i mean imagine you preparing a whole routine that takes a lot of your body and all and you lose to someone that takes a carrot out of the ass, i would be pissed too #DragRace#AllStars11
The problem isn't Nicki being Republican because majority of the celebs are Republican and support Trump and receive no backlash. The problem is that Nicki finally has protection. Protection from the highest authority in the land, and she has people are willing to defend her outside of the Barbz!
Y'all wanted to keep going with the harassment, swatting, bullying and everything they put Nicki through. Nicki had to do what she had to do to protect her family, her child, her legacy, and her sanity! If this was any one of your favs, y'all would be making excuses and saying what they're doing is justified.
Y'all parents made plenty of sacrifices and decisions to protect y'all! Why can't Nicki do the same?
@iAMKINGBEECH If you compare tickets sold at a lot of them shows, Nicki first leg still filled the arenas with more people. Plus without that 35th show, they would have no achievement
This is why I don’t care what a song does “chart wise” cause THIS is the type of music I’d play over & over regardless of what the casual listener is hyping.
6lack feat 2Chainz “Sunday Again”
Looking forward to this album 💿
@Ava77529257883@ItsAlrightRaina She been talking about IG chronological order mishaps for years now. Do your research if you gonna make a statement on someone else's motives/reasonings instead of just your uneducated opinion
🎙️ Akademiks Breaks Down Explosive Email Allegedly Linking Jay-Z to Media & Protest Control Claims
On a recent stream, DJ Akademiks reacted to resurfaced emails allegedly sent by Jes Staley to Jeffrey Epstein and the claims have sparked major controversy.
Here’s the breakdown 👇
📧 The Email Claim
According to Akademiks, one email from Staley allegedly states:
“You know why we’re not São Paulo? … They have been bought off by Jay-Z.”
The message reportedly references 2014 protests in São Paulo, Brazil, suggesting that unrest similar to Brazil’s didn’t happen in Brooklyn because influential figures had “bought off” the group that “should be in the streets.”
Akademiks questions why this hasn’t become a bigger media discussion.
🇧🇷 The São Paulo Context (2014)
In 2014, during the 2014 FIFA World Cup, Brazil saw widespread protests particularly in São Paulo over:
•Government spending
•Displacement of residents
•Economic inequality
•Policing tactics
There were clashes with military police, arrests, and global headlines.
Akademiks uses this as a comparison point:
Why was Brazil in chaos during a global sporting event but Brooklyn wasn’t during the arena development era?
🏟️ The Brooklyn Angle
Akademiks connects this to the development of the Barclays Center, which opened in 2012.
He revisits long standing criticism surrounding:
•Gentrification
•Relocation of long time residents
•Community resistance to the arena project
He argues that Jay-Z through Roc Nation and his public influence was positioned as a cultural bridge to ease community concerns during the project’s rollout.
🎤 Akademiks Core Question
Akademiks isn’t claiming proof of bribery or payments.
Instead, he’s asking:
•Why is the email not widely discussed?
•Why hasn’t mainstream media unpacked what “bought off” actually means?
•If roles were reversed politically, would coverage look different?
He also references past comments from figures like Nicki Minaj who have publicly criticized Roc Nation’s influence.
⚖️ Influence vs. Conspiracy
Akademiks repeatedly says:
•He doesn’t believe jurors were bribed.
•He doesn’t claim direct proof of corruption.
•But he does question “influence” in media, business, and legal spaces.
His broader theme:
“The invisible hand.”
He suggests powerful entities shape narratives through partnerships, incentives, and relationships not necessarily illegal actions.
🎯 The Bigger Conversation
Akademiks frames this as a media transparency issue:
•If you have business ties, disclose them.
•If there’s influence, discuss it openly.
•If there’s an email making explosive claims examine it.
He argues the silence is what raises suspicion.
🧠 Final Takeaway
This isn’t presented as confirmed wrongdoing.
It’s framed as:
•A controversial email
•A historical protest comparison
•A conversation about influence in culture, media, and business
Whether you agree or not, the discussion is clearly about power, perception, and who controls the narrative.
What do you think overlooked email or overblown theory?