The Smiley Smile Message Board

It was not a rally  ;D

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjpSHoXWYAEB5R2.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/LgN0V3N.jpg?1)

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/30/us/30TRUMPBIKERS2/30TRUMPBIKERS2-master675.jpg)

lmao

Yep...Your next Vice President... :lol...Michael E. Love...running mate of Donald T. Rump. 

Not a Trump rally. Picture half way down I presume is Mike.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/us/politics/donald-trump-and-bikers-share-affection-at-rolling-thunder-rally.html?_r=0

Well, not exactly. I presume that this was at the Rolling Thunder Rally in Washington, D.C., today and Trump happened to speak. This event is dedicated to accounting for military members taken as prisoners of war or listed as missing in action.

I'm no fan of Trump, but I think it's a bit of a stretch to call this a Trump rally.

Well it's a Trump thang baby!

Agreed--in fact, I'd say it's more than a bit of a stretch.  

I was gonna say, I was caught off-guard a little bit when this image showed up on my TV screen out of nowhere.  :lol

(http://i.imgur.com/LgN0V3N.jpg?1)

It's gonna be HUGE.

You probably want to  change your subject title now Shady.

Obvious clickbait title is obvious.

No it's not that  :lol :lol

I came across it on twitter from somebody in the media and she called it a trump rally, my bad.

 ;D ;D

That's what you get for believing the lamestream media, bruh. :P

I've been had....again  :lol

lol true dat  ;D

This is why we need THE WALL.

wheres yer smile deluxe ?  ^-^

I KNOW YOU WANT TO SEE IT. It's HUGE.

So, here is the original tweet:

https://twitter.com/Bencjacobs/status/736991892731224068

It's possible that someone retweeted or quoted the tweet, but the journalist is pretty clear that he is at the Rolling Thunder rally. So...

so is mine :hat

I didn't get it from that account

Can you two get a room  :hat

Gertie can share me with you. :)

in my room  ;)
lol jus kiddin

I'm not gonna share Gertie  :hat

Two peas in a pod.

If the Lovester and/or Bruce are voting for anyone but Trump, I'd be slack-jawed in surprise.

Murrrrikka's Band!

New York Times article shows myKe luHv talking to the Don but the article never mentions him.  :lol :lol :lol

Was Mike there to perform for the bikers? Paul Revere and the Raiders performed for Rolling Thunder several times in the early 00's. Nancy Sinatra, Billy Ray Cyrus and Bill Medley also took part in those shows. Sad if those guys think Trump is going to help them, though.

Glad Mike is on our side!

The wall is going to be like the Love train...HUGE.

COMMENT:

You may view the Washington DC National Memorial Day Concert for 2016 at >>> http://www.pbs.org/video/2365765896/

THE BEACH BOYS segment starts at 42:00 minutes into the presentation.

Excellent production values and performance by all.   ~swd

On our side of what?

(https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/05/30/us/30TRUMPBIKERS2/30TRUMPBIKERS2-master675.jpg)

".....so yeah, I've had a few wives and fired some people myself!"

:lol :lol :lol

new wallpaper

(https://scontent.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/s960x960/13320537_10154116349635600_7584197891744397498_o.jpg)

wow

omg

Everything about that picture makes me physically ill.

Cute couple

Even the patriotic biker with the Eagle and Pentagon on his vest? 

A picture of two Americans supporting our POW/MIA makes you physically ill?

Ah, Mam Cott a Trump supporter!? Too good to be true!

 :lol

Mike posed for that picture. He's been in "show business" for 55 years, a good 52 or 53 of those in the national spotlight. He can't *not* know the possible reactions to such a photo.

To be incredulous as to why a good percentage of people would find such a photo distasteful is rather confusing to me. I doubt even Mike would be surprised that many people want to barf when they see the photo.

He clearly *doesn't care* what people think about his political affiliations and opinions, and hasn't for eons. Read the Rusten/Stebbins "In Concert" book, which reprints some of Mike's comments about playing Sun City in 1981. As Rusten and Stebbins point out in the book, the only reason nobody cared about the BBs playing Sun City and Mike making inflammatory comments about the UN is that the BBs had fallen so far off the radar in late 1981.

The Beach Boys as a touring band, with and without various members outside of Mike over the years, have played a variety of events tied to a political figure. Why in the world they've so often done this, I have no idea (Brian was quoted back in the 80s saying the BBs shouldn't be so political), but the BBs have not really had much negative blowback from any political affiliations. Bruce called the President an "a**hole" during the 2012 tour, that was the last time something briefly hit the news (or, at least, the tabloids).

Mike is entitled to not care what people think, and people are entitled to opine. Mike wasn't caught in a private moment; he went to a public event and then chose to pose, thumbs up, for a photo with someone. He'll have to deal with whatever the reactions are. I'm sure such reactions will not hinder or discourage Mike in any way.

HJ,

I can see why Donald Trump may rub some people the wrong way, the same way Mike does. 

Speaking for myself, and possibly Cam, I was asking why a poster above said that "everything" about that picture made him physically ill.  So, Trump, Mike, and the biker's vest then? 

Based on Mike's facebook comments, it was an unexpected meeting, but he had a rather glowing review of the speech and encounter. To be honest, I would happily take a photo with any former president regardless of party affiliation. Same goes for any of the presidential candidates formerly or currently running for president in this election cycle. A photo doesn't necessarily equal an endorsement.

It's obvious *why* someone would hyperbolically opine that everything about a photo of those two guys makes them ill. If one doesn't like many things about the two people in the photo, and that person sees those two seemingly disparate but equally disliked people converge in a photo, that's going to be the obvious reaction. On top of all of that, it also immediately garners extra severe reactions because it involves politics.

If you don't agree with the idea that the photo is disagreeable conceptually (if not visually) for a million reasons (obviously, it's the personalities and politics and ideas behind the people in the photo, not the existence of the photo itself), that's fine. But I can't imagine not understanding *why* some people would feel that way.

I'm just not a fan of what strikes me, whether it's intended or not, as a sort of manufactured incredulity. It happens here sometimes, usually regarding things like Mike interviews. It's often a sticking point in conversations regarding Mike; the inability of a few to just say they agree with Mike's opinion and demeanor and attitude while acknowledging how, objectively, some of his comments paint him in a negative light.

I can agree with someone (politically or otherwise) but objectively say that a given picture or interview was ill-advised and is representative of something distasteful to many.

This thread certainly seems as though it's "Sandbox" bound.

True. But as I said, Mike has been in the business for a half century. He didn't have to pose for a photo. If he was a connoisseur of political figures, both reviled and celebrated, and wanted a private collection of photos with such figures, he could have taken a private photo.

Mike *wanted*, or certainly was not opposed, to the idea of this photo being publicized. It's a textbook definition of "photo op."

Again, I'm just not big on incredulousness that makes no sense. Some degree of Mike's politics are obvious based on his own comments and actions; that this photo exists is not surprising to me in the slightest. Thus, I don't pretend to be shocked by it. But I also can't fathom why someone would be surprised that many react negatively to the visceral, conceptual, and political things this photo represents.

HJ,

Maybe it was hyperbole, but when there's a picture of a veteran, or somebody supporting veterans, and somebody posts "everything about this photo makes me sick," I don't see any problem with questioning that. 

Maybe that poster will provide an explanation. 

Agreed.

I assumed the "makes me ill" poster was referring to the photo with just the two guys, thumbs aloft. That was the photo immediately above the post in question.

But more to the point, to suggest that someone reacting negatively is trying to say something negative about veterans or supporting veterans is just deflecting, in my opinion.

The poster was/is OBVIOUSLY talking about the two public figures in question.

Mike doesn't get a pass on being criticized for taking a photo op because of the nature of the event he was attending. He could have crossed paths without talking, and certainly without posing for a photo op.  

yeah wasnt hard to figure out which photo the guy was commenting to

Why should Mike need a pass for posing with Trump?  

People talk about Trump like he's this anti christ.  Is it even possible for somebody to do worse than the current President?

Thumbs up seems like an endorsement to me

Yes, Donald Trump

Nobody outside of this forum cares about this.  Give it a rest.

I am the 'makes me ill' poster ( ;D) and HeyJude is absolutely spot on in his analysis.

It was indeed a hyperbole concerning the picture with the two gentlemen hugging. Nothing to do with veterans, as I'm not even from the US and therefore it's not something I know much or even have an opinion about.

I thought you were posting about the picture of Mike, Trump, and the biker. 

My mistake. 

Actually... according to my social media (a bunch of aging music nerds) this picture is pretty popular and to most people, it just plays into the common concept of Mike being a crappy dude.

Also, the "IT'S JUST TWO AMERICANS SUPPORTING THE TROOPS!" is either an amazing troll, or just someone REALLY UNAWARE of the world around them.

I didn't realize supporting Trump made one a "crappy" person. 

In pointing out that Mike doesn't get a pass, I was only referring to my perception that it was being implied that the nature of the event in question, or the types of people in the background, somehow would or could mitigate Mike choosing to pose for a picture with a divisive figure. The event in question could be the most altruistic and non-partisan event possible and the same objections to the photos would still stand, if one were inclined to object in any way to the photo.

(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lw0inpIrRX1qik3uyo1_400.jpg)

Good to know that Mike and I are both "crappy" people. 

 ;D

I think the previous poster said that the picture plays into the perception of Mike rather than saying he's actually a "crappy person."

Again, this all goes back to making an objective observation versus tapping into one's own political (or any other) leaning or preference.

Whether you agree or disagree with anything or everything to do with those two guys in the photo, I would say objectively it's obviously going to be seen as inflammatory (or objectionable, or nauseating, or any number of negative reactions) by a lot of people.

If two guys I like pose for a photo, I can say that *I* think it's great or inconsequential for me while simultaneously being willing to admit if the photo would, objectively speaking, also obviously be seen by many as vomit-inducing.

Maybe Mike can play a show at a rally for Donald while the crowd destroys copies of Brian's "Mexican Girl". They can then do a thumbs up to an image of that.

The infamous hypothetical Mexico wall Mike's apparently ok with.... but endorsing The Wall, the actual album, that on the other hand was a "no".

Shaking my head.

Obviously not the first time the 2 have met, if memory serves me correct the BB's (Including Carl) have played Private Functions for Trump in the past

don't forget copies of "smart girls" >:D

Yeah, but it's quite a different ballgame now that this orange man is running for office, and Mike has now effectively endorsed his campaign (and he may as well have had the BB brand name endorse him since Mike's rocking the omnipresent BB logo cap).

Mike's got the right to do so, blatantly with a photo op no less, just as I have the right to feel sick to my stomach.

Celebrity endorsements of candidates have zero influence on how I vote.

Actually, that is totally untrue. It's in fact starting to trend on social media.

Let's get together and Make America Great Again...

Trump's combover, combover, the crow cries uncover the cornfield...

      New song: "Pisces Hat Brothers."

What's the big deal? Trump paid his $35.99 for the meet and greet, got his copy of SiP signed, received a complimentary "Excitations" tote bag and had the obligatory photo OP with Mike.

Must admit that I was shocked initially: Mike's a tall guy and I hadn't expected Trump to be taller. Then I realised he was stood on Bruce.

Mike wins either way: he gets to keep the $35.99 (less $0.99 the tote bag cost him) and he has a keepsake photo of himself with the Republican Party's much-loved Presidential candidate before he loses the election and fades into obscurity.

 :lol :lol

please.

The bit I can't figure out is how Mike Love, an apparently sincere environmentalist since before it was trendy, could back a guy who dismisses global warming and supports environmentally disastrous drilling and pipeline projects.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Giving Mike the benefit of the doubt, I'd imagine that Mike doesn't believe/agree with all of Trumps ideas necessarily, but that he perhaps feels that the good outweighs the bad.  :-\ Or something like that. It still baffles.

So how long before this gets moved to the sandbox?

Talking about how a member of the band might feel about a political figure, and how that could affect the band/brand/individual members (I've already seen some people say online that they may skip M&B shows due to being repulsed by Mike's Trump endorsement) is not off-topic. Some may think that's "silly", but it's far from irrelevant to the public perception of The Beach Boys.

The BB logo is on the hat next to Trump; that makes a statement to the world, whether intentional or not. Mike (and unfortunately the brand by extension, since Mike "IS" The BBs these days) is aligning himself with a guy who retweets white supremacists' tweets. That fact alone actually, truly, not exaggerating, makes me physically ill to think about (both that Trump would do such a thing, and that Mike would publicly support a narcissistic orange blob like that). I just assume that Bruce will do the same behind closed doors, but that probable fact makes me slightly less repulsed, since he at least isn't telling the world what a swell guy Trump is, the way Mike is with his giant grin, thumbs up, and BB logo on the cap.

Here is Mike's comment on Trump:

"Unbeknownst to us, a special guest speaker arrived in his motorcade. Donald Trump addressed the crowd like only Donald Trump could. No notes, no teleprompter…just gave it to them straight. On his way out, I had the chance to speak to him for a couple of minutes while photos were taken with the Washington Monument in the background. I'd told him a few years ago about my nephew Kevin Love. He recalled that conversation and congratulated me on how well my nephew is doing."

Seemingly unaware Trump would be there, no endorsement of Trump, they are both at an event for a good cause for which they give a thumbs up for an event photo, chat briefly during the photo, both go on about their business.   

Cam, I pose several questions to you:

1. You seem to be trying to downplay or cast doubt on peoples' interpretation that Mike is endorsing Trump in some fashion. Is the implication that if Mike actually went ahead and flat out said he endorses Trump, that such a direct endorsement might be a potential bad thing in the eyes of many for Mike's own and the band's reputation? Or would that be ok too?

2. Is a celeb taking a picture with a thumbs up beside a very, very famous political candidate, in the middle of a contentious election (a candidate which MANY people are deeply, deeply offended by Trump's ideals)... and then that celeb taking the additional step of posting that photo on Facebook, not something that people could consider an endorsement of some sort?

It's like when Mia Farrow's son, Ronan, dropped a not-so-subtle hint that his biological dad is Frank Sinatra. He didn't flat out say it, but it's obvious based on some tweets/interviews where he ever-so-slightly danced around it. It's not any kind of secret, nor is it rocket science, to draw a conclusion. Mike's coming out of the political closet a bit too. Do you really, honestly think it's a stretch for most people to interpret the posting of a photo, in today's media age, as something of an endorsement?

Are people supposed to see that photo and think "well golly gee... that swell Mike Love ran into that swell guy Donald Trump and posed for a pic. I hope Mike's gonna tell us who he endorses/supports, because I have no idea based on that photo".

Are they?

I'd bet, without any doubt, that if Mike thought he could get away with M&B performing at a Trump rally, and that doing so wouldn't open up a nuclear can of PR worms in today's media age, that he'd be having his people contact the orange blob's people today about fast-tracking the booking of a gig.

I wouldn't say Mike's really been "hiding in the political closet" in the first place. This was the guy who (along with Carl, Bruce and Al) sang "I'm pickin' up Bush vibrations" for one of George H. W. Bush's presidential campaigns. And if I remember correctly, during the 2000 election, Mike made some kind of comment from the stage why ol' Dubya was the better choice than that know-it-all Al Gore.

Even though I disagree with Mike's views, he definitely has the right to hold them. However I do take offense when some prick who hasn't went without a day in his life calls President Obama an "asshole" yet talks about how clean cut his group is and how they were friends of that AIDS denier Ronnie.

Gave his address to them straight, no notes or teleprompter.

Instead of just making stuff up, yes?

True, I guess I meant coming out of the political closet in the social media age  regarding a current candidate, let alone a candidate who is arguably significantly more divisive and hated than any of the other ones who you have mentioned. It's very different endorsing a candidate today vs a decade and a half ago.

Trump is now a far, far different figure now than he was when The Boys played his birthday party two decades ago.

I agree that Mike has every right to support anyone he wants, just as fans have every right to shake their heads if they so desire.

I swear... there's probably not another example of a world famous celebrity like Mike taking a thumbs up photo (during the heat of a contentious campaign) with a major candidate, posting that photo on Facebook, and having that public meeting/social media sharing symbolically actually mean absolutely nothing, while they truly support someone different.

Nobody does that. No celebrity does that.  Especially in 2016, and most especially considering the incredibly contentious nature of this campaign.

That's simply a completely unrealistic scenario, And I can't believe that you truly in your heart think that it's reasonable for people to not draw any educated gussses.  Again… Maybe you somehow think Mike actually supports someone different… But you can't tell me that you really think it's such a reaching thing for people to make that type of Mike endorses Trump assumption.

Ahh! Another President meets a beach boy! Good stuff! :D

You can swear all you want but I'm sure there are tons of exactly things like that happening all the time when the event is non-political like this one for the POW/MIAs and people are there for the cause and not a political campaign. It's OK, something was made out of nothing, again, but we got it sorted out now.

Absolute rubbish again Cam. In this context what would the thumbs up signify to you? Actually who cares you have an existing predisposition to spin anything related to Mike into a positive in your mind.
There are pages and pages of your posts, trying to quantify and or justify various actions of Mike that infuriate others. I ask you again why? What drives this obsession?

Greeting John McCain and posing for a photo out of respect for war vets (regardless of political affiliation) during his campaign (because McCain himself was a POW)? That is fathomable. McCain was not extremely, extraordinarily divisive like Trump.  Many people, across the political landscape, respected him. That's basically the scenario that you are suggesting...

But this is different on many levels. Trump is not a veteran, for one.

Again, it's not conceivable that Mike wouldn't know what impression it would make on many people by posting the pic. Of course he would know.  Things he wishes to cover up, he does so. This is not one of them. Especially, as sweetdudejim  noted above, Mike has in fact gone out of his way to publicly effectively endorse virtually all Presidential candidates from this same party for decades.  It's no leap to think he is continuing the trend. More power to him if that's how he feels. I don't know why anybody should be in any kind of denial about it.

Mikesplaining.

Fred Astaire would be jealous of your fancy footwork, Cam.

He would be jealous of you three's repetitiveness and speed and height (depth?) of jumping to conclusions.   ;)

Moderators, I do not like how Cam is attacking our fellow board members!

Perhaps something can be done about this?

OK, so let's get Mike to pose in similar fashion with Hillary and with Bernie! That will solve the fannish conundrum -- posing thumbs up with all current candidates.

 ;D

It's still not going to influence my vote, however.

Somebody should tell Mike that T. Rump wants to eliminate the EPA.  Don't go near the water.

Getting rid of the EPA, one of the most inept, incompetent, in-the-tank agencies, would be the first step to getting some real environmental accountability. 

They are useless for worker protection, have caused spills, not only in Colorado, but in Georgia where EPA funded contractors stuck a water main, while grading a toxic 19th century cotton mill, carrying mercury, arsenic, chromium and lead into a nearby creek. They need to go right alongside the VA.  They are influenced by industry standards instead of being the watchdog agency they are charged with.   

To at least try to steer this back to something vaguely BB-related, I don't think much of anyone really relies on celebrity endorsements.

If one has a problem with Mike's picture, it probably isn't because they think Mike's trying to convince them how to vote. It's more an indication of who Mike might prefer, and at the very least someone he clearly has no objection to. Sometimes that's enough to be objectionable, to some fans and spectators.

For what it's worth (e.g. nothing), Mike was bashing the Clinton administration in concert in 1993, complaining about taxes (cry me a river, dude).

If Mike had posed with any other candidate, I'd equally scoff at the suggestion that the picture doesn't indicate that Mike might be supportive of that candidate. Obviously, if he posed with all of them, then it would be less about who he supports and more about pointing out that he at least doesn't find any of them too objectionable. But as mentioned earlier, that he posed for this type of photo with that type of person is not surprising given Mike's *public* political connections, affiliations, proclivities, etc.

Do you have a link for this?

If true, then that is rich! (pun intended)

No link I'm aware of. I recall hearing that sort of stuff at multiple shows in that era. I think he makes one such quip (something about having to tour a lot or charge a lot for their CD because of the then-recent tax program/proposal) at the Paramount Theater show from 1993 (the soundboard "boxed set tour" show). 

Cam, you didn't address this question I posed to you. While you seem to cast doubt on the pic being anything whatsoever resembling an endorsement... do you think that a hypothetical direct, unquestionable endorsement of Trump by Mike, should it happen, could conceivably be a negative PR thing? I just don't understand why you're so eager to put the brakes on people assuming Mike's photo is tantamount publicly endorsing/supporting Trump, unless you think that is something undesirable for Mike's reputation in the event that an endorsement becomes crystal clear, the way say the Bush endorsement was pretty clear with the Bush Vibrations performance.

Yes, of course there undeniably would be a group of people who would think a direct, unquestionable endorsement of Trump by Mike would be the most wonderful thing ever, a more desirable event to occur than SMiLE having been completed, Denny having gotten sober, etc... but overall, it seems obvious that a direct endorsement of Trump by Mike would largely be a nuclear PR bomb for many reasons.

There are basically no celebs that have publicly endorsed Trump that haven't received quite a bit of blowback in the media. Like it or not, that's the way it is. Mike doesn't need more reasons for people to dislike him; certainly not now, where his autobiography's release is imminent, and when he publicly asks the question "why am I the villain" in the Rolling Stone article. Am I saying Mike needs to keep his pro-Trump feelings in the closet? No, he can do whatever he wants... but I'm saying that there will almost certainly be some repercussions at how people view him (as there already have been from what I've witnessed online), let alone the way things might unfold if Mike performed/appeared at an actual Trump rally in front of a crowd almost certainly containing a number of white supremacists.

One thing I will *never* understand is why someone who wants people to like them so much, who really goes out of their way to publicly wonder why people don't like them, would do obviously controversial things. Controversial things are gonna irk lots and lots of people. If Brian in 2016 posed with Trump doing the thumbs up and posted the pic on FB, there would similarly be a significant amount of nauseated people, including many who I'm sure would not attend any more of his concerts. *That's* how divisive a person Trump is, where any perceived endorsement - even from just a thumb's up pic - would have PR repercussions.

I noticed that at least one fan on Mike's FB page said they would think twice about attending Mike's concerts because of the Trump pic; Mike's people apparently subsequently deleted that comment. That doesn't mean they can delete that sentiment from existing in real life, which may well spread. If Mike wants people to not find more reasons to dislike him, don't you think publicly posting a thumbs up photo with someone controversial might be a bit contrary to his desire of being loved by everyone? It doesn't matter if YOU don't think it's an endorsement; as I've pointed out, it's already had a perceptible affect which Mike's people are trying to censor and pretend isn't happening.

Trump has a 56 percent negative rating, Hillary Clinton's is 61 percent. I'd say each is equally divisive.

Would those pearl-clutchers offended by Mike appearing in the same photo as the dreaded Donald be as offended if it were Hillary instead? In other words, is the objection politically neutral ("It's bad for the BB brand to be associated with any divisive politician"), or is it partisan ( "Republicans bad, Democrats good")?

I think at this point, a pro-Hillary endorsement by most any celeb would piss off some people, just not nearly as much as Trump. Mike's the last guy who needs that baggage right now. I don't make the rules, but regardless of anyone's political opinions on these candidates, that's just how the wind seems to blow these days.  I think that in general, "It's bad for the BB brand to be associated with any divisive politician", but never as much was this the case, regardless of political party, as much so as it is the case in the year 2016, with the candidate being Donald Trump, and with the perceived endorser being Mike Love.

Yep, just checked the photo again and all the negative comments have been deleted...including one that said 'this makes me wanna puke' that had about 7 likes (mine being one of them  ;D)

To equate a candidate's "negative rating" to their divisiveness is misguided, in my opinion. There have been woefully unpopular candidates who are not so much divisive as simply disliked. Sometimes candidates are disliked for not being divisive enough, for being too centrist and not rocking the boat.

Obviously, by the very nature of parties and politics, there is some divisive nature. This is reflected in the fact that even very seemingly popular and well-liked politicians still have "unfavorable" ratings well into the double digits. "Negative" ratings aren't always very telling about much, and especially when you don't create some sort of curve to account for all politicians being disliked.

Separately, I'd say we've seen both partisan and objective laments regarding Mike's recent photo, but more the latter. Just like I can say objectively that Bruce's "a**hole" comment in 2012 was misguided (by virtue of not just making an inflammatory comment, but also in revealing an obvious political bent), I'd say Mike giving either a direct or tacit or implied endorsement, it's generally not going to do anything good for him or the brand.

There's also something a bit more inherently divisive in seemingly (or actually) endorsing a candidate versus doing a function or meeting with a sitting president.

As I've said, these guys can all pose for pics and espouse whatever political beliefs they want. The fans and spectators and pundits will then react with that same free reign. I don't criticize Mike's ability to be able to endorse or pose with whomever he wants, and I equally will not criticize people for saying the photo is unappealing either viscerally or conceptually.

About 2.15 in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJtwVsSWrf8

It was just a joke. Sure, being Mike it was pretty lame.

Hey Jude - a photo with a candidate is generally not an endorsement of a candidate.  They might have some professional connection if the Touring Band played some casino or other venue.  I think it is a misunderstanding of the political process.  Often a candidate will use  or even misuse a casual photo op with citizens or groups to create an inference of an endorsement. I hope they know and speak to all of the candidates.  Their universal music cuts across political parties.    

The second term of Obama has been disastrous from many standpoints and people generally do not want more of the same, in my opinion.  These "negative polls" are sort of a new phenomenon that is self-serving for candidates or parties to contort a numerical value for some negative implications of polling, which is not always a precise exercise.  ;)  

Be true to your Con... ::)

It doesn't matter one bit whether or not YOU think it's an endorsement by Mike. Many, many people will interpret it that way, and understandably so.

Not necessarily.  Endorsements are generally an official statement, after a vetting process.  When labor unions endorse a candidate, there is an interview and a team meeting.  When other groups endorse, they have a similar process.  An endorsement is usually accompanied by a statement.   ;)

moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox.

In the modern day digital age, an endorsement can also be a thumbs up pic without any sort of official statement. It matters not one bit that you personally interpret things in your own, special way.

Bottom line is that the damage has already been done. People who are deeply, profoundly repulsed by Trump are already taking Mike's pic as an endorsement of some sort. You can't make that not be the case. A thumbs up means something to most people, which is why Mike's Trump-supporting fans are posting positive, happy comments indicating they are happy to see Mike aligned with such a fine example of a great human being, while the negative comments including people saying they will no longer attend Mike's shows are being posted (and then deleted). Those comments aren't being deleted for no reason.  

One way or another, it's making an impact on both sides, and even if it makes Trump-supporting Mike fans love Mike that much more, one thing Mike certainly doesn't need is more ammunition for more people to deeply dislike him. Overall, it will make it that much harder for him to garner sympathy for things which he in some cases genuinely deserves sympathy for. I defend Mike to people who I personally know, reminding them of his positive contributions to the BBs, but believe me when I tell you that it will be much harder in the future to people who have been exposed to the Trump pic.

Emily - the key terms "where you get your numbers" is critical and right on point.  There is no longer a "one size fits all" formula for political parties, as we are in this massive evolution or revolution of what a Dem is or a Republican is.  The largest problem as I see it is the "entrenchment" (corruption) factor with the DC lobbyists who have invested in either party and will likely not have a "seat a the table" should Trump win in November.  It is a hot button issue this year. 

Trump's message on many topics has resonated with millions who are sick of the press, outsourcing, corruption in government, an opaque government, and terrorism. 

The Republicans are more united than they appear and will come together, in my opinion when they get the drift that their "grand old" party is ov-a! 

Candidates have gotten into big trouble by allowing or running inferences of endorsements that are not in writing or as a public statement.  No politician wants to risk the wrath of someone whose photo appears without permission in an ad or hand-out.  Both Mike and Donald are celebrities, notwithstanding the election. 

If people are repulsed by Trump they have options not to vote for him.  As time goes by, and we get to November we will see what happens.  And, comments are deleted, on many fora, for many reasons.  If people let politics enter into music, there appears to be a problem separating the two. 

And, I'm not on Facebook.   ;)

Trump IS the problem!

He was the guy pulling all the strings on the "corrupt politics" that he now decries. ::)

Moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox

I'm sure Donald would love to have Mike's endorsement, either officially via a statement, or unofficially via a FB pic. It's no risk for him. In fact, I'd wager that you could hit about a 65% or higher ratio of Trump supporters at any given domestic M&B show, and a 80% or higher ratio of BB fans (ignorant or largely unaware of the band members or history) at any given Trump rally. Trump's not gonna *lose* any voters or get into "big trouble" by people inferring that Mike supports him. Was that the implication here?

If you think Mike is anything but happy that a not-insignificant chunk of his audience members are low-information folks (not ALL, there are hardcore well-educated fans there too, lest you want to pull the "offended" card) who perhaps think that Brian Wilson is onstage (I personally know people like this, it's not a phenomenon I'm making up, nor is it a knock on them), I'm sure you'd be mistaken. I don't think Mike *wants* an audience full of people who want to ask him where Brian and Al are. While some people know and don't care... for the others who don't know - the less they know, the less they question, the better. Low-information people in general help pad the pockets of these guys; it's no wonder they like each other.

Moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox

Linking Trump's broad base of support with a reviled fringe group such as white supremacists is unfair and misleading. 

Of course the NY Times is going to pull the race card. It is what they do.  One of their quasi affiliates is offering Johnson-Weld as a viable alternative.  That is a joke.  A pathetic one at that.  Anything to keep the DC status quo.  The Republican party has imploded.  It looks more like the version and ideology of yesteryears moderate Dems.  The Demmies have lost their way - becoming socialists.  The lines are blurred.     

Since 9/11 this country has gone downhill.  We got into Iraq in 2003 predicated on lies, and they got us out of Iraq with utter incompetence.  A strong leader must pull us out of this mess. Is is Bernie, Hillary, Donald or Gary?

 

CD! 8)

I can definitely vouch for this...as a lonely liberal surrounded by hardcore conservatives, I was surprised how many people I know are vehemently anti-Trump despite being long-time right-wingers. Heck, I'm as far left as you can get without coming back around the other side, and I'm not a fan of Clinton, so yeah it's definitely possible

This is starting more and more to look like a Sandbox thread, by the way...

Out of respect for the on-topic nature of this thread, I will post my response in the campaign 2016 thread in the sandbox.

Fair enough. I'll try to refrain from getting too far into the details of my personal feelings about Trump from henceforth. This should be about how Mike's pic may or may not have any affect on him and the brand, which I feel is worthy of on-topic discussion.

Regarding the actual topic - I don't really feel it makes any difference. No one who's not already a BB fan cares or even knows - this isn't getting broad play. Anyone who is a BB fan isn't going to change their opinions about anything based on ML's politics, whether or not he endorses or appears to endorse Trump.
I don't think.
And, I'll be honest, I don't wonder how Mike Love feels about the above things. I just put that in those posts to pretend it was on topic. I'm going to move those posts to the sandbox.

What it all boils down to here, is who's got the highest negativity rating Trump, Hillary or Mr. Positivity. I'd say it was a dead heat, with the margin of error.  ???

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?

(http://img2.timeinc.net/people/i/2016/news/160314/donald-hillary-800.jpg)

This whole argument comes down to implicit versus explicit endorsement. While Mike posted some thoughts on Trump that could be interpreted as positive, there was no explicit endorsement. A posed photo can be interpreted as an implicit endorsement, but that's all it is--an interpretation.

Full disclosure, I have always voted Republican for President, but this will be the first election not supporting the party's nominee. Ultimately, I live in a blue state where my vote will most likely not matter. I'll probably vote Libertarian, if it looks to be close, I will certainly check the box for Clinton.

Pretty much agree on the stuff regarding Mike Love. Also, despite my varying feelings regarding the people in that photo you posted - they all look weirdly good. Very flattering all around.

You are failing to see the context and the evolution of visual imagery and social media. When no audio is presented one can only rely on the visual. From your attached picture what is your perception of what has transpired?

They were all at the same wingding, just like all of the Rolling Thunder event photos including the Trump/Mike photos.

It would appear they are quite friendly and affectionate--what's your perception?

I won't be answering your loaded (imo) hypotheticals, sorry.

I guess we all have different perceptions, based on the information and biases we bring in, which underscores 18th of May's point, I guess.
If I saw that photo with no context at all, I'd agree - four friends showing affection.
Given my knowledge of the individuals and situation, I see a New York Senator and her charity-running husband hobnobbing with a very wealthy, prominent New Yorker.

Who are not only NOT endorsing each other, but  are rivals for the same office.

My perception is that Donald is telling his wife to keep her hands and eyes off Mr Clinton! In joking and jovial manner.

Umm this photo is how old?

Additional context, this was Trump's wedding--it probably fits the definition of hobnobbing, New York event.

I know a lot of people want to jump to conclusions and they might be based in reality (past endorsements and political leanings), but Mike didn't explicitly endorse him. I have worked in politics, have friends and family who are elected officials, and can tell you photos like this happen often at events that are theoretically nonpartisan.

Mike very well might come out and endorse Trump--this photo wasn't it.

+1

Randomly bumping into a candidate in the middle of an extremely contentious campaign (perhaps the most contentious ever in all of our lifetimes), and randomly saying hi, while some random photographers nearby happen snap a few candid photos? That's one thing.

But a celeb waiting in line to talk to the candidate, then specifically posing for a photo, the two people giving the identical thumb's up, AND the celeb taking the additional step of posting that photo to their own Facebook page? Knowing full well what a lightning rod for controversy that candidate is at this moment in time, during the social media age of 2016? That doesn't seem like some random action that Mike would actually think that nobody would draw conclusions from when he authorized the pic to be posted to his very own page.

Mike likely wouldn't want to go any further with an "official" statement of endorsement than this. Then it gets into Mike being potentially repeatedly asked about political questions in interviews, etc. Doubt he wants to deal with that on a regular basis. But IMO, this pic basically is a nudge to the angry middle aged people in Mike's fanbase: "hey guys... psst - I stand in solidarity with you all, and I dig this Trump guy too!"

As have I.. This is clearly what we would call a "soft endorsement".
Maybe even more than that, a smiling photo with a candidate from a "celebrity" is good. A smiling photo from a "celebrity" mirroring body language is better. A smiling photo from a "celebrity" mirroring body language and making an identical and positive hand signal is even better. This is not a Nash type of "hard endorsement" of Sanders, it can actually be more effective because it relies on the viewers own perception which is a far more effective form of marketing in this current age, which is an "opt in" society. Where as a "hard endorsement" is just ramming the message down your throat.

Take a look at my profile pic, its with our former Prime Minister Tony Abbott. I don't endorse all his political ideologies or policies, but is support his economic ones which is enough for my "soft endorsement", hence the pic.

EXACTLY.

Were you both there because you were asked to perform at a charity event?

Yes, whats your point?

And what does Donald Trump "perform"?

No argument. Like I said previously, the photo certainly lends itself to an implicit endorsement, but nothing he wrote in the Facebook post was explicit.


I think you are spot on. I will say, the Trump thumbs up pose is his thing. I think it looks goofy and unpresidential--everything about the guy is goofy and unpresidential.


Once and for all, there was no explicit endorsement. If somebody wants to make a bigger deal of it and waste time and energy debating it, go ahead, but this is getting silly.

An address given straight without notes or teleprompter.

Your thumbs aren't up.

Right on. When some people stubbornly, for some odd reason, won't even concede that the photo certainly lends itself to an implicit endorsement, that's what boggles my mind.

Great find! On another note thats the most Bruce dominated Their Hearts Were Full of Spring that I've ever heard! He sounds good too!

Agreed - except they weren't rivals for the same office at the time. But the photo does not imply an endorsement of Trump for Clinton.

Not only that, but this apparently candid photo of Clinton and Trump wasn't taken and posed for at Donald's behest, with the intention and end result being Donald publishing a full-res giant photo on the front page of his personal printed magazine "I Am The Donald And You're Not" with high tens of thousands of subscribers.

Had Donald done that in the 1990s when this photo was taken, I would think that many, many people would have gotten the idea that he was (at minimum) soft-endorsing Clinton.

Yet those actions I've described above are basically exactly the actions that Mike did. The Clinton/Trump pic was a (presumably) not posed photo, shot candidly, and it wound up in the press, which is why it circulates today. The Mike/Donald pic circulates because Mike made the effort to pose for it, and to post it on his website for the most possible number of views. It's apples and oranges to compare the two. 

It was a posed picture for the media:
(http://s33.postimg.org/yt83s7qzz/GTY_trump_wedding_clintons_jef_150806_16x9_992.jpg)
I've lived in the NY media market on-and-off throughout my life and, since the '80s, Donald Trump has managed to get his face on TV or in periodicals posing with whatever bigwig is around to pose with on a regular basis. He's inescapable and does not care who the bigwig he poses with is, as long as it will get his face on TV.

Ok, got it. There was a posed pic in the bunch after all. In that way, I think Mike and Trump are alike, in just wanting to get their faces on TV. But I don't think Mike, in 2016, would think that the public *wouldn't* consider a Facebook post by Mike to be at least a soft endorsement. Mike's savvy and would know that would be the impression, and I'm sure he wouldn't mind, because I don't believe it's anything but representing his actual feelings on who he likes of the candidates. It's a laugh to me to think of Mike supporting either Clinton or Sanders; of course he's gonna support Trump.

Based on what little I've gleaned of ML's politics, yes, he's most likely to support Trump among the current pool. And if his opinion of Trump was the same as mine, for instance, he wouldn't have posted the photo along with positive commentary. So while I wouldn't go so far as to call it an 'endorsement,' it's clear he's at best neutral and seems more positive than negative on Trump, and doesn't mind letting people know that.

...Donald Trump.

Regards,
Jon Blum

Agreed.

Now I'm surprised at all of the politics and endorsement revealed by the event photos.  Bruce endorsing Actress-Whose-Name-I-can't-Remember for President. Bruce giving his thumbs-up endorsement to His Shirt for President. Mike and Colin Powell endorsing Pop-up Event Canopy for President.  Tim and Capitol Building endorsing Keyboard for President. Mike giving his pontifical blessing to Robert Irvine for President,  

Looks like Trump toke Hilary and Bill toke some young hot woman. Go figure

Pathetic.. again

Back at ya, friend.

What's your opinion on the Donald, Cam? You support him for president?

Registered Republican (because my dear departed Grandpa was) in 1971 and my first vote was for George McGovern. Since I've voted in every Presidential election and for more Democrat presidential candidates than Republican (but only by 1 to the best of my recollection). Not a Trump supporter. Never a supporter of Ted Cruz FYI.

Damn. Did not expect an answer (much less THAT answer).

At least you are open minded on some issues. I'll give you credit for that.

Lovely logic here:

Cam Mott is the devil.

Donald Trump is the devil.

Cam Mott supports/is in fact Donald Trump.

smh  ::)

Trump is a whole other ballgame than any of those other folks. Let's not pretend that any of those other people are major candidates running for President in the middle of a campaign. You know they are not, and it's different. None of your sarcastic comparisons to the other people you mentioned hold any water whatsoever.

Trump is the most divisive and controversial candidate in modern times (at least as far as anyone who has gotten as far as Trump has thus far - a lesser-known racist candidate like David Duke, for example, who ironically also supports Trump, would obviously be more divisive and controversial).  

Bottom line: Mike posing and FB posting a thumbs up with Trump is undoubtedly the most controversial soft endorsement that Mike could make of any major candidate, especially timing-wise in the middle of a campaign, even if we went back decades to try to find a comparison.  If you want to try and find someone else who is even close, Trump would still be #2 at minimum. A celeb posting a thumbs up pic with Trump is a big deal to a lot of people, and many people will interpret the pic as an endorsement of some sort; your attempts to downplay even the soft endorsement aspect don't change those people's perceptions, and you can't brush them off and say it doesn't matter, because we all know how much Mike cares about peoples' perceptions of him.

Mike, with apparent legitimate sincerity and anguish, says "why don't people like me more", and proceeds to take a pic with a guy like Trump, which then makes the social media rounds, and gets people who already don't like Mike to like him significantly less, and gets some people to actually stop going to his shows, with fans' comments stating those intentions subsequently deleted from his own FB page. I wish Mike would stop shooting himself in the foot, but looks like he won't be stopping anytime soon. Mike needs to borrow the foot-shooting bronze bust from James Watt.

If fans stop attending Mike and Bruce shows because Mike supports Trump, that's on them. 

As a Republican, there's a lot of great shows I'd have never attended had I cared one bit about a person's chosen side of the political race, or their party affiliation.   Roger Waters and Paul McCartney come to mind among others. 

Whatever feelings fans have towards Mike Love (good, bad, indifferent) shouldn't be affected by who he endorses. 

I totally understand your line of thinking. I can appreciate Mike's talents and songs even though I strongly disagree with some of his political stances. But in terms of Mike, who seems very eager to be universally loved, and seems baffled by people not liking him, it seems completely at odds with publicly showing support, or at least doing something that has given that perception, if it's going to be controversial.

One would *think* that a celeb who would go so far as to asking why they are not liked in a major magazine article (not many celebs would go that far to publicly ask that question... so it's obviously a big deal to him) would make every effort to keep viewpoints that could be considered controversial out of the public eye. I'm sure many celebs would keep a potential Trump endorsement, soft endorsement, posed pic, etc... anything like that which could obviously be considered as having controversial political potential... out of their own FB feed because they wouldn't want to deal with blowback. The excuse that you personally might think the pic is not controversial is not an excuse, because it has already become controversial as I've seen many people express deep disgust about it online - and that disgust would not have been difficult in the slightest to predict. Like it or not, a celeb can't have it both ways (posting a pic with the most controversial candidate in recent memory, and wondering why more people don't like them) in the social media age.  I just don't understand why Mike doesn't see his actions as being contradictory to his goal of not being disliked.

To be fair, Mike's politics (and politics in general) have at times crossed over into impacting the band and/or its music. If nothing else, his apparent political leanings (and Bruce's for that matter) have been cited when expressing utter confusion (and accusations of hypocrisy) for their pro-environment songs and stance.

My thing isn't that people should not go to Mike's shows because of a picture or endorsement or his politics (and I don't think anybody does, so I don't even see it as an issue), but rather that I find it a bit absurd that anyone would be surprised that some people are repulsed by the recent Mike picture.

As with many things tied to a negative perception among some fans about Mike, like playing gigs with John Stamos, these things aren't the *cause* of anything some might find objectionable with Mike, they are all simply more symptoms of what some fight objectionable about him.

That is a serious stereotype alleging that Republicans don't care about clean air or clean water. Clean water and air is good for business.

It was on Obama's watch that the EPA had several toxic spills.  Where is the outcry?

Trump is a high level businessman and celebrity.  He holds no office (yet) and as such is still a private citizen, and an American who is free to associate with whomever he so chooses.  As is Mike. 

Where is all this info about Mike's political beliefs coming from, more wild supposition based on who else is standing in proximity in other pictures?

We obviously don't know the super intimate details of Mike's political beliefs. He has done fundraising events for Republican politicians ("Bush Vibrations", and I believe he did a 2008 fundraiser for McCain).

He has performed at inaugurations and other events for sitting presidents of both parties. Don't know how often he's done a fundraiser for a *candidate* that isn't Republican (maybe some "Natural Law" party stuff in years past?).

He has also voiced opinions in the past on taxes. His position on "Sun City" in 1981 was, erm, intriguing I guess.

I don't think it's a completely manufactured idea that Mike might be generally a politically conservative guy. It doesn't mean we know where he stands on every issue or for whom he has voted in every (or any) election.

Sounds kinda manufactured to me.  I guess he could be the politically conservative guy who is an 40 some year environmentalist vegan TM devotee.

Wow it is crazy you are so far off base.

So to you there is no difference between President Obama having NO FUCKING CONTROL over stupid fuckin' private companies like BP spilling oil in the Gulf of Mexico, causing him to have to fix that problem and geniuses like Little Marco, Lyin' Ted and the Donald telling us that "global warming doesn't exist" and "I'm not a scientist, man" when asked about this stuff.

And clean water and air is good for business? Tell that to the biggest of the big Republican funders the Koch brothers, who have paid the largest civil fine ever imposed for environmental penalties for causing HUNDREDS OF OIL SPILLS. For instance Koch was  fined $30 million in 2000 by the EPA for causing over 300 oil spills. But yeah, SURELY they care LOTS about the environment.

I'm pretty sure I remember Mike declaring he was a republican in his last Howard Stern interview.  I could be wrong but it sticks out in my mind.

The recent Rolling Stone profile points out this very aspect of Mike. There definitely are weird contradictions. But the evidence we have at hand leads me much closer to "generally conservative with a few contradictory things" rather than "hippie liberal that just happens to continually associate with a bunch of conservative ideals and figures."

Feel free to take it to the sandbox if you want to talk about politics, keeping in mind I won't follow. I've tried to steer things to at least talk about politics as it pertains to actual members of the group.

I never used the word Republican in the post, and certainly never said or implied that all members of one party don't care about clean water, etc. So whatever you're reading into it, that's your predisposition coloring it.

Seems like you just want to write a politically-motivated missive. I have no interest in reading that.

All I was saying is that objectively, an environmentalist point of view would be at odds with some of the politicians and political points of view Mike has otherwise associated himself with. MANY have pointed this irony out in the past. It's not the first time a public figure's expressed beliefs have appeared on some level as inconsistent. Simply singing about gas-guzzling cars and being an environmentalist is a weird contradiction. Paul and Linda McCartney were staunchly against animal testing for drugs, yet Linda used drugs that had been tested on animals when she became ill. None of these things make anyone a bad person. It's just a contradiction that, in certain circumstances, might be worth pointing out and discussing.

I have no interest in reading political rants totally unrelated to the Beach Boys. No offense to anyone here, but this is not the place where I seek out information or discourse about politics. There is a limited amount of on-topic latitude, in my opinion (and nothing more), in discussing politics vis-à-vis members of the Beach Boys, and how those politics impact the band and its members and their image/perception, etc.

Environmentalism is a big old-school Goldwater-type conservative thing. It was also more a Republican than Democrat thing. Post Reagan and dramatically increasingly, conservatism means pro-corporate and/or evangelical, but it didn't before. And ML ain't so young.

And I know you weren't addressing me, but I did move my purely political rants to the sandbox. I say the above as a point related to where ML might be coming from.

I can't tell if this post was meant to be political or more Mike Love hate baiting.  

Mine?

Not yours, Emily.  I was referring to the original post. 

The only things really relevant to discuss in this topic are how Mike's association with Trump affects people's perception of the band/brand (it does, there are numerous examples from strangers I have seen discussing it online - to what degree this adds fuel to the anti-Mike fire is anyone's guess, but nobody can say it has zero effect, otherwise Mike's mods wouldn't be deleting critical posts about it), and whatever striking contradictions there might be with Mike's probable viewpoints contradicting each other, etc. When people posting go SOLELY into the realm of talking about politics unrelated to Mike, only then is when it goes off-topic.

Does anyone know if Mike Love's Facebook page tends to delete critical comments, or is this unusual?

The Beach Boys have played at Trumps casino's ( Donald attended) and also his 50th birthday party at his Florida estate.  Past band members loved meeting him & Donald loves the music !

Filledeplage -  Your posts hit a Fenway home run with me !  The Truth !   Obama has been a disaster for America  & we don't need another 4 years with Crooked Hillary ! There is a revolution going on across the country and it's time we build the Wall. 
America First !
Make America Great Again - Trump 2016

I tend to think they would delete the harshest, most troll-like critical comments on the regular... but in this case, these were (admittedly unfavorable) comments from someone who I know is a longtime Mike supporter, and regular M&B attendee. It wasn't some internet troll trying to "bash".

I'm not up on these orgs but would the Surfrider Foundation, the Earth Summit/Earth Day, and the Love Foundation's environmental charities fit that older definition?

I'm not really familiar with those orgs either, but a quick look at the sites says yes. Preservation of open, clean spaces and resources; reduced pollution; clean water... these values have been a conservative strain back to Teddy Roosevelt.
Traditional conservatives were also very socially tolerant; much more than the left back then. There's been a flip in a lot of ways. A guy Mike Love's age, if he would call himself "conservative" or if he is a Republican, shouldn't be judged by contemporary standards of those terms. The meanings have changed radically over the course of his life in most areas other than fiscal policy.

I was hoping this thread would just go away and that this board would  not be infected by the trump virus but not so. When I hear someone make the moronic claim that Obama has been a disaster for this country I don't know whether to laugh or cry. You mean he's been a disaster because he's tried to give people healthcare or is it because he's ended two wars that we shouldn't have started in the first place. Or is it because he saved General Motors and prevented the economy from going over the cliff in 2008. Which disaster are you referring to? Oh yeah," make america great again", what does that even mean? Are you hoping to bring back slavery? Is that when America was great. Trump couldn't fix anything, he's not even a good business man. As someone said, he's like a loud, drunk bigot at a bar.

I'm all "hear, hear!" on Gerry's comment. If anyone wants to discuss, I propose the Campaign 2016 thread in the sandbox.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/debt-under-obama-8000000000000

Crash coming soon !

So they would be something like today's left of center sort of like Eisenhower Republucans.

This is ludicrous. Response in Campaign 2016 in sandbox.

Yes, though I can't say for sure that's what Mike Love is, of course; there's not a lot to go on, but yes. I'd say that current moderate Democrats are very close to Eisenhower Republicans in a lot of ways.  I mean, some of the 'conditions on the ground' have changed, so you can't draw a complete parallel but that's the idea.
I think there are a lot of older Republicans who are kind of lost in the party now.

Gotta hand it to Mike. He's often in the middle of these major trends like seeing him with Maharishi and The Beatles.
Now he's with Trump and a bunch of bikers at a POW rally. Pretty cool.

Gotta pass on him as VP though as we really do need to eff with formula in this case  :lol

What would Mike do if Trump offered him the VP position?  I think he'd jump at the chance. I'm serious.

.

This discussion has little do with Mike Love or the Beach Boys anymore.

YES!!!

To bring Mike back into the topic.  If anybody is going to chose to attend / not attend Mike and Bruce shows based on whether or not he endorses Trump, that's a real pity. 

I don't agree with Bruce Springsteen's politics at all, but I still listen to his music.  I definitely don't agree with about 95% of what Roger Waters says, but I've bought tickets to see him several times. 

Keep your artistic preferences in one place, and keep your political preferences in another. 

On a lighter note, I was very displeased when Styx played halftime of a Pittsburgh Steelers game, but I still rock out to Renegade.

Yes, and thank you surf patrol, for those kind words.  Watching a woman Trump supporter on video, get pelted with eggs by some anti-Trump protesters (well-organized and some paid) is sickening. And not fully covered by major media until they are embarrassed into it.  

Some would have us think that only one side has rights and is attempting to "chill free speech" rights of the other side. The right to protest or support a political candidate, even if unpopular with some, is in jeopardy.  They don't get what the Constitution is all about.    

There is certainly a revolution going on in this country.  And, Mike, on Fox and Friends, referred to the photo with Trump a "photo op." He did not call it an "endorsement."  An endorsement is "expressed" not "inferred" by association.  ;)

It is amazing how many people lost it when they saw the picture of Mike and Donald Trump on facebook before even knowing the setting or the context of the picture.

 

Firstly, love the avatar. 

Secondly, and I fully realize this is Sandbox material, but I think the fact that Trump is getting such a rise out of people tells me he's on the right track. 

Can we please get this into the sandbox, where those who care to get their political analysis from "Where's Waldo?" books are free to do so?

Hey Jude - the essence of the American Constitution is freedom of expression not the question of whether it "offends certain people." The Beach Boys are America's Band.  The mere suggestion chills speech.  If the initial poster wanted it in The Sandbox it would be there.  It was an open discussion.  This is intolerance. 

If a political position is so offensive to the "snowflakes" who want "safe spaces" everywhere they go, this world, never mind the nation, is in big trouble. The Beach Boys were fully in the throes of anti-war protest and their music grew as a direct result of that exposure to an "opposing viewpoint" even if in direct conflict with both society and their parents.  It is the American Way. 

 

Thanks ...I think a lot of people are sick of politicians promising them things and pulling the same crap and are willing to give Trump a chance as he is much different that what were used to seeing.  And with Hillary as the other choice, that just helps Trump. At least that is my analysis of things overly simplified.

 

Your post is not on-topic, even if you add a non-sequitur sentence that inexplicably simply says "The Beach Boys are America's Band."

Please go to the sandbox with this. Nobody needs to read sub-par, gradeschool level political diatribes that have nothing to do with the band nor even with the original topic of this thread.

Again, I'd sooner go to the scrawlings on a gas station bathroom wall to get my political analysis and opinion pieces than read this stuff.

Senator Blutarsky - love the avatar, too!  RIP JB.

Yes, I agree, that people are fed up with the double standard of law enforcement where the Clintons are immune from prosecution for their bad deeds.  The more Hillary rages, the better Trump is doing.  The opposition does not get that this is a different kind of election where they cannot "manage" their negative press,  silence the Benghazi witnesses, etc.  People only take so much deception and political oppression, then they revolt, not in equal measure but in greater measure.  This country was built on questioning authority.  

This is a "Mike Love Meets Donald Trump" thread.  It invites discussion pro and con.  Donald Trump is a citizen until he is elected.  He has no official authority or capacity.

That is your opinion.  There is room for opposing viewpoints and why we have op-eds in our newspapers and in the electronic media and on television.  You call it "sub-par" because you don't agree with it and would perhaps rather censor those with whom you don't agree.  That is not the way America works.     

This board has always had the reputation as one of the least censored BB fora.  Some of us would like to see it remain that way, even though some are "uncomfortable." Newsflash.  Opposing viewpoints are uncomfortable.  The Forefathers and Framers of the Constitution were "uncomfortable" with political repression and resolved the problem.     

There is a "Sandbox" forum on this board for political posts/discussion/diatribes/crayon drawings. Your posts deviated from anything to do with Mike Love long ago.

"Least censored" doesn't mean you can just post anything you want here. Indeed, in moving your discussion to another forum, you're not even being censored. You're simply being re-routed.

You can keep insulting those who think your political posts are mouth-breathing, sub-par rants by contending they feel "uncomfortable" or simply "disagree", but at the end of the day the problem is that it's off-topic.

I find Mike Love personally detestable, and I find Donald Trump personally detestable. However, this photo does not make me hate either man to a greater degree, and I am just as likely to attend a M&B show now as I would have been before the picture is posted, and I am just as likely to vote for Donald Trump.

As in, if the touring BBs come to my small hometown and I have nothing else to do and the tickets are reasonably priced, I will attend for the sole purpose of seeing a cracking band tackle some of my favorite music-- and I will vote for Donald Trump when he admits that he's been trolling the GOP and the rest of the country all along.

My God, the Hickey script sounds more and more tempting by the day.

Emily is ready and willing to debate you in the Sandbox, filledepage. Please don't think the lack of off-topic argument in this thread is, in some way, a concession to your ignorant rants. Take it outside!

Hey Jude - that is a personal attack.  "Your posts?"  I could attack your web pages in the way they absolutely disrespect the Touring Band.  But I don't.  

Re-routed?  You are not a mod.  I am not insulting other opinions, merely disagreeing.  Please look at the topic name.  There is an rather recent attempt to "re-route" positions that are not agreed with.  I find it troubling and one reason why people are leaving this forum.    

Marcella - Emily is not a mod.  The topic is "Mike Love Meets Donald Trump." If the mods want to move it, then they should.  I have always backed the moderators. 

My page, blog, etc. are all *ABOUT* the Beach Boys, so attacking my pages would be on-topic.

Nobody is attacking you. By "your posts", I specifically referenced that "Your posts" deviated from on-topic discussion. How is using the term "your posts" a personal attack? I'm simply saying, pleading, begging you to move your political stuff to the Sandbox.

Nobody is saying you have to move your political rants, or implying anybody other than the Mods are Mods, nor implying that those who aren't Mods have the power to tell you what to do. People are simply asking you to move your discussion, suggesting that you do.

If you feel you're being "told" what to do, then we can try to start over with a communal sense of mutual respect:

Would you please move your off-topic political posts to the Sandbox? There is indeed an actual forum specifically for political discourse, and even more specifically the current ongoing election. I believe most if not all would agree that posts wholly encompassing political discourse are best placed in the Sandbox.

Hey Jude - Not really.  It is a Mike/Touring Band diss.  It was not a neutral analysis of what the photo meant on your site.  

Mike called it a "photo op" just this morning.  They were both at Rolling Thunder, supporting the vets.  Brian is also supporting the vets and both BB's finding a different way to do it.  This is not "one size fits all." Rolling Thunder (sponsored by Harley-Davidson) publicizes the POW-MIA - Prisoner of War - Missing in Action, which was a huge Vietnam War issue which resonates with Baby Boomers.  

It is also a specific non-profit to also deal with mesothelioma (cancer) which was a result of asbestos exposure.  They are "raising awareness."  

Just my opinion.  

And, Happy Friday, people!  :beer

Hey Jude - if and when the thread is moved to The Sandbox, I will discuss it there. I found it great disrespect to surf patrol, yesterday, to be told the response was "in The Sandbox.  He is, a 50+ year ardent BB fan.     

That was all really rude, but I guess the special snowflakes think it's "censorship" to be asked to post in the right topic.

If you're referring to posting Mike's photo on a Facebook page, I'd argue that that's at least on-topic (ranting against sitting politicians and political movements on the other hand is not), even if done in a goofy or snarky fashion. Further, posting the Mike photo has zero to do with the "Touring Band." Time and time again, you continue to bring "The Touring Band" into discussions that haven't actually invoked them in any way.

Hey plagey? How come you never responded to my response to your "EPA post"? In case you missed it, here it is again.


And yeah, this thread has lost it's sh*t. So I'm not even gonna pretend this has anything to do with The Beach Boys.

That's not disrespect, that's internet etiquette. Some people actually still strive for it.

Also interesting that I saw one of the people running last weekends POW-MIA thing on TV, and the TV host asked (gingerly) if they only invited "candidates like Trump" which gave rise to the guy saying how Hillary would "raise the deficit just like Obama" or something like that. So I guess without even answering the question he sure answered it: this thing is for right wingers (no lefties allowed!).

Mike and Bruce are the de facto reps of the Beach Boys with the context of the Touring Band, which has had many "looks" over 50 years.  

It may be "on 'your' topic."  Mike has a right to post whatever he likes on his Facebook page.  It was "lifted" and used on your site with a snarky/goofy spin.   They were both there to support Rolling Thunder which is an admirable thing in my opinion, supporting the forgotten Vietnam era vets, who did not come home to a hero welcome, but being attacked on every front including having no coverage and denial of health benefits by the VA.
      

Who ever said Mike doesn't have a right to post whatever he wants on Facebook? What are you talking about?

Sweetdudejim - yes, I think your are correct, that it did have a "tone" that was Hillary was not their friend.  I guess they are frustrated. I remember Vietnam vets with whom I went to college, very reluctant to even say they were vets.    

The photo was apparently "lifted" and reposted on your site. It was as though Mike had no right to meet or speak to Trump. Fans don't get to choose with whom they (band members) associate.  I guess I have a problem with the name you are using as beachboysoponion and not supporting all the members.  That's all. 

And that's acceptable? Why?

Complete BS. Details in sandbox.

Reposting a photo on Facebook doesn't connote the original poster having "no right" to do anything, nor does it imply fans get to choose what band members do. And there's a very important reason I put the word "Opinion" in there. It's opinions! It's the very opposite of "objective." That's the whole point. The point isn't to blindly support everybody in everything for all time. There's room to say Brian's new song sucks, or Mike came across poorly in an interview. There's room to make fun of Al wearing Bruce's shorts, and so on.

Hey Jude - The Beach Boys are a Baby Boomer era band.  Not all baby boomers are internet savvy.  I am lucky I was dragged, kicking-and-screaming into the world of tech in post-grad, afraid of a computer blowing up if I would hit the wrong key.  Lifer fans do very well just to get over their fear of computers and the internet.  They deserve respect and not a reprimand and disrespect.

They/we come from an analog world.   The Desper world!  :lol

Here's how we possibly could have avoided eight pages of this bullshit. Put a stipulation in the Beach Boy licensing agreement that neither Mike nor Bruce can attend or play at any political functions or appear with any political figures.

They all wore short shorts.  It is a fine line between "opinion" and "disparagement" and libel.  

That would have been a great idea for the band to implement decades ago, from the beginning. Indeed, Brian was quoted in the 80s that he felt the band should be viewed as non-partisan.

And yet they still manage to post flamey gibberish all the hell over the internet.

Or more accurately, make sure that Mike and Bruce don't appear with any "controversial" political figures, lest they upset people. 

You do realize that making fun of Al's shorts is a joke, right? You also realize that the number of Beach Boys that wore shorts has nothing to do with such a joke, right?

You also realize that making fun of someone wearing shorts is not libel, right?

I disagree as well. There is a HUGE, very definable line between "opinion" and "Libel", and ironically, inferring or implying someone's opinions and jokes are libelous gets you much closer to actual libel.

Also filledplageafd, could you tell me why vets shouldn't support Hillary but should support a guy who has said out loud in public that "I like people who weren’t captured" when speaking about POWs.

So twist that however you want, but he said it very recently and he never apologized for it. But yeah, he's for the "vets" and Hillary hates them. Right.

The irony of this thread is that regarding their song writing, the Beach Boys were probably the least political major band to come out of the '60's.

I hope the BBs don't stop doing their charity work, like this POW/MIA appearance, just because a few fans might pull a muscle leaping to conclusions.   ;)

Mike's pic has clearly made a statement that he is a aligning himself with the stereotypical angry white middle-aged right-leaning man.  There's no conclusion – jumping in that.  Guys like that probably make up a good chunk of his audience, so it's not surprising he would want to show  brotherhood, so to speak.

:) keep trying, Gerry.

Or could he be aligning himself/showing brotherhood with POW/MIAs and their families of his Vietnam-era generation or any era (since he also posed with several older generation vets)?

No conclusion jumping in "aligning himself with the stereotypical angry white middle-aged right-leaning man"?  (one eyebrow raised)

Again - Trump, a guy who says stuff like "I like people who weren't captured" about McCain... this is a guy who Mike would think is the A1, numero uno guy to make some sort of POW/MIA statement by posing with?

"Gee, if I stand next to this man, I'm making some sort of completely apolitical statement that shows no party affiliation whatsoever"? That's absurd. You're insulting *Mike's* own intelligence if you think he is that dumb to actually think that posing next to Trump and posting that pic on his own FB page would never in a million years cause many people to assume a soft endorsement at minimum.  Mike's not that dumb. He knew he was making a political statement, or at least a high-five to his Repbulican fans, who for some strange reason (which is actually not that strange a reason to me) likely make up a much larger portion of his audience than Brian's audience.

Sweetdudejim - that was the dumbest thing to ever say.  I agree.  I won't apologize for that.  It has to do more with his absolute lack of political experience.  

Hillary (and Bill) were part of 16 years (2 terms each) of VA influence since 1993. And, actions speak louder than words.  The VA would not be in the dire mess that is in today if they got to the root of the ineptitude and corruption via their procurement processes.  Neither Hillary nor Donald own the vets votes.  They have to earn them.    

I bet if Mike said those same words, you'd find a way to apologize for them, or at minimum you wouldn't criticize him by simply remaining silent about it.

We will just disagree then.

Gerry - Carl Wilson's CO status was huge on the political front.  Didn't they work on the "18 by '72" voter registration drive?

Didn't they play prisons as part of the deal to provide Carl with alternative military service?

Not political?    

Don't Go Near the Water is a quasi-environmental political policy statement.  

Student Demonstration Time?  Not activist.  Not universally loved but certainly political activist.

The Trader?  dealing with colonialism? ;)

Can you please stop writing off being a complete asshole and saying things that only a complete asshole would say as "political inexperience?" I don't know anyone who's said anything so assholish about POWs and I know a lot of people with a lot less political experience than Trump. And Trump has spent a lifetime in the media.
It's such BS, the excuses you use for the people you side with. And the excuses you use to attack the people you don't side with.
Lots of vets are protesting Trump.

+1

Wait? Saying you "only like the ones that weren't captured" is just a case of lack of political experience? Really? I don't think so. I think it's about lack of human empathy. But let's excuse that cuz Fox News tells us to.

I'm aware of what you're talking about but as I said I was speaking about their song writing. I don't think any body cared that Trader was about colonialism. SDT is the only overtly political song I can think of. Their image as a sun and fun group trumped (sorry) whatever scant political messages they may have sung about in the early '70's. As for Carl's CO status, that was a personal issue and hardly publicized.

He was an asshole long before ever running for president. I blame it on 'decency inexperience '

I knew Trump was a jackass during the feud with Rosie O'Donnell.  Yes, she was too divisive for The View, but Trump had no right to air that show's backstage dirty laundry.

Hmmph, sure is odd that filledthetrump disappeared when we basically called her out on her bullshit and had no way to defend it.

Although I am surprised she didn't use her usual tactic of saying we were "bullying" her...


Well either that or non-sequiturs about some other random topic like Mike Love's fourth marriage or the political implications of the song "At My Window."

Disappeared? No.  Doing things in life, other than this board.   :lol 

You may not agree with my position, which is 100% fine by me.  Life would be boring if everyone had a Stepford attitude and agreed on everything, I think.   ;) 

Trump and ML, a match made in heaven.

And with Trump's recent allegations about the judge in his trial having a conflict of interest coming to light, it sure seems strange that Mike would want to give what amounts to a soft endorsement to a guy who purports to be all about impartiality. What about when Mike had his own buddy be the "impartial" band psychologist/ mediator back in the late 80s/early 90s? Those guys' special brand of hypocracy is beyond laughable. Harr dee harr.

Was this already mentioned? I just saw it by accident and was/am honestly shocked  :o


http://nypost.com/2016/09/10/beach-boy-mike-love-is-out-to-fix-his-bad-repuation/


(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CjwCqASUgAA_Tv3.jpg)

One certain truth is Love’s allegiance to the Republican Party. The Beach Boys, who are set to perform in Central Park on Wednesday (sans Brian Wilson and Jardine), played inaugural balls for Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush. Although Love stops short of a full endorsement, it’s clear that he feels love for Donald Trump.

“He’s been a friend for a long time,” says Love. “Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. But . . . if we were asked [to play his inauguration], I’m sure that we would."