He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Separately, I wish the federal government would take some action to protect the Pipeline protesters and reconsider at least the position of the Pipeline, if not the whole thing.

I believe that is the real reason why Trump ran for to become president, we know he's probably not as rich as he claims to be hence the refusal to release his tax returns. As Putin has shown and why Trump probably admires him is that being president is a great way to make yourself rich Putin is rumoured to be worth billions despite not being a businessman and in theory a public servant. Trump could give federal construction contracts to the Trump organization or promise permits to companies in exchange for buying real estate from the Trump organization or influence banks to give his companies more favourable lending terms but threatening them with investigations and new regulations the possibilities of how to make money are endless provided you don't care about ethics and just want to make as much money as possible. If Trump wasn't exceedingly wealthy before he came into the White House he will be once he leaves.

He has his own business - to liquidate that or to really blind-trust it would be appropriate and he should do it, but I can acknowledge it's a bigger deal than to put strict stock-and-bond investments into a trust, as most presidents have to do. However, so far, it doesn't appear that Trump's done that, or plans to do that even with his stock investments - for instance, he holds stock in multiple energy companies, including the a company that has 1/4 share of the Dakota Pipeline. Trump seems to be heading toward transparently using the presidency for personal enrichment, while president.

Separately, I wish the federal government would take some action to protect the Pipeline protesters and reconsider at least the position of the Pipeline, if not the whole thing.

I believe that is the real reason why Trump ran for president, we know he's probably not as rich as he claims to be hence the refusal to release his tax returns. As Putin has shown and why Trump probably admires him is that being president is a great way to make yourself rich Putin is rumoured to be worth billions despite not being a businessman and in theory a public servant. Trump could give federal construction contracts to the Trump organization or promise permits to companies in exchange for buying real estate from the Trump organization or influence banks to give his companies more favourable lending terms but threatening them with investigations and new regulations the possibilities of how to make money are endless provided you don't care about ethics and just want to make as much money as possible. If trump wasn't exceedingly wealthy before he came into the White House he will be once he leaves

After reading the above two pages of posts... a general thought for the masses.....with Mike having the license to tour, can BRI actually step in and  STOP a tour stop (whether it be in Las Cruces, New Mexico or a Trump inauguration stop).  I truly don't think any of us know if BRI can stop a show.  Whether it be a New Mexico promoter for a New Mexico show, or the Trump inauguration show in DC.  

So, for me, no I'm not a Trump fan.  In fact the thought galls me.  However, I'm not sure with the Beach Boys current structural apparatus, meaning BRI, can stop a DC show in January....  Unless there's fine print that none of us are aware of.   Just my thoughts

I believe if the other members felt so strongly about stopping Mike and Bruce playing they could take the nuclear option and threaten to remove Mike and Bruce's licence to tour. Without knowing what exactly is in the contract which gives Mike and Bruce the right to tour under the Beach Boys this is just speculation but I wouldn't be surprised if there is a clause which forbids Mike and Bruce from playing a concert which could bring the Beach Boys name into disrepute for example if they were to play a gig for the KKK. There's probably a further clause which would render the contact null and void if they were to do so. Obviously playing for Trump is not the same as playing for KKK but it is something that could bring the Beach Boys brand into disrepute. It could ultimately be a battle for the lawyers if the other members felt strongly against it and Mike and Bruce were for it. Would they risk a lawsuit and potential loss of the touring name just to play one gig no matter how prestigious from their point of view?

I actually feel that this is a legitimate question we know Trump likes the Beach Boys and the Beach Boys have played for him before at a private party. Everyone knows Mike and Bruce definitely lean Republican and would be more than happy to play if asked but would the other BRI members be so willing to let them do so given Trump's recent behavior? On the one hand playing at the presidential  inauguration would be a huge honor which would also gain them a lot of exposure if they were asked to do so. However given that Donald Trump is already likely the most divisive president in American history, should they risk alienating a very large existing set of fans and potential new fans by doing so? I know they've previously played for Reagan but this is a different kettle of fish in which I could see the other BRI members potentially vetoing playing the inauguration. Would they be likely to and do they have the power to do so by potentially threatening to withhold naming rights if they went ahead with playing the inauguration? Maybe I'm being naive but I don't want this to turn into a Pro Trump or Trump bashing thread I just want to know what people think makes the most business sense to do if they were asked to play.

No, no, no, no. And no.  They should never play that inauguration. I dearly hope that the other shareholders of the band do *everything* possible to stop it from happening if it were to be a possibility.   Frankly, I think they would indeed try to stop it from happening.

And even for BB fans who like the orange moron who was elected, it should be an agreed-upon notion ( regardless of what candidate/ party you like)  that this would bring harm to the brand name, and is a bad idea.  "Fair" or not, it's a fact.

I agree but lets try and avoid insulting people's voting choices we don't want the thread locked. To play devil's advocate what I would say is that the majority of Beach Boys fans are the elder white population the majority of which did vote for Trump so there is a business argument that playing would help them generate more sales than they'd lose from a younger generation.

I actually feel that this is a legitimate question we know Trump likes the Beach Boys and the Beach Boys have played for him before at a private party. Everyone knows Mike and Bruce definitely lean Republican and would be more than happy to play if asked but would the other BRI members be so willing to let them do so given Trump's recent behavior? On the one hand playing at the presidential  inauguration would be a huge honor which would also gain them a lot of exposure if they were asked to do so. However given that Donald Trump is already likely the most divisive president in American history, should they risk alienating a very large existing set of fans and potential new fans by doing so? I know they've previously played for Reagan but this is a different kettle of fish in which I could see the other BRI members potentially vetoing playing the inauguration. Would they be likely to and do they have the power to do so by potentially threatening to withhold naming rights if they went ahead with playing the inauguration? Maybe I'm being naive but I don't want this to turn into a Pro Trump or Trump bashing thread I just want to know what people think makes the most business sense to do if they were asked to play.

Long time lurker new time joiner .  Let's start with some controversial or not points about how I feel about the Beach Boys

1. Carl was by far the best singer in the band just as how Dennis was the worst by far
2. Pet Sounds is a far better album than SMILE
3. Holland is vastly overrated as an album while Love You is genius
4. Mike Love's solo albums do contain some good moments and are not nearly as bad as people make out
5. Brian is completely responsible for SMILE not being completed
6. SMILE would be a critical favorite but would take decades to go platinum
7. Brian would be far healthier today had he quit the Beach Boys and gone solo in 1966/67
8. The Beach Boys would be just as successful if Mike Love never wrote any lyrics
9. Most of the problems between Mike and Brian were actually caused by Brian
10. Mike Love would have had zero success and be a complete unknown without Brian