The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/285265-trump-campaign-slating-major-sports-figures-for

Just when I got reconciled to two terrific bands out there, and was looking forward to a summer show of the franchise band . . . . .

I suppose Trump has to fill the time somehow. They are having trouble getting any "big name " Republicans to speak at their convention . I guess the're also having Mike Tyson , that in itself should speak volumes about the difficulty in getting quality guest speakers. Maybe Trump can get them to sing the sleazy version of "Hey Little Tomboy."

The article has very little information. "Musical acts booked by third-party groups include the Beach Boys, Journey, Bret Michaels, Rick Springfield, Rascal Flatts, Martina McBride and The Band Perry." There are often many corporate-type parties surrounding these National Conventions. I guess we will have to wait and see if they are a part of it in an official capacity.

The Beach Boys will be in Toledo on July 21 and have an open date on July 20...

However highly unlikely it might be, one good thing that might come of a scenario like this is that the other BRI shareholders could finally move to exert some modicum of control over how the live band name is used, beyond simply collecting the licensing fee.

Heh, heh. myKe luHv and His Band of Imposters will, I assume, play any venue if the bucks are right. That and all the exposure the attention starved lovester can round up. Sounds like a big, bad load of publicity that will put another nail in his already lousy legacy.

I really, really hope you are correct.

The Beach Boys brand name does not need Trump to be associated with it.

Yep. Yet I don't think they'd *just* be doing it for money or exposure. I have little doubt that both Mike and Bruce would be legitimately enthusiastic about playing in support of Trump.

Shaking my head.

Beach Boys' (Grand Old) Party! = barf

+1

This would be horrible. Really hoping it does not happen!

When is Mike wearing a red trump hat on stage? ::)

From the comments.

12 hours ago
I don't follow sports, but are these really "major sports figures"? The musical acts seem to be third-tier as well. The Beach Boys? Really?

To be fair, the Mike and Bruce Beach Boys are not a huge get.

tbh, the Beach Boys touring band is third-tier.

Bleccch! Sometimes they really make it hard to be a Beach Boys fan. I wonder if Donald Trump's "little hands" ever "shadowed on the ceiling"?

Of course its third rate.  Thats the sad part of the legacy

I sure hope that is true. People are going to read that the Beach Boys are playing for Trump, and think that means that Brian and Al endorse Trump along with the Baseball Cap Twins. Carl must be turning over in his grave.

This does bring up an interesting point about the touring licence and the responsibilities that go with it. I wonder if any thought was given about this possible scenario. ie hypothetically the NRA or tobacco industry (or worse) hiring the group for a private gig. Were any safeguards or a veto option included? Man it would be interesting to read a copy of that licence. 

Well, I hate to throw a wet blanket on the growing outrage, but...

"The organizations hosting the concerts are Concerts for a Cause, the Creative Coalition, the Cleveland Clinic's educational foundation, law firm Jones Day’s foundation and others. A representative of The Beach Boys, one of the bands that organizers said on Tuesday would perform in Cleveland during the convention, issued a denial to Bloomberg Politics on Wednesday."

Source:  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-06-28/trump-campaign-lining-up-tyson-and-ditka-for-convention

No wet blanket. That's excellent news! 

I understand the rush to judgment and everyone overlooking my level-headed first reply, but here is some more information on the Creative Coalition's Benefit Gala at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions:

http://thecreativecoalition.org/2016/06/23/the-creative-coalitions-benefit-gala-featuring-martina-mcbride/
http://thecreativecoalition.org/2016/06/08/the-creative-coalitions-benefit-galas-in-cleveland-philadelphia/

And, again, the original article explicitly said that the acts were hired by a third party (i.e. not the Trump campaign or the RNC).

Wow thats awesome news! Get the beach boys name out there! That will be fun to watch and see the Beach Boys preform!

Glad to hear. My guess, based on nothing more than a hunch: this new denial is because other members of BRI stepped in quickly and said they would not approve of this show, a gig that Mike likely previously said yes to. I can't think that the other BRI members would *want* the brand name being attached to such a controversial figure.

Does Mike still have any side group going on? He may do this solo?

I believe Mike does some private shows on the side with a few guys from his group and minus Bruce. But I can't be exactly sure if he still does this or this was a past thing.

Gah.

Random question..while it sounds like theres some doubt as to whether him playing for trump is true, i dont doubt that mike would be happy to play for him since A) he's a republican last i checked and B) he will pretty much play anywhere for the right bucks. Random question for speculation:

Do you think Mike would play for hillary/bernie/elisabeth warren/etc or any other democratic politician if he was asked? or would he draw the line if he didnt agree with someones politics?

Personally, I think music fans waste far too much energy worrying about who a band/artist supports politically.  As long as it doesn't affect the music, I don't care. 

I can't stand Barack Obama, but when Paul McCartney dedicated two songs to him when I saw him in 2009, I wasn't tempted to walk out on the show or stop listening to his music. 

My vote this fall will likely be going to Trump, but if Brian or Al decides to support Hillary, it wouldn't bother me in the least. 

Showing support for a candidate is one thing.  Appearing at an event to campaign for one is another.

Still doesn't really bother me.   Heck, I was more offended when Styx played at a Pittsburgh Steelers game. 

Like I said, as long as it doesn't affect the music. 

KDS - I hope no one hurts themselves "jumping to conclusions."  If anyone took the time to look up their touring schedule they would see that they are booked out that week.  That is not to say that they could not be miraculous, and be two places at once.   :lol

Random thoughts:

A) It isn't a big mystery as to why some folks would find it objectionable if Mike played a Trump fundraiser (or posed for pics with him, or if they had a public "BFF" ceremony, or whatever). The outrage regarding a Trump/Love connection is perhaps predictable and quickly becomes an exercise is redundancy. But the sort of manufactured (in my opinion) incredulity as to why such a reaction occurs is just silly.

B) Some eras/elections/candidates are more divisive than at other times. Nobody cares who supported Bob Dole in 1996 anymore, or who supported Edmund Muskie in 1972. Any sort of pro-Trump stuff at *this* time, in *this* election is *not* the same, objectively speaking, as many of the *numerous* times in the past where Mike or the Beach Boys or other artists played fundraisers for or otherwise supported candidates.

C) Those who find Mike supporting Trump as an objectionable idea aren't "spending too much energy worrying about it." It doesn't take that long to post "Ewwww" on a message board.

D) It's far more on-topic to discuss the politics of the actual band members, or public gigs (or potential gigs) for candidates than it is for members here to tell us how *they're* voting. I have some level of interest (not to the point of seething outrage) if a member of the Beach Boys supports any given candidate, from the perspective of a historian and scholar of the band. What I *don't* care about is how a member here plans to vote.

E) Who a band member supports politically doesn't typically directly effect "the music" (let's set aside "I'm pickin' up Bush Vibrations" I guess), especially when we're talking about just playing old songs in concert, but it isn't wholly unrelated to the machinations of the history of a band. Mike's politics and general political attitude may help speak to the attitude he takes towards the band, or at least its corporate and financial machinations.

I wonder what the Stame-ster has to say about this, most of Hollywood leans left.

Hey Jude - here is my problem with that analysis.  During this contentious election cycle, there is an undercurrent which would silence free speech and tell (the opposition) they have "no right to a say" because they don't agree with it.  That is the beauty of the USA - the ability to speak freely (within some time, place and manner constraints.)  

If the band takes a gig, it does not equal an endorsement.  It is business.  Now, suppose that the Touring BB's were regularly turning down good work, because of a difference in some political opinion, and it hurt the overall BRI bottom line, couldn't that pose a problem?   ;)

  

Touring band aka solo group behind Mike's personal support for Trump. For somebody who drones on and on for what's best for the corporate BRI, you seem to support this rash move 100 percent.

Mike is a conservative, and has been for awhile.  So, I really wouldn't call his decision to support Donald Trump a rash decision. 

But, if you want to use this as yet another excuse to dump on Mike, more power to you. 

What if Mike, using the BB brand name, played at a David Duke rally (back when racist pig/noted Trump supporter Duke, was running for office)? Would that bug you? Does there exist a potential politician with absolutely *any* kind of views whatsoever that would finally cross the line and make you say "yeah, that is really not cool" regarding the band's association with said person?

Since David Duke is a racist and a one time KKK, I wouldn't be too happy about it. 

Since Donald Trump is not a racist, then play on. 

Well I'm glad you would nix the idea of being happy about them playing a Duke rally. I hope you can at least understand and empathize that if someone other than yourself believes that Trump is promoting racist views - even if you don't personally agree with that assessment - that it's at least understandable, and not some wild idea, that people with that viewpoint of Trump (and there are many) would be put off by the brand name being associated with him.  

I get it.  Trump's a polarizer.  I'll respect somebody's opinion for/against Trump, as I'd expect the same in return.  I'm not so certain if I'd go so far to empathize with that person. 

But, I think there's also some anti-Mike bias in play with this thread.

Regarding anti-Mike bias... speaking personally, if any BB member, including members other than Mike, did actions that would drag the brand name into any sort of  association with Trump, I'd be put off as well.

This non-show show may end up indeed being a non-issue.

But in general, when it comes to Mike doing something that some folks find objectionable, he probably is often more swiftly criticized. But there's a reason for that. I and many other fans feel like they've tried to give him the benefit of the doubt in the past over and over and over, tried to cut him some slack, waited for him to do something relating to the band (no one doubts he has participated in charity events or that he is a warm and kind person with his friends and close family) that redeems his past objectionable actions. It has happened on occasion, the main thing of recent decades being his participation in C50. But even with that, he couldn't even get through the end of that tour without casting a pall over the whole thing.

I've said it before: There are cases where if Al or Brian (or Dave, or even Bruce in some cases) had done the same thing Mike did, they might be given more of a benefit of the doubt. But they've earned it to varying degrees. If Brian gave an interview where he dredged up some negative aspect of Mike's past, I'd probably not immediately assume the worst. But when Mike brings up the Wilson drug abuse for the *trillionth* time, as a random example, I'm no longer willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume something other than him just being a d**k about it.

I haven't been a fan of every publically political thing every one of my favorite artists have done or said. But usually, there is some mitigating factor that sooner or later doesn't make me harp on them about it endlessly. When McCartney did that gawdawful "Freedom" song, I don't think even he was aware of what he was stoking. But McCartney less than a year later dropped the song from the setlist and acknowledged it was being co-opted or interpreted in a way (e.g. pro-war) that he didn't want it to be.

Mike is unapologetic about his views for the most part, and I do respect that element of his demeanor. I think he still tries and utterly fails at trying to counteract his image and perception (the recent Rolling Stone piece is a good example of this), and in that sense I can't even admire him as some straight-shooting old school rocker who doesn't give a s**t what people think.

While it was painfully obvious that Paul wrote "Freedom" in about ten minutes, I'd never thought of it as a pro war song.  But, maybe I'm just thinking that knowing the composer's personality. 

I liked the message of the song itself, but yes, it was a crap song. 

To your first point regarding "silencing free speech", that's nonsense as far as I'm concerned. That sounds like an entirely imaginary argument. People have been trying for ages to equate disagreement with stifling of free speech. It's a common tactic, and it's silly.

When someone says something you say or believe in is total bulls**t, they're not trying to keep you from saying it. They're just calling it bulls**t.

As for taking a gig, if it's a fundraiser gig or other political event for a candidate, OF COURSE it's perceived as an endorsement. We already had this ridiculous "if someone doesn't specifically say they're voting for someone or that they official endorse them, then it's not an endorsement" discussion before.

And if Mike, in some hypothetical, said "We're doing this Trump rally gig, but we're not endorsing him; We just take a gig because it pays", then that might actually come off *even worse* than doing the gig due to political convictions.

The answer, the EASY answer when it comes to PR and brand management, would be for an actual Beach Boys manager to say "OF COURSE it's a bad idea to play at a Trump-related gig", regardless of whether every board member and associate of BRI is a staunch conservative. It would be a HORRIBLE PR move, and as I said above, it would probably only make it worse to use the "hey, it's a paying gig, I don't care who the event is linked to" reasoning.

Not taking any politics-related gigs is a non-issue when it comes to BRI's or MELECO's bottom line, and even suggesting not taking a Trump-related gig would hurt their income is laughable. Nearly all gigs are either normal public gigs or private corporate gigs. If Mike's tour schedule turns to predominantly political rallies and party conventions, then he and BRI have far bigger problems.

It was a tedious song to be sure (though Paul's actual lead vocal was actually quite impressive, hitting the high notes crisp and clean with no autotune).

I'm not sure what his initial intention was with the song; I think he was caught up in what many non-hard-leftwingers were in that timeframe, which was a lot of puffery and jingoism, and stunningly wasn't aware that the song could (and he later admitted WAS to some degree) co-opted by hawkish, pro-war folks.

It obviously wasn't a huge deal, and the best thing to come out of it was the Maysles documentary released years later that shows McCartney showing the song to Eric Clapton back stage at the Concert for New York, where you can see Clapton is biting his lip and doing his best to not call bulls**t on the whole thing musically and thematically.

The Beach Boys played Sun City in late 1981, and as Rusten and Stebbins point out in their excellent "In Concert" book, they didn't see any backlash because *nobody cared* about the band at that moment in their career.

The climate is totally different now. I guarantee you if Mike's band plays a Trump-related gig (whether arranged by Trump's campaign or some third party or some PAC or whatever), there will be a ton of bad PR. And you know what? I expect this sort of stuff from Mike.

If the "brand" and band's name gets muddied in the press because Mike plays a Trump-related gig and the lazy media doesn't know or care *who* is in the band, then it will be just as much if not more the fault of Brian, Al, and Carl's estate for not doing *something* to keep stuff like that from happening. Purely 100% from an economical point of view in protecting the brand, even if everybody involved plans to vote for Trump, they should be able to see that even an implied or perceived endorsement would gain the band and brand *nothing* and would only hurt.

They can't keep Mike from appearing wherever and taking photo ops with whomever they want. But they own the trademark, so they can attempt to control how it is used and whom it is associated with.

Hey Jude - here is the difference that I have seen in this election cycle.  And this is a little off-topic only tangentially related to a thread that is inflammatory because no one bothered to check the Touring Band's schedule (unless they will do a fly-over to do 2 cities in one day) - that week is booked.  So, it is moot.  They are unavailable, "apparently."

Yes, the demonstrations to "stop Trump" from appearing and silence that viewpoint have occurred this year.  Free Speech (and including political speech) is protected within some basic time, place and manner considerations.  Let's not make this either personal or confrontational.  The confrontational nonsense is one of the issues that precipitated the development of another BB board.  "Shutting people down" or the demonstrations which have been calculated to stop a candidate from appearing at a planned venue is new this election cycle.  

But, the point of whether it is a fan board's say-so over whether gig dates are accepted are beyond the point of reason, in my view and attempt to destroy the concept that music is generally a place of neutrality.  (That would be contrary to music that was protest music  and used in conjunction with a type of rally.)  

This is different from a business accepting new business which I think this is.  What is a bad idea for you might not be a bad idea for those in charge.  You think it is a horrible move, but is is not up to you, or me.  

Trump could be elected President and they could play the inauguration.  It could happen.  The more he is attacked, it seems that his base of support rises, and that includes many disenfranchised Democrats, Republicans and Independents despite the temper tantrums all-around.  

You don't like Mike, so anything he would do would not please you.  Ton of bad PR?  Trump fans, numbering in the millions, according to votes cast for him, can be BB fans (or not.)  

Plenty of Hollywood (and others) are supporting Trump.  It is not politically correct but that is what many Americans are sick and tired of.  That "filter" of political correctness which is no longer convenient.  Playing a gig is not an endorsement until it is publicly announced.  When you go into the voting booth, no one knows whom you vote for.   ;)

Why does a vile POS like Donald Trump deserve respect?

What did he do to you to make you think he is a "POS"?

To your point that a fan board is trying to tell Mike whether he should book gigs, that's nonsense. Nobody has suggested that at all. It's just one of countless straw man arguments.

Most of the rest of what you've written is just off-topic political rhetoric and unpaid political advertising (I'm at least trying to keep the topic to something related to the Beach Boys), so I would once again suggest moving all of this to the Sandbox where it can rightly be ignored (if one so chooses.)

Please take anything along that line of discussion to the Sandbox.

Wait a minute we are all assuming, who says it's Mikes gig ?

It might be Brian - Just saying  8)

As a person, no one has to respect or like Trump, but he gets to get up and do his speeches, just as others whose viewpoints might be unpopular.    

The opposition would like to paint Trump as a racist or sexist, because the opposition can drive a narrative that way.  

What sexist puts his daughter in charge of the family business if there are males available?

But that has nothing to do with whether the Touring Band should play at the Republican convention.  

Hey Jude - how is that any different than this theory that the BB "brand" will be damaged?  Who makes that call? 

Point is, did anyone look at the BB Touring Band Schedule before posters flipped out?  I don't think so. The focus of the article was the "number of sports figures" to speak at the convention and The Beach Boys were almost an afterthought included within the third party group funding of the music entertainment. 

We will see what happens.  The "good old boys" are not one bit happy.   

Now, Trump even denies tapping Mike Typson for convention. 

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/285917-trump-denies-tapping-mike-tyson-for-convention

Hope it copies.  ;)

Why is it impossible to think that nepotism can't take precedent over sexism sometimes?

Derp.

This is getting dangerously close to Sandbox territory.

Primogeniture.

Nepotism - has a couple of concepts.  One came from the church where there were (perhaps as I think of Thorn Birds  :lol) no offspring, and a nephew could be given preference.  Family businesses are often best run by families. 

She (Ivanka) appears to have more power than her brothers and that is unusual.   

Billy - it sounds like a good place.   But a little fact-checking on the date accuracy would have been helpful. 

Regarding a discussion of how something damages the BB brand, that is on-topic because it's *about the Beach Boys.* Seems pretty simple to me.

Talking about "stop Trump" rallies and straw man arguments about free speech being stifled, those things are not about the Beach Boys. Again, pretty simple.

As for Mike's touring schedule, not that it matters, but many if not most private gigs (including corporate gigs, private parties, some political events) are *not* publicized or put on tour schedules. They aren't always submitted to Pollstar, and so on.

This discussion has obviously taken on a (potentially) more hypothetical format given the questionable veracity of reports that Mike is playing some sort of Trump-related event.

Also worth noting (or not) is that the published tour schedule doesn't preclude two shows in one day. The Beach Boys have done that over the years in the past, and I could easily see Mike going above and beyond in shoehorning a short show in support of Trump.

I'm curious, for those that find the idea of Mike doing a Trump-related gig not objectionable in the slightest and in fact something to be celebrated, why does it matter how plausible the exact timing of the reported gig is? What's the argument? That there shouldn't be any objection to Mike doing such a gig, or that the gig isn't going to happen and therefore objecting to the hypothetical is pointless?

Hey Jude - actually it is related.  If the Touring Band is suggested to be playing at the RNC, there is a political viewpoint ascribed to the band.   And the viewpoint is purportedly expressed by accepting this hypothetical gig.  Already the Tyson appearance has been discredited in the same publication.  So it throws the cred out the window.

Yes, you are correct that a schedule does not preclude 2 shows, in 2 different places.  But as the info that was posted has already been challenged, I think it is moot.   ;)

A couple of things:

1) Since a lot of people read just the subject, it *might* be helpful to change the subject to something more accurate like: "The Beach Boys reported to play The Creative Coalition’s Benefit Gala during Republican National Convention". I understand a number of forum members would like to continue the faux outrage, but I think we can all agree that the subject at this point is misleading at best.
2) I think despite the earlier denial, it is possible the Beach Boys may still play this event. The original article was poorly written and if someone asked their PR team if they were playing at the RNC convention or part of a coalition of athletes and bands coming together to support Trump, I could understand why they would deny that, yet still play this event.
3) For those who have skipped over my posts previously in this thread, The Creative Coalition’s Benefit Gala during the Republican National Convention is scheduled for July 20. Per The Beach Boys tour schedule, this is an open date between their July 19 gig in Washington, DC and their July 21 gig in Toledo, OH. Totally plausible for this to fit their touring schedule.
4) I would suggest everyone read more about the mission of the Creative Coalition here: http://thecreativecoalition.org/about/our-mission/

I'm certain my points will be ignored and the usual folks will continue fighting over hypotheticals, but this all started with a poorly written article that stated the bands mentioned were hired by third parties--not the Trump campaign or the RNC.

Bottom line? The Beach Boys - and especially Mike, I would think - should be more risk averse when it comes to associating the brand with something/someone as polarizing as Trump. Mike's proven himself to be a very risk averse guy, probably one of the more risk averse guys of all his contemporaries. That's why I don't get why it would even remotely be considered worth it for the brand.

MC - you are correct that there is a day in between on the schedule.  We will see what happens. 

But, regardless of political affiliation, bands should not have to tiptoe around what fans think as to whether they accept a gig.  Going back, they have worked on voter registration drives, all kinds of charity events, so I don't think it should matter.  And, Democrat or Republican or Independent, we are all Americans and they are America's Band. 

Thanks for the head's up.  I did just look at of the websites.  "The Creative Coalition, the 501 (c)(3) (non-profit) nonpartisan arm of the entertainment industry..." - that was part of an announcement  for Fergie performing at the DNC.   Thanks.  ;)

FYI everybody, I wouldn't put too much into anything that filledeplage says. She's a birther who doesn't have the guts to admit the current President of the United States is a natural born citizen.

The Rolling Thunder Rally in Washington, DC, was not a Trump event--Trump spoke at a well-established annual gathering for an advocacy group for POWs. Rolling Thunder is a nonpartisan group that was warmly greeted at the White House by President Obama in 2012.

The event that the Beach Boys were apparently linked to was the The Creative Coalition’s Benefit Gala during Republican National Convention. The Creative Coalition is also nonpartisan and will be holding a similar gala at the DNC convention. The link to Trump is weak at best. I understand that doesn't fit your agenda, but keeping pushing.

And for the record, I'm a long time Republican firmly in the #NeverTrump camp.

What was Trump doing at an event for POWs?  I thought he only liked vets who weren't captured.  ::)

No matter the context, it's still a cringeworthy image.

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

Except in the case of if someone like David Duke invited The BBs to play a David Duke rally gig, right? Would the band taking such a gig be objectionable to you?   Wouldn't that be worth tiptoeing around?

No disagreement from me. What bothers me is when members post threads with click-bait titles like: "Mike Love appears at Trump Rally" or "Beach Boys playing for Trump". Both erroneous, both eliciting chest thumping at how despicable Mike Love is, only to be presented with actual facts that are ignored.

Godwin's Law peeping just around the corner. Sandbox this thread.

What in hell are you talking about? The majority of this thread is the usual political disagreeing that usually goes in the Sandbox . Why are you asking me to 'fact check ' 'date accuracy '?  I happen to believe that in this case the left wing and the right wing belong to the same damn bird, and if I wasn't a moderator I'd never even glance at this thread.

f*** this,  moving this crap to the Sandbox where it belongs. I avoid these threads for a reason.

Thanks Marty for once again bringing sense to all of the embarassing, knee-jerking, conclusion-jumping, and hypothetical agenda-izing.

Trump disavowed David Duke back in February.  We are talking about taking a gig at a convention leading to the Presidency and not a meeting of the KKK.   

http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-disavows-endorsement-of-white-supremacist-david-duke/article/20011301 

What does that mean?  Of course if his mother was a citizen, he would be one. 

Hillary Clinton raised that issue in 2008, and was not raised by me.

Obviously, Century Deprived was just using Duke as a random example of a roundly-objectionable character to test the "Mike's band should book gigs with whomever will pay them" theory.

While Century Deprived will still surely not get an actual answer, I would suggest two alternate questions:

1. Just pick someone other than Duke, unrelated to Trump in any way, that is relatively equally objectionable, and re-pose the question.

2. Or try this: Would a *private* function hosted by David Duke, outside of any organization or group, be an acceptable booking for Mike's band as long as it was another paying gig for which Mike and BRI could collect fees?

Hey Jude - are you trying to create an equivalency between Donald Trump, who is a businessman, who graduated from Wharton, with David Duke, the head of the KKK?  

The issue is hate directed at Trump who has won enough votes and delegates to go to the RNC.   We will see what happens in November.  

Can't we be patient and wait for what the American voters to decide?

FDP, can you kindly answer my hypothetical scenario with your honest answer that you would feel in your heart, where Duke is running for president and hypothetically asks Mike and The BBs to play a Duke rally. Does that hypothetical scenario bother you?

Mind you, I don't personally equate Duke to Trump.  I just think it's good to know that you, as well as most anybody, would have some level at which they'd actually draw a line and say that yes, in such a hypothetical situation, it would probably be a terrible move to play such an event. Is that something you can just say? I'll have no more questions about the matter if you would just be kind enough to answer that question... not trying to get into a debate of Trump vs. Duke.

And while you're at it, FdP, can you please explain your response to me earlier?

Oh boy, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Not this one. These are what you call wannabes.  On the left is the one who will never be the President. On the right is the one who will never be The Beach Boys.  :p

CD - what you are asking is to equate Duke (who is not running for anything) and whose groups goals are not consistent with anything equivalent.  And, I am not equating him, either.

The issue is one of professional business discretion, as a license holder of the name.  And Mike's discretion to take a gig, is being questioned. Also, it is another scenario of a fan (tail) wagging the dog (license holder.) I doubt in his (license holder) discretion, that he would accept such a gig. It is absurd to propose that.  I will remind you that Trump disavowed Duke.  

But, I will share a discussion I had with some of my kids' friends today, who are nearly 30 (so you have a demographic.) All from Democratic families, all working class, and all planning to vote for Donald. They are active in a local veterans group and also from a highly Democratic stronghold and represents a departure from business-as-usual for the presidential election but not for local elections where they are big Dems.      

The Rasmussen poll reported today.  Trump is up by four points over Clinton.  44/39.  

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/06/30/rasmussen-poll-trump-leads-by-four/  

Good grief. I am specifically NOT trying to equate Trump to Duke. I said that and I meant it.

All I am pointing out is that *everyone* should have *some* sort of barometer (which they themselves set) where they say that it's probably not a good idea for The BBs to play a rally for a particular politician who goes beyond any acceptable societal level of being a piece of sh*t. Right? It's the concept of the fact that there exist *some* politicians are just too controversial and/or just plain scumbags. That's a thing. That's not an impossibility.

You don't think Trump's a scumbag, that's cool. Your prerogative. I'm NOT debating that. I'm NOT trying to make you think that.

I'm simply trying to see if we can agree on the concept that (while peoples' own mileage may vary as to which politician is a racist scumbag of beyond epic proportions), that you'd agree there exist *some* politicians on planet earth (Trump excluded from the conversation) that you'd say it cannot be considered acceptable for there to be any BB association with them.  That's not a ridiculous concept, right?  

Duke was in fact running for office in past elections, so he's not just some random racist uncle in the back corner. He's a real guy.  I'm giving you credit by assuming that Duke's a politician you would think - if he were to have asked The BBs to play, and had they accepted - that you'd shake your head and think this is not a good thing. Am I right in thinking that?

Again - so you don't try to say I'm equating Duke to Trump: I'm NOT.

CD - I guess my background having done political work, informs the fact that the opposition will always create a narrative or pull stunts that are on the "eve of the election" to damage the reputation of a candidate, just as an example.  The real issue, in my view is one of equivalency creation with this narrative of mysogynist, or racist (and ridiculous given that his spokesperson Katrina Pierson, is biracial, his daughter is an Orthodox Jew convert, and two of his wives are from Eastern Europe.) 

His "optics" as a political newcomer, afford him clarity that someone who is not entrenched has. I am not getting excited when candidates are called almost any name in the book because you have to first, consider the source, and second, consider the motivation. I listen to the message to the opponents and compare it to whether it is true or false or spin control. Isn't it interesting that the FBI have blocked the Orlando law enforcement records?  Those are public records to which we all have a right to know what is contained. This is not a transparent administration.   

The Benghazi video spin is so over the top unacceptable. There are witnesses to counter that narrative from Hillary.  No one who has a vet, living or dead wants to know that their loved one could be left without aid, when it was begged for and not responded to. It sends the message that there is no value accorded to those soldiers and other Americans in harm's way.  Benghazi was 52 days before the election and there was lying to ensure the election would be won by the Dems.  (I could never have voted for Romney, anyway.)  I voted twice for Obama but now feel used that the video story was intentionally created to mislead the public. I believed the plausibility of that video at the time and I am done with their nonsense.  Like that old saying, "One lies and they all swear to it."     

It came to light last night that Loretta Lynch had a meeting with Bill Clinton on her plane on the day of the release of the Benghazi report.  Bill Clinton appointed her as a US Attorney in 1999.  Virtually every attorney interviewed remarked that it did have indicia of "creating an appearance of impropriety." Even if they truly talked about "golf and grandchildren" that meeting should never have taken place and those outside the plane were told there were to be "no pictures."  Do you really think that two lawyers (Clinton and Lynch) didn't talk about something legally related on that plane?   

These kinds of ethical violations are hard for me (and others) to swallow.  I guess it is the entrenchment is just too much.  The Clintons have asked for an additional 22 months to turn over all the emails.  Is that a joke? Is that speedy justice for the people?   

So, this nonsense of possibly accepting a non-profit whose mission is non-partisan, to play a show at the RNC, being tied to a false inflammatory narrative, that Trump must be the second coming of Adolph Hitler, is revolting. There is a big blind eye turned by many of those who have a poor or no understanding of the mechanics of electioneering.  The statement represents that Trump and not the non-profit is offering the gig.  It is an intermediary who did the same for the DNC with Fergie.  But, of course, a false inference arises connecting it directly to Trump when it is a non-profit who appears to be neutral. 

It did not even appear to be a person-to-person invite. There is a neutral entity (the non-profit) in the middle.   So you will have to excuse me if I cannot get all riled up over a 3rd party involvement in a political convention where they don't just involve themselves in Republican issues but have been involved on the Democratic party side as well. It is jumping to conclusions.  And, I can't inform your judgment; only my own, as to whom that vote in November will go.     

And, CD - it is a "business judgment decision" to accept or reject a gig, and a matter or discretion that only those charged with those responsibilities make.  And it doesn't matter if it is the BB's or the Stones, they all have that discretion of "business judgment."      ;)

You are a liar. Hillary did not raise that issue in 2008. Some of her "supporters" did, but not her.

In fact, it is your candidate, Mr. Donald J. Trump who has pushed that President Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born citizen, is not a Christian and only got through college due to some type of Affirmative Action, as Trump believes his grades were not good.

Also, you always seem to talk about "vets" and Donald. Can you tell me why Mr. Trump accused United States troops of stealing millions of dollars in Iraq. Can you imagine if Hillary did that? And we can just add that on top of the fact that he only likes the ones who "weren't captured" while showing up and hanging out with Mike Love at a POW/MIA thing. But you'll excuse it as him being a political neophyte, because to you, unless someone has run for office how can we expect them to be a decent person and not mock those who have been captured serving our country?

Good questions, some of the ZILLION similar questions one could pose that of course never get answered. I'm pretty sure Mike will re-record the entire "Sweet Insanity" album and sign over all of his songwriting credits to Melinda before you get a real, substantive answer to any of your questions.

Great thanks to Billy for sending this over to the Sandbox. Reading this Trump garbage and manufactured outrage, seeing how it always seems to be those with plenty of privilege who seem to comically act the most disenfranchised (gee, sounds like Mike sometimes too), reading this Trump bloviating, hack political "analysis" in this thread reminds me of why I didn't read the "Sandbox" for literally the first DECADE I was here.

SDJ - I guess wiki is a liar.  There is plenty online.  Hillary had to walk her comments back. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories

We are here to discuss, even spiritedly and not to insult or be confrontational.  I hope the mods are noting your confrontational approach to other posters as well. 

Trump misspoke - and it was stupid.

He is a political neophyte, as he has never held office. 

The website that you link to confirms sweetdudejim's claims and it does not reinforce yours.

Also, I'm curious how you reconcile the seeming contradiction that Trump makes stupid remarks because "He is a political neophyte" and also that his status as a "political newcomer afford(s) him clarity that someone who is not entrenched has."

Trump has political experience buying politicians and bribery of the court system. Which is far worse than having "no political experience". He broke the system and now sees to control it himself.

1) Anybody can edit wikipedia,which is why it's not 100% reliable as a source

2) One of the things we mods are notating is that you *still* have not answered my question (asked twice now) above.

I am not insulting. I am just speaking the truth. You have continually lied when it suits you and you also avoid answering any questions that do not fit into your preconceived notion of the truth.

Now in my personal opinion, HeyJude is a wonderful, wonderful person for trying to get straight answers out of you on nearly any topic, as you continually obfuscate and bring up random nonsense to throw threads off track. And then after throwing threads off track, you have the guts to attack other posters for bringing up things in threads that aren't "on topic" which is hilarious!

Also, Trump never said he "misspoke" about our soliders supposedly stealing millions of dollars. So maybe you yourself think he misspoke but he sure as sh*t doesn't.

I'm gonna end my post with the cutesy little "drink" things that you use to try to mend any dumb sh*t you put in your posts. :beer

HeyJude was 100% right. I knew it at the time, but I still fruitlessly tried. I will never get an actual answer from FDP. I don't even know why I try. I guess the definition of insanity is trying continually when the same result is certainly around the corner. I have too much faith in believing in the general decency of people that a person will actually directly answer a question, like KDS politely did regarding the same question I posed. I feel like Mr. Rooney in Ferris Bueller's Day Off who rings the doorbell, asking a question, and keeps getting some pre-recorded mumbo jumbo answering anything but the question.

You and me both, apparently. Seems to be a disease running rampant across certain circles...

Lol. I'll say. And you've been a prime example of that.


Yup.

I'll bet you can't find a single comment about anything ever by anyone but yourself that something had "indicia of creating an appearance" of anything. Either it creates an appearance or it doesn't.
But I like how you went from "indicia of creating an appearance of impropriety" to full on "these kinds of ethical violations" in one paragraph. You're true to form. 
So Clinton optics are evidence of fact and Trump optics are just "oh, the poor naive boy."  Well, if he's so naive that he says statements that outrage big segments of the national and global population on a regular basis, perhaps he wouldn't be an ideal president.

And, regarding vets:

Gallup hasn't published yet, but Clinton seems to be doing a bit better among veterans than Democrats for the last 12 years (probably longer.)

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/26/veterans-prefer-donald-trump-over-hillary-clinton-/

47-38 trump-Clinton.


http://www.gallup.com/poll/109654/veterans-solidly-back-mccain.aspx

56-34 McCain-Obama

http://www.gallup.com/poll/154904/veterans-give-romney-big-lead-obama.aspx

58-34 Romney-Obama



http://www.gallup.com/poll/13696/who-will-get-veterans-votes-november.aspx

54-41 bush-Kerry


Over the last 12 years including midterms 2014:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/11/veterans-are-voting-republican-and-thats-not-likely-to-change/

So, once again, your sample of friends and family is an unscientific survey. It's just your friends and family.

Thanks for moving this to the sandbox!

Let's get back to how wrong the knee-jerk reactions to this topic are instead of the cover-up of hypothetical distractions since.

Feel free to start whatever thread you would like, lil guy!

Emily - yes it is in The Sandbox.  A post with a 3rd party story reporting the BB's playing the RNC, sponsored by a non-profit which also did the same thing for the DNC with Fergie.  

Unscientific?  Talking with my kids and their friends who are heavily involved in veterans groups, is certainly a "barometer" of how young 4th generation Democrats, are voting for a Republican, notwithstanding not being "scientific."  

It is remarkable that kids who thought it was cool when Obama was elected when they were in high school have reversed party following altogether, for the Presidential election.    

Bill Clinton should never have met with his former protegée who is the top lawyer in the country charged with prosecuting his wife, a candidate for President.  It is not ok.

Bill Clinton optics with Lynch, appointed by Clinton, and meeting with him during the time the report was released is not acceptable.  

Rasmussen has Trump ahead by 4.  

Still waiting.

Explain why you posted this
http://smileysmile.net/board/index.php/topic,24118.msg583083.html#msg583083
in response to me.

If I see any  further posts in this topic from you  without a response to this, I will assume you were trolling me, and I will deal with it accordingly.

Obviously, considering the statements you made above regarding veterans and the actual statistics regarding veterans, your barometer needs recalibrating.

Billy - that had nothing to do with you except that it was getting political and that stuff ends up here. 

The supposed gig was arranged by 3rd party groups who worked with both RNC and DNC. 

Then why did you ask me to do fact checking on the dates?

Emily - I completely disagree.  When one says "obviously" it means that their position is correct and not an opinion.  Veterans, I know as I am the parent of two.  

So, my vet kids, and many of their friends who are active in veterans affairs and I listen to what they are saying about who would make the best Commander-in Chief.  They enthusiastically say are voting for Trump. And Benghazi is the catalyst.  

My barometer that is working just fine.  You are entitled to your position but that does not make mine wrong, just different.  

We will see how the veterans actually vote and whether there will be a big suprise as was the Brexit vote, last week for those who relied on polling and got a shock.  Polls can go any number of ways depending on who does them, and whether those polled respond candidly.  

Did I?  It was a general statement and absolutely not directed towards you.  The fact checking had to do with whether the Touring Band was even free to do that date.  I scrollled down a couple of websites, missed the 20th (I think) and it did not look as though the band was even free that day.  That was my error but I did not see anyone even check their schedule to see if they were even free or really check that it was a 3rd party who set up the dates at the Democratic National Convention, at the Republican National Convention. 

If we could only harness the power/energy from the amount of head shaking that FDP's question-dodging +trolling induces among board members... we could light up Times Square for weeks. Maybe Mike can write a pro-environmentalist song about how the world needs more posts by FDP to create more head shaking, thus cutting down on energy consumption... heck, the solar panel business might be challenged by this phenomenon.

Trolls who dodge questions continually - and won't even have the decency to own up to it - should be banned.

So, the first 2+ pages are about an erroneous report of the Beach Boys playing for Trump. The next 2+ pages essentially are the strawman argument that Mike would go as far as playing for the Klan. Seriously?   ::)

And, again, no apologies or acknowledgment of jumping to conclusions before all the information was available or even reading the original report correctly. Some of you need to take a breath.

Just pointing out this was the second reply to this thread. Completely ignored. Now we are talking about Mike Love playing gigs for David Duke???

She clarified it with me privately, and here as well. My part of it is taken care of.

It's a discussion of the concept of playing with someone unquestionably controversial, and about how there needs to be *some* line drawn. I understand people have different concepts of where that line is drawn (and regarding which candidate would be deemed unacceptable to have association with the brand), but my ONLY point is that there cannot be *no* line. I'm not trying to convince anyone about who crosses that line... Only that the concept of *a* line cannot simply be ignored.

It's preposterous to think that absolutely anyone, including the creep Duke, would be ok for the band to be associated with. That's the only point I'm making. Why this is a difficult concept for one poster to admit is valid is baffling to me.

And to reiterate - I am not comparing Trump to Duke, nor would I think Duke in a million years would ask The BBs to play a rally - nor would the band accept.

Please direct criticism towards trolls who duck questions. There is truly no debate about the validity of my point.

If only as much energy could be put into reading your posts as is put into bullying, insulting, hypothetical trolling, and talking down to FdP.

Bullying? All I'm seeing is arguing back and forth (which is typical of these hideous political threads)

Yes, bullying.

From whom?

I re-read the entire thread (as much as it nauseated me to do so) ...I see nobody bullying filledplage.

I know this is slightly off topic, but what does the name 'filledplage' refer to? I know I'm a bit slow out of the gate, but I feel like I'm missing something here. Thanks.

I actually always thought it was "filledPAGE" as her posts tend to be very long (which is fine), just realised recently it was PLAGE. Plage is beach in french so?

Stands for Beach Girl, you dumb fucks.

Some may find this post to be a aggressive/bullying, Billy, just a-sayin.

Ouch! I feel badly bullied...I've never been called a dumb f*** before :lol. Moderators help! Actually I was reading the name same as brother woody until I squinted a few times...nope, not filled da page as my mind was telling me. I just don't see her as a beach girl, but then I should open my mind.

 ;D You've just been SmileySmiled! Make innocuous comment...sit back and wait for the backlash  :o

What's a redneck to do? I used to wonder why soup du jour never tasted the same at our little bistro...

Interesting...............................well no one got pushed down in the school yard anyway.

Now, back to how wrong posters are about the topic.

Some of us see the trolling as the relentless fishing for predetermined answers by trailing a baited line of rigged hypothetical questions along behind a boat of failed premise.  Maybe it's just me.

You made my day!  :lol

Happy Fourth Weekend!  :beer

It's just you.  But seeing as you are the only other poster on this board who consistently seems to think it's acceptable to duck questions, I'm not surprised you feel the way you do. But because (probably foolishly) I *want* to believe it could be different this time, I will pose the same question to you…   There cannot be *no* line ever,  under any circumstances whatsoever, right?

It's an honest question. I will not drag Trump into it, I am not even trying to debate Trump whatsoever at this point... Just trying to say that my concept holds water.  We all know that there could be a person horrible enough - someone far worse than Trump on a bad day - that even you would say there should be no association with the band, right?  Level with me, man. Obviously everyone knows this concept to be true, right?  This isn't a "rigged"  question anymore then asking you if the sky is blue.

I often answer your questions but then the bait is switched in an attempt to get your desired answer.  

By all means keep trolling your hypothetical KKK bait which is of no consequence as it is off-topic and the on-topic premise is already discredited and dead in the water but don't pretend it or answering it or not says anything about those who don't bite.

Is it really that hard to admit that there's a valid point in this? Do you feel belittled to admit that or something? I just am so baffled.

The reason I am driving home the point is because frankly, the concept that candidates exist on this planet that can cross the line for many people simply isn't a ridiculous notion, even if we might disagree on who would constitute such a candidate.  There is and will be no bait-switching in what I am saying.

Excuse me?!

7 days for that. Not playing around today.

And see? I'm the only mod signed in. I did this. Saying this before some of the usual suspects start bitching about Craig. I did this. Hice esto. Je l’ai fait. Ik deed dit. Ho fatto questo. Ich tat dies.It was me Austin, it was me all along. Running out of ways to say it, so hopefully this is clear.

Well that certainly explained that last comment ('dumb fucks', indeed)

For those that can still read the forum...I responded the way I did because there was a comment made in response to a post I made, I asked for clarification multiple times (in my role as a mod) and didn't get it. Her and I talked, we're good.

You're 100% right.

And from reading this thread, I suddenly realize why I'm having issues with my heart.

You know what really bothers me about this thread and politics in general?  Replace Trump with Clinton and I guarandamntee the feelings and opinions posted here would switch . It's amazing how things change whenever 'your' candidate is involved.

And for the record,  I despise both and wouldn't vote for either if my life depended on it.

I wouldn't be so worried about The Beach Boys brand getting damaged. I mean, are we forgetting the 80's happened? Yet Mike and his merry band still sell out concerts.

Good point, and also a reminder that John Q Public cares far less about this stuff than we the obsessives do.

Really, because as each of your Mike hypotheticals failed you switched your bait. At first it was Mike is hypothetically endorsing Trump. Then Mike is hypothetically ruining the brand by endorsing Trump. Then hypothetically Mike is still guilty of endorsing Trump because hypothetically it was BRI who stepped in over Mike. Then what if it was hypothetically David Duke, that would be like Mike hypothetically endorsing Trump.  What if it were hypothetically a generic-hated-person-of-your-choice, that would be a hypothetical analogue to a hypothetical Mike/Trump endorsement. 

The Tahoe bunker cam Mott answering machine is overloading!

Timeline is way wrong.

First post from CD


Key words...guess...hunch...think.

Second post



That's a legit question. Would it bug you? If it was Mike supporting Bernie Sanders, would you all of a sudden post an anti-Mike rant that would make OSD blush? Or would you be like KDS and I and not let that affect your enjoyment of the music? It's a discussion, right? And actually that IS a very good question for anybody and would make for a great discussion topic...at what point can anyone look past a performer's flaws/views/actions/whatever, and when does  it overshadow their work?

 I mean, I get it...you love and worship Trump. NO biggie, difference of opinion and all of that. Still, don't let that cloud your judgment. Please don't try to make this into something it's not.

I just love how you use the same words I've used and turn it against me. The level of maturity is outstanding. Bravo, good sir.

You're right...I did miss the first post CD made. My bad.  Still don't see what is wrong with his post (referring to CD's). As Mike and (especially) Bruce are staunch republicans, why *wouldn't* they be enthusiastic about playing a show in support of Trump? Nothing wrong with that, either.


It only seems to be off-topic and hypothetical when it's something you don't want to answer. And no, you don't have to answer (this is a message board, not the Spanish Inquisition).  Just seems to be funny how your opinion on that seems to change depending on whether you are asking the question or someone is asking you. If it's something you support, than it's relevant. Otherwise it's off-topic and hypothetical.

 :lol

Yeah, your maturity level is right up there too. I don't know what their political affiliations are and I don't care either.  The conclusions drawn on this topic were wrong as Marty pointed out.

You were wrong about my politics and I've explained my opinion and my reasons on questions and answers and I disagree with your opinions of me and them. Your own opinions and the things you choose to answer and ignore are a mystery to me too old message board friend.

Well, I happen to disagree with your opinions in regards to CD's posts. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Talk about irony about Cam Mott saying people are ignoring points...

Agreed.

While I would prefer if *my* band didn't associate itself with that twisted Cheesies-eatin' dick Trump...I have to, at the same time, admit that *I*, myself, do shows for people who are right wing/conservative/republican types.  One can't say "NO!!!" because someone is listening while wearing the 'wrong' colours .  [by the way...THAT is how you spell COLOUR properly...it's an ENGLISH word...not American.  We need to build a wall around the dictionary.]

So anyway...further back in the thread someone suggested that BRI should re-examine the parameters by which 'Evil Mike' exercises his mandate in terms of representing the franchise.  I would think that, unlike those of us who just consider Trump do be an orange dick-smack, BRI would be more annoyed if 'Evil Mike' spurned the chance to make some 'dough' for BRI.  THAT would be more of an issue I'm sure.

Just because someone in the Trump posse thinks that the 'Beach Boys' are groovy doesn't suggest to me that 'Evil Mike' told Donald Dick that the current touring version of the Sand Pail Sailors would appear FREE to help the Tangerine Turd raise some greenbacks for the campaign.  I'm bettin' that they were hired and will be paid.  That Mike and Bruce are likely of the [for shame] ree-pube-lickin' 'faith' is their sad and unfortunate lot in life.  That they're stuck with such a horrendous idiot for their candidate in 2016 speaks to just how dumb-headed their political choices obviously are.

So how will I protest this stumble in judgement?  [especially when I'd suggest that NO-ONE connected in any way, shape, or form with BRI agrees with my 'take' on the touring unit performing at a Trump rally for the bone-heads of America.]

I just won't go.

That'll fix 'em.
-------------------------------------

Vote for Hillary Clinton people.  If you don't...***WE*** won't let you move up to Canada.  [We wouldn't have allowed you to come here anyway.  You voted for dubya TWICE.  THAT kind of stupidity might just be contageous.  Color indeed!!!! ::)

Agreed . Well, except for the last thing (I'm supporting either Johnson or Stein...thoughts on that racist sh*t bag Trump are well known, and I've never liked or trusted Clinton ) and I spell it color :lol but otherwise thumbs up here

Let me guess, you read the subject of this thread and maybe the original article and wrote the above???

Him typing 'further back in the thread' implies otherwise.

Two classy posts.  ::)

What!?!?!?!?!  I have to comment about the David Duke parts?  I need to fire flames at my ol' pal KDS 'cause he's actually gonna vote for the monster/mini-carrot...with the pipsqueaky clean hands?  Let me ask you something Marty old boy...IF filledplage quoted one of my wordy discourses would would THAT be filledplagerization?

Oh and I don't think that anyone here is a 'dumb phuque'...'cept for me.

Good gawd man...most of the drivel contained here-in is not worthy of being read.

:lol

That was funny.  Plagerization!   :lol  (I am sure I have quoted you on this forum more than one time, in agreement with something you posted.)  Or in respectful disagreement.  ;)

So you won't take any political refugees, after the election, one way or another, in Canada?  :lol

 

Just bumping this because there were 6 pages of outrage and finger pointing and I have to ask....

...did ANY of these people actually show up? Were they even invited? Was this a BS story from the start?

How much actually did happen?  If anything.