.

Secondly, there is no systematic bias amongst poor singers. That is, they are on average neither consistently above the correct note nor below.
Poor singers are likely to vary the pitch of a sustained note (that is, sing what should be one sustained note as a fluctuating series of variations around the correct note), they are likely to mis-time transitions, they are likely to sing wrong notes both above and below the correct note, and they are likely to change key unpredictably (i.e. singing the right relative notes, but in changing ranges).
But taken as a whole in the crowd, these errors are unsystematic and will either be heard either simply as noise and muddiness without a distinct character, or will be heard as pleasant and concordant harmonics which add richness (or as acceptable variations in chromatic approach notes, which receive less attention from listeners).

Thirdly, people are much more capable of identifying whether the note they are hearing is correct, and matching their own voice relative to a correct note that is being heard, than they are of generating a correct note independently. As I said at the start, the majority of people are competent to hear and sing in relative pitch, so if they are given a "backing track" to sing along to their performance improves, because they can hear the differences and correct them.
Most choir-type songs proceed relatively slowly (an untrained crowd won't usually be expected to belt out Proud Mary at Tina Turner's pace), which not only gives people more margin to match the correct timing, but more time to find the correct note that they are hearing. It only requires relatively few people interspersed in a crowd to have good timing and pitch, and with the confidence to sing loudly, to provide an anchor for others in the vicinity to match.

So in summary, in crowds poorer singers tend to sing more modestly than average whilst good singers tend to sing more loudly than average, secondly the aggregate error of poor singers tends to approximate noise (rather than a specific audible off-note), and thirdly prominent good singers help to guide the voices of the majority closer to the correct notes. So in aggregate, the song can be heard distinctly above the random noise.
Click to expand...
 
Coach O said:
This is the most productive thing I have read on these OGboards in a long time.
Click to expand...

What's weird for me is one of the reasons people used to ask me to work with them is that I could listen to a live performance or a mastered tape, I could hear even the most minor instrument or voice being off just a little. I could isolate an individual voice in a choir without a mixing board, but that doesn't seem to apply is mass, live groups. If it did, it would have driven me crazy.
 
The PM of New Zealand has led their nation through Covid so well that it's open now. When, Trump was telling Pfizer to fuck off rather than pre-ordering. doses of vaccines. Meanwhile in NZ, PM Ardern was ordering enough for every New Zealander to be immunized as well as enough extra to give many poorer island nations FREE doses for their people.
 
you would think that if the Republicans want to get back to normal, for the economy, they would have been more supportive of stopping the virus back in March. This prolonged debacle is the result of avoiding the virus and claiming it was "not so bad".
 
Biden should offer Cabinet posts to Toomey, Collins, Burr and maybe even crazy Rand Paul. If any accept, the first they disagree, fire them...
 
warak said:
you would think that if the Republicans want to get back to normal, for the economy, they would have been more supportive of stopping the virus back in March. This prolonged debacle is the result of avoiding the virus and claiming it was "not so bad".
Click to expand...


Yep

Republicans chose fantasy over reality a long time ago, sadly.
 
warak said:
you would think that if the Republicans want to get back to normal, for the economy, they would have been more supportive of stopping the virus back in March. This prolonged debacle is the result of avoiding the virus and claiming it was "not so bad".
Click to expand...

Stock market is looking good! That's the economy, right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top