gfxgfx
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
logo
 
gfx gfx
gfx
680598 Posts in 27600 Topics by 4068 Members - Latest Member: Dae Lims March 28, 2024, 08:30:34 PM
*
gfx*HomeHelpSearchCalendarLoginRegistergfx
gfxgfx
0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.       « previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 Go Down Print
Author Topic: Mike Love Meets Donald Trump  (Read 46422 times)
clack
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 537


View Profile
« Reply #100 on: June 01, 2016, 01:17:15 PM »

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")?
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 01:17:54 PM by clack » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #101 on: June 01, 2016, 01:29:55 PM »

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.
Logged
Heteronym
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 58



View Profile
« Reply #102 on: June 01, 2016, 01:43:03 PM »




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.

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  Grin)
Logged
HeyJude
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 10030



View Profile WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 01, 2016, 02:03:40 PM »

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")?

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.
Logged

THE BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE IS ON FACEBOOK!!! http://www.facebook.com/beachboysopinion - Check out the original "BEACH BOYS OPINION PAGE" Blog - http://beachboysopinion.blogspot.com/
Pretty Funky
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Online Online

Posts: 5855


View Profile
« Reply #104 on: June 01, 2016, 02:31:23 PM »

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).

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). 

About 2.15 in.

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

It was just a joke. Sure, being Mike it was pretty lame.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #105 on: June 01, 2016, 02:42:01 PM »

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")?

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.

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.  Wink  
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #106 on: June 01, 2016, 02:50:29 PM »

Be true to your Con... Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #107 on: June 01, 2016, 02:52:22 PM »

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")?

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.

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.  Wink  

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.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #108 on: June 01, 2016, 02:58:36 PM »

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")?

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.

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.  Wink  

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.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #109 on: June 01, 2016, 03:08:35 PM »

moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:07:58 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #110 on: June 01, 2016, 03:10:05 PM »

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")?

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.

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.  Wink  

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.   Wink

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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 03:20:19 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #111 on: June 01, 2016, 03:16:06 PM »

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")?
Depends where you get your numbers. An amalgam of wide scientific polls show his unfavorability higher than Clinton's by a significant margin.
Regarding partisanship, Trump is hardly your standard Republican of today or of history. I can't think of any presidential candidate who has actively and openly tried to pit Americans against each other to the degree that Trump has - that's divisive. Don't pretend that objections to Trump = objections to Republicans. The man makes me wistful for George W Bush, (who made me wistful for Dole, who made me wistful for George HW Bush. )
In any case, regardless of my wist, many many Republicans disavow Trump as a legit representative of their party. And Mike Love supporting Reagan or Bush is not the same as him supporting Trump.
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! 
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #112 on: June 01, 2016, 03:23:29 PM »

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")?

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.

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.  Wink  

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.   Wink

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 another 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 him, 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 one thing Mike certainly doesn't need is more ammunition for people to dislike him. It will make it that much harder for him to garner sympathy for things which he in some cases genuinely deserves sympathy for.
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.   Wink
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #113 on: June 01, 2016, 03:26:08 PM »

Trump IS the problem!

He was the guy pulling all the strings on the "corrupt politics" that he now decries. Roll Eyes
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #114 on: June 01, 2016, 03:31:59 PM »

Moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:09:06 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #115 on: June 01, 2016, 03:32:54 PM »


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.  


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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 03:51:06 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #116 on: June 01, 2016, 03:35:59 PM »

Moved to Campaign 2016 in Sandbox
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:10:23 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Female
Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #117 on: June 01, 2016, 03:46:55 PM »

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")?
Depends where you get your numbers. An amalgam of wide scientific polls show his unfavorability higher than Clinton's by a significant margin.
Regarding partisanship, Trump is hardly your standard Republican of today or of history. I can't think of any presidential candidate who has actively and openly tried to pit Americans against each other to the degree that Trump has - that's divisive. Don't pretend that objections to Trump = objections to Republicans. The man makes me wistful for George W Bush, (who made me wistful for Dole, who made me wistful for George HW Bush. )
In any case, regardless of my wist, many many Republicans disavow Trump as a legit representative of their party. And Mike Love supporting Reagan or Bush is not the same as him supporting Trump.

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. 


It's also obviously resonated with white supremacists.
http://fortune.com/donald-trump-white-supremacist-genocide/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/politics/donald-trump-supremacists.html?_r=0
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?

 
Logged
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #118 on: June 01, 2016, 03:47:32 PM »

CD! Cool
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #119 on: June 01, 2016, 03:48:59 PM »

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")?
Depends where you get your numbers. An amalgam of wide scientific polls show his unfavorability higher than Clinton's by a significant margin.
Regarding partisanship, Trump is hardly your standard Republican of today or of history. I can't think of any presidential candidate who has actively and openly tried to pit Americans against each other to the degree that Trump has - that's divisive. Don't pretend that objections to Trump = objections to Republicans. The man makes me wistful for George W Bush, (who made me wistful for Dole, who made me wistful for George HW Bush. )
In any case, regardless of my wist, many many Republicans disavow Trump as a legit representative of their party. And Mike Love supporting Reagan or Bush is not the same as him supporting Trump.

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
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #120 on: June 01, 2016, 03:49:49 PM »

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

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #121 on: June 01, 2016, 04:00:09 PM »



Out of respect for the on-topic nature of this thread, I will post my response in the campaign 2016 thread in the sandbox.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:12:05 PM by Emily » Logged
CenturyDeprived
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5749



View Profile
« Reply #122 on: June 01, 2016, 04:02:08 PM »

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

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.
« Last Edit: June 01, 2016, 04:03:45 PM by CenturyDeprived » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #123 on: June 01, 2016, 04:07:01 PM »

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.
Logged
The LEGENDARY OSD
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1948

luHv Estrangement Syndrome. It's a great thing!


View Profile
« Reply #124 on: June 01, 2016, 04:27:16 PM »

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.  Huh
Logged

myKe luHv, the most hated, embarrassing clown the world of music has ever witnessed.
gfx
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 Go Up Print 
gfx
Jump to:  
gfx
Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Page created in 2.851 seconds with 22 queries.
Helios Multi design by Bloc
gfx
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!