Mike Love Meets Donald Trump

[Marty Castillo]

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?



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

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

[Emily]

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?



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

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

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

[18thofMay]

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?



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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?



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

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

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

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

[Marty Castillo]

So, who is endorsing who in this photo?



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

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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

Here is Mike's comment on Trump:

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

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

Cam, I pose several questions to you:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Emily]

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

[18thofMay]

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

[18thofMay]

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

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

Umm this photo is how old?

[Marty Castillo]

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

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

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

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

[Cam Mott]

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

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

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

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

+1

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18thofMay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

EXACTLY.

[Cam Mott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[18thofMay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, whats your point?

[18thofMay]

And what does Donald Trump "perform"?

[Marty Castillo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

[Cam Mott]

And what does Donald Trump "perform"?

An address given straight without notes or teleprompter.

[Cam Mott]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, whats your point?

Your thumbs aren't up.

[18thofMay]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, whats your point?

Your thumbs aren't up.

[CenturyDeprived]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[SurferDownUnder]

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.

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

[Emily]

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

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

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