Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony? [Archive]

CarylB

29 Dec 2016, 16:53

This could be a big opportunity for Meat Loaf to get massive exposure around the world.

The vast amount of showbiz stars appear to be very negative to Trumps election success. Meat on the otherhand remained neutral in public. Meat has however been a big supporter of the Republican party in the past and coming from Texas is likely to be a Republican I suspect.

With Trump appearing to be desperate for a big name to perform should Meat Loaf offer his services?!

Meat doesn't need "a big opportunity" .. he IS a household name, may well have drawn a line under his touring career .. yet were he to announce one again would sell out venues .. and was very wise to refrain from comment during this US election. Your suspicions are irrelevant; Meat has voted both Democrat and Republican in the past, and who he votes for is up to him and no-one else's business. He has never been a "big supporter" publicly of any party; his one small foray into the arena when he appeared at one Romney rally in the previous election campaign brought him a tirade of rude abuse from some of his fans which upset him greatly.

You don't have to support the President to appear at an inauguration .. however this time it has starkly divided a nation, and I am not in the least surprised that the vast majority of artists don't want to touch it with a bargepole, because of the effect it would have on their fans .. people are not very good at allowing their idols to have opinions that differ to theirs.

So NO .. as I suspect you already expected. You have been on here long enough to know what happened in 2012, so I can only surmise at your reasons for starting this thread :!:

nightinr

29 Dec 2016, 17:09

Meat doesn't need "a big opportunity" .. he IS a household name, may well have drawn a line under his touring career .. yet were he to announce one again would sell out venues .. and was very wise to refrain from comment during this US election. Your suspicions are irrelevant; Meat has voted both Democrat and Republican in the past, and who he votes for is up to him and no-one else's business. He has never been a "big supporter" publicly of any party; his one small foray into the arena when he appeared at one Romney rally in the previous election campaign brought him a tirade of rude abuse from some of his fans which upset him greatly.

You don't have to support the President to appear at an inauguration .. however this time it has starkly divided a nation, and I am not in the least surprised that the vast majority of artists don't want to touch it with a bargepole, because of the effect it would have on their fans .. people are not very good at allowing their idols to have opinions that differ to theirs.

So NO .. as I suspect you already expected. You have been on here long enough to know what happened in 2012, so I can only surmise at your reasons for starting this thread :!:

There is no need to get so defensive Caryl!

Meat may actually no longer be a household name to the younger generations in the US. Recent US tours have been performed at relatively small venues unlike the arena shows in the UK.

I am just suggesting if his health allows this will give him some publicity to the worldwide market.

nikox1

29 Dec 2016, 17:17

There is no need to get so defensive Caryl!

Meat may actually no longer be a household name to the younger generations in the US. Recent US tours have been performed at relatively small venues unlike the arena shows in the UK.

I am just suggesting if his health allows this will give him some publicity to the worldwide market.

I do see your point to a degree, but i think Caryl stated some very good points.
And i cant see people going out to buy Meat Loaf albums because he sang a song on that disturbed individuals big night.

CarylB

29 Dec 2016, 17:30

... but i think Caryl stated some very good points.
And i cant see people going out to buy Meat Loaf albums because he sang a song on that disturbed individuals big night.

Thank you ;) Pointing out what should be obvious is hardly defensive.

Meat is hardly at a point in his career where he has particular need to attract "younger generations in the US" .. and certainly doesn't imo need to grasp this particular poisoned chalice

nightinr

29 Dec 2016, 18:30

Thank you ;) Pointing out what should be obvious is hardly defensive.

Meat is hardly at a point in his career where he has particular need to attract "younger generations in the US" .. and certainly doesn't imo need to grasp this particular poisoned chalice

The audience is likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not topping a billion so maybe worth some consideration?

Caryl I find your tone towards me quite patronising. We're not living in North Korea people can have different opinions.

nikox1

29 Dec 2016, 19:48

The audience is likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not topping a billion so maybe worth some consideration?

Caryl I find your tone towards me quite patronising. We're not living in North Korea people can have different opinions.

Im not getting involved between you and Caryl, if you feel she is doing this? Fair enough but i dont see it myself.
Again i understand what you are pointing out, but i dont see how it would help Meat? Could he plug the album?

MarkS

29 Dec 2016, 20:11

No. I have no problem with Trump or with anyone that wants to perform at the inauguration, good for them.

But, Meat's voice needs no where near that level of scrutiny. If the AFL debacle was bad, this would be that times 100, the live voice just is not up to par anymore.

nightinr

29 Dec 2016, 20:15

Yep fair point Mark. As much as we all love Meat we have to be honest and say his voice has been in decline for 15 years.

If he mimed like he has done on several TV shows he would get criticism for that as well.

AndrewG

29 Dec 2016, 20:24

Julie in the rv mirror

29 Dec 2016, 20:36

When all the cool kids wouldn't come to my party, I said I never would have invited them anyway.

CarylB

29 Dec 2016, 21:18

The audience is likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not topping a billion so maybe worth some consideration?

I disagree for the reasons I have given

Caryl I find your tone towards me quite patronising. We're not living in North Korea people can have different opinions.

Really? Sorry you choose to feel that way. You asked the question in the first place. I merely expressed my opinion. That it is frequently different to yours should by now be no surprise, and I do so precisely because we are not in N Korea, and I am entitled to hold it

Just as I do not agree that Meat's voice has been on the decline for 15 years. I have attended many concerts where he has been on superb form during that time.

I would agree that his physical fitness, given he is still recovering from back surgery, would be another reason to preclude his attending .. but stand by the fact that it would be a poisoned chalice to take anyway on this occasion.

loaferman61

29 Dec 2016, 22:24

The answer is if Meat wants to and was feeling up to it. As far as I know the band is not doing anything Meat Loaf related at the moment. I also feel like that if Meat did this and no matter how good it was he would get nothing but scorn for doing it from the media and a lot of fans. Plus Jim would probably faint at the idea of his songs being done.

Typically in the US it is considered fine for people in the performing industry to appear for one party's candidates, yet career suicide to appear for the other party. I assume this is because the performer's politics lean that direction and certainly their bosses must approve or they wouldn't risk it.

The way the world is today - much due to the internet- people are so venomous about any little issue that if I were a performer I would be totally apolitical in public.

nightinr

29 Dec 2016, 23:48

I disagree for the reasons I have given

Really? Sorry you choose to feel that way. You asked the question in the first place. I merely expressed my opinion. That it is frequently different to yours should by now be no surprise, and I do so precisely because we are not in N Korea, and I am entitled to hold it

Just as I do not agree that Meat's voice has been on the decline for 15 years. I have attended many concerts where he has been on superb form during that time.

I would agree that his physical fitness, given he is still recovering from back surgery, would be another reason to preclude his attending .. but stand by the fact that it would be a poisoned chalice to take anyway on this occasion.

I'm amazed that you think Meat's voice has not detoriated Caryl? If you listened to some of Meat's performances in the 80's, 90's on youtube you will see his incredible power he use to have in his live vocals. I think even Meat has admitted his vocals aren't what they once were.

NightAngel

30 Dec 2016, 00:09

Meat has chosen to not publicly speak about his politics.. why would we need to speculate.

That is Meats business.

Adje

30 Dec 2016, 00:11

I thought Bocceli was going to perform?

Monstro

30 Dec 2016, 00:15

The question..................

With Trump appearing to be desperate for a big name to perform should Meat Loaf offer his services?!

And the answer........................................

The audience is likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not topping a billion so maybe worth some consideration?

As much as we all love Meat we have to be honest and say his voice has been in decline for 15 years.

If he mimed like he has done on several TV shows he would get criticism for that as well.

I think even Meat has admitted his vocals aren't what they once were.

Didn't need us at all then

AndrewG

30 Dec 2016, 00:40

I thought Bocceli was going to perform?

He isn't, exactly for the reasons which Loaferman pointed to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/andrea-bocelli-backs-away-trump-inauguration-much-heat-fans/

Although I don't think any celeb needs to perform at this event like I said, a bunch of whining snowflaky assholes starting a hashtag #boycottbocelli against an amazing singer who has battled blindness and done tons of charitable work throughout his life is very sad and completely pathetic.

Yes even the "cool" kids are capable of bullying, in fact I would argue they do it more than the uncool kids.

Maybe the uncool kids are really the cool ones....

Wario

30 Dec 2016, 00:49

Meat should, the audience would be huge.

And even if it sucks, hell overshadow Trump. Id rather have Meat on the news good or bad. No way wed treat him like Australia did.

CarylB

30 Dec 2016, 00:57

No way wed treat him like Australia did.

And how did many of you treat him when he appeared at Romney's rally?

nikox1

30 Dec 2016, 01:03

Its not happening anyway, so who cares?

CarylB

30 Dec 2016, 01:15

I'm amazed that you think Meat's voice has not detoriated Caryl? If you listened to some of Meat's performances in the 80's, 90's on youtube you will see his incredible power he use to have in his live vocals. I think even Meat has admitted his vocals aren't what they once were.

You said "his voice has been in decline for 15 years." I disagreed. I don't need to listen on YT; I attended many of Meat's performances in the 80s and 90s .. and almost all tours since then. Storytellers, Night of the Proms, Having Fun, CHSIB (if you missed the first show after his WPWS surgery, you missed an amazing vocal performance), even Hair of the Dog tours were great. His voice began to show weakness as the vocal cyst developed (although he was still magnificent at the RAH) .. and when it healed he came back strongly in Casa de Carne and Hang Cool. Has his voice altered? Yes, of course; it would be unreasonable to expect it to remain constantly the same over 40 years. But to suggest it has been "in decline for 15 years" is not something I agree with .. and Last at Bat 3 years ago was superb, and showed just how much power and strength he still had.

nightinr

30 Dec 2016, 01:15

Meat should, the audience would be huge.

And even if it sucks, hell overshadow Trump. Id rather have Meat on the news good or bad. No way wed treat him like Australia did.

You know what they say..... "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

nikox1

30 Dec 2016, 01:23

The voice thing has been i guess an ongoing talking point for years now.
Hes almost 70 people, of course its changed. Lost power? No, range and delivery? Maybe. But i honestly think its that the songs are so difficult to sing, and they require so much. Meat is still a good singer, is he still great? I dont know. But without question one of the greatest live performers in history

nightinr

30 Dec 2016, 01:23

You said "his voice has been in decline for 15 years." I disagreed. I don't need to listen on YT; I attended many of Meat's performances in the 80s and 90s .. and almost all tours since then. Storytellers, Night of the Proms, Having Fun, CHSIB (if you missed the first show after his WPWS surgery, you missed an amazing vocal performance), even Hair of the Dog tours were great. His voice began to show weakness as the vocal cyst developed (although he was still magnificent at the RAH) .. and when it healed he came back strongly in Casa de Carne and Hang Cool. Has his voice altered? Yes, of course; it would be unreasonable to expect it to remain constantly the same over 40 years. But to suggest it has been "in decline for 15 years" is not something I agree with .. and Last at Bat 3 years ago was superb, and showed just how much power and strength he still had.

Don't get me wrong Caryl I go to every Meat tour and love his performances and of course would go to another show if there was to be one. I just think we have to be realistic to say his vocals aren't what they once were.

nightinr

30 Dec 2016, 01:24

loaferman61

30 Dec 2016, 01:40

He isn't, exactly for the reasons which Loaferman pointed to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/news/andrea-bocelli-backs-away-trump-inauguration-much-heat-fans/

Although I don't think any celeb needs to perform at this event like I said, a bunch of whining snowflaky assholes starting a hashtag #boycottbocelli against an amazing singer who has battled blindness and done tons of charitable work throughout his life is very sad and completely pathetic.

Yes even the "cool" kids are capable of bullying, in fact I would argue they do it more than the uncool kids.

Maybe the uncool kids are really the cool ones....

Did anyone who appeared for Mr. Obama receive a "backlash"? Yet if any even think about appearing for Mr. Trump the haters come out of the woodwork seeking blood.
As said already, with Meat it isn't going to happen so kind of a moot issue.

anotherday

30 Dec 2016, 01:46

No. Not just no but hell no.

CarylB

30 Dec 2016, 02:00

Did anyone who appeared for Mr. Obama receive a "backlash"? Yet if any even think about appearing for Mr. Trump the haters come out of the woodwork seeking blood.
As said already, with Meat it isn't going to happen so kind of a moot issue.

Performers have appeared at inauguration events for a long time, without backlash. Meat has appeared for both Republican and Democrat inaugurations in the past with none; it's always been viewed as a professional paid engagement which does not signify any particular level of personal support. This time it's different though .. the country (even the world) far more divided .. but as you say .. a moot issue. I would have thought by now he'd have long been asked (he was on CA, so could hardly be described as off Trump's radar) and in that case declined .. any acceptance from anyone vaguely well known would surely be loudly heralded by the Trump team.

stretch37

30 Dec 2016, 02:26

Why is this even a conversation?

I have a pot of soup on that I'm going to go stir soon and eat. No Joke. But I find this thread relate-able.

rockfenris2005

30 Dec 2016, 05:46

No, I don't think it's a good idea, also because it'll just be like last time with that other guy, and I remember that. Gawd no. History has repeated itself enough already for me too.

Wario

30 Dec 2016, 08:32

And how did many of you treat him when he appeared at Romney's rally?

That wasnt regally huge ratings like AFL was or this would be

nightinr

30 Dec 2016, 13:32

Although not a Trump fan myself I do recognise that he was democratically elected.

It is easy to look in from the outside thousands of miles away, however everybody's economic and social situation is different.

I would never patronise the American public and make out they are crazy for electing Trump. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

With this in mind the "silent majority" that elected Trump would probably love to see a southern boy from Texas like Meat perform!

Wario

01 Jan 2017, 12:00

Anything Meat would do would be better than what we witnessed with Miriah

YOU SING EVEN IF THERES PRE RECORDED VOCALS. take a page from Meat

glockenspiel

01 Jan 2017, 16:16

Still of the opinion that the 'Guilty Pleasures' DVD should have marked the official end of his live work -- so it's a 'No' from me ....

Evil One

01 Jan 2017, 16:21

With the benefit of hindsight there should have been a DVD of the Last At Bat tour. Meat was much better than on Guilty Pleasure. :shrug:

stretch37

01 Jan 2017, 21:54

Still of the opinion that the 'Guilty Pleasures' DVD should have marked the official end of his live work -- so it's a 'No' from me ....

The problem with that DVD is that it did not reflect his touring since 2010. The Hang Cool Tour sounded great, Meat was amazing. Then the AFL happened, and IMO ~~~~ed with his head. Plus his vocal chord issue, which may or may not have been caused by that extreme stress.

HOnestly, I want a DVD of the Hang Cool Tour. Meat sounded phenomenal. His high end was still very much intact. I'm not sure i'd want a DVD of Last At Bat. I've listened to every bootleg, and Meat sounded really great on his low register, and emotionally was all there, but by that time, his highest notes were being supported by small bits of backing track (Eg. The end of bat), and there was a noticeable weakening that had started around the AFL issue. I've said it before, but I don't think Meat's performances have been the same since then...Not that they're "Bad", just that he might have really hurt his voice forcing himself through those shows with his bleeding vocal chord and all that stress.

The hang cool tour shows I saw in January of 2011, unfortunately I got no video because they were so good. Meat acted like he was 40 years old again, stalked the stage, ran, sang his ~~~~ing ass off. I want to re-live that. That was Meat Loaf in a late stage renaissance.

AndrewG

10 Jan 2017, 19:51

loaferman61

10 Jan 2017, 23:52

As if Charlotte Church would have been asked to sing at the inauguration.

I don't think so!

I could imagine Katherine Jenkins would be asked but anyone of any lesser celeb status seems totally unlikely. You can find better singers than Charlotte Church who don't carry a constant political agenda.

Several of these celeb / political singers seem to be digging themselves a career ending grave trying to use the Trump thing ("No I will not perform for a 'tyrant'") as a platform to stay relevant.

Such nonsense.

Agreed. These "celebrities" want to tell us how to live our lives while they make speeches obviously looking down their noses at us poor slobs who would only have MMA fights to watch if it wasn't for them while they rake in huge money. It is an insult to their audiences and it is going to hurt them, but lucky for them they already got theirs.

Meat needs to just concentrate on feeling well again. If he wants to act again he would need to stay away anyhow because the reprisals from the production people would be a thing because people like them are that petty. They talk accepting everyone but obviously it is gross hypocrisy.

Anyone know the demographics of Meryl Streep's neighborhood not counting the help?

Jayd

11 Jan 2017, 00:05

No, Trump is a moron IMO, and he doesn't need to be associated with his circus

mindnick1

11 Jan 2017, 01:12

Good grief NO!!!

melon

11 Jan 2017, 03:21

No way wed treat him like Australia did.

Yeah..... right..... somehow I doubt that.

anotherday

11 Jan 2017, 03:37

TRUMP GOT.....

R. KELLY.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLOL

Julie in the rv mirror

11 Jan 2017, 04:12

TRUMP GOT.....

R. KELLY.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLOL

Birds of a feather, I guess.

anotherday

11 Jan 2017, 06:50

Birds of a feather, I guess.

*mutters something about golden showers and runs out of the chat room*

loaferman61

11 Jan 2017, 16:52

*mutters something about golden showers and runs out of the chat room*

In the interest of accuracy, that claim originated on 4 Chan as a troll. The "legitimate" news media got had.
http://imgur.com/euJS87B

AndrewG

11 Jan 2017, 17:30

In the interest of accuracy, that claim originated on 4 Chan as a troll. The "legitimate" news media got had.
http://imgur.com/euJS87B

The loony liberal media happily spreads this tosh but never thoroughly questioned Hillary on the fact she surrounded herself by total creeps and dangerously incompetent people such as Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin, John Podesta (who used Gmail for all his work emails and couldn't even use a good password on there or his Twitter account) and then there's her husband Bill Clinton.

They all tagged along till the Hillary ship rightfully sank.

http://media.mlxxfc.net/knockknock.jpg

loaferman61

11 Jan 2017, 17:55

AndrewG

11 Jan 2017, 18:19

This was an epic troll such as legends are made of. Amazing how many supposedly "credible" people totally fell for it. Believing the mainstream media doesn't report "fake news" is amazing. I'm still glad Meat stayed away for his health (doubt he was asked formally).

Indeed.
Going by what Meat wrote on Facebook recently, having had spinal fusion, he wouldn't be able to do this regardless.

But even if he were physically fit, I'd hate to see him being torn down by the media and its followers based on what they would see as association and agreement of each and every single one of Trump's words, statements and policies rather than just a song performance at a celebration.

Regarding the fake news thing, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the stuff is simply released by Trump's associates themselves to show how stupid the media now are and to perhaps incentivise them to sort themselves out.

AndrewG

11 Jan 2017, 19:47

CNN is just trash now. I used to think Fox News was propaganda, but it is clearly the other way around now.

Fox News: "TRUMP PRESS CONFERENCE
Announces plan to hand control
of business empire to his sons; names Veterans Affairs nominee"

CNN "I think it was Russia"

Which headline matters to the American people? The one informing people what happened (ie press conference) and a probable change in policy for a large group of people (veterans affairs nominee) or the one trying to stir up shit with a foreign country.
I have websites that were hacked by what appeared to be Russian hackers too (attempts). That doesn't mean that I think all Russians are bad people or that Vladimir Putin wants to take down my tiny empire. Come on now CNN!

Pathetic. Rightfully silenced during the press conference. CNN deserve to have their White House credentials taken away.

A news organisation that happily reposts fake articles coming from a click bait organisation or just runs with out of context propaganda is not a news organisation imo.
The fact that comments have been disabled on CNN shows also there is no room for criticism within their organisation. Dangerous and stupid. I do hope they can reform but I doubt it.

tonyloaf

11 Jan 2017, 19:48

He won't play

proctorloaf

12 Jan 2017, 01:20

NO!

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 00:29

This was an epic troll such as legends are made of. Amazing how many supposedly "credible" people totally fell for it. Believing the mainstream media doesn't report "fake news" is amazing.
Yeah, except there isn't much evidence that 4chan perpetrated the troll, either, except for 4chan saying they did. Supposedly, those documents had been circulating for months, allowing for the possibility that someone came across them and posted as such on 4chan, as opposed to the other way around.

Which headline matters to the American people? The one informing people what happened (ie press conference) and a probable change in policy for a large group of people (veterans affairs nominee) or the one trying to stir up shit with a foreign country.
What really matters is what didn't happen, in that he didn't answer the question, which was whether anyone from his organization had any dealings with the Russians prior to the election. Instead, he shut down one reporter (laughable for him to call anyone "rude"), and deflected when asked a similar question by a different reporter. If he had any guts and/or nothing to hide, he would have answered the question.

Pathetic. Rightfully silenced during the press conference. CNN deserve to have their White House credentials taken away.

No, what's pathetic is the way he spinelessly labelled CNN as "fake news" (social media buzzword of the day) to avoid answering a serious allegation. He's going to need to come up with a new strategy going forward, because he's not going to keep getting away with it. This scandal is just getting started, and he's not even in office yet.

AndrewG

13 Jan 2017, 01:37

What really matters is what didn't happen, in that he didn't answer the question, which was whether anyone from his organization had any dealings with the Russians prior to the election. Instead, he shut down one reporter (laughable for him to call anyone "rude"), and deflected when asked a similar question by a different reporter. If he had any guts and/or nothing to hide, he would have answered the question.

I disagree with the notion that he doesn't have guts. I find it quite a weak argument. He could have just retired with his billions in the bank and avoided all this so called outrage. I personally think that takes far less guts than what he is doing now. I believe Meat Loaf when he calls Trump a smart guy. If Trump had very dodgy dealings to hide beyond his cheeky mouth I doubt he would have run for presidency. Hillary was inside the political sphere for decades and consumed by it and couldn't do anything else. Julian Assange's assessment of her was very interesting to hear.

No, what's pathetic is the way he spinelessly labelled CNN as "fake news" (social media buzzword of the day) to avoid answering a serious allegation. He's going to need to come up with a new strategy going forward, because he's not going to keep getting away with it. This scandal is just getting started, and he's not even in office yet.
CNN and all the American intelligence agencies have been made into political footballs over the last few decades. The liberals pretty much owned them for a long time. I think this is now going to change. And rightfully so I would say. This is simply a last ditch attempt by the liberal establishment (in collusion with Ted Turner's news network and indeed the intelligence agencies) at overturning the inevitable. You only have to look at the long list of things that have been tried to see it is part of... indeed a list. Pussygate, Russia collusion, Russia hacking, Jill Stein recount bollox only in narrow states that Trump won (even though she was initially favouring Trump over Hillary), calling the electors to go against Trump, Meryl Streep shite, final bizarre accusations and inevitable protests on inauguration day. Imagine if all that wasted energy had been put to some good use like people take some healthy dance lessons or trying to play an instrument or whatever.

Adje

13 Jan 2017, 02:02

I believe Meat Loaf when he calls Trump a smart guy.
In all honestly, what is the value to that? Ted Bundy was a very smart person, so was that German guy who started WW2. Smart is not the issue. What you do with that intelligence is what matters. And Trump, as far as I looked into matters, has used his smartness to get out of lawsuits, going bankrupt enough times to be able to let others care for the misery while he could start over again, denying truth, lying to almost everyone around and getting away with it. That, I must admit is very clever. Indeed a very smart guy.

I am not going to respond any further on the issue but I want to point out following

Trump is, and only if you are ignorant you will deny, a narcissistic person. Everything Trump does has one purpose: Trump.

The only reason Trump went for the Presidency is the title PRESIDENT Trump.

I almost feel sorry for the people who believe otherwise. The coming months, years there might be a lot of skeletons coming out of his closet although Trump has a history of dodging the bullet by throwing money (and now that he is President I am sure many favours) around.

And I didn't expect Trump fans to be bigger whiners than the Clinton people. But wow. Trump has lied his entire campagn, insulted people of different backgrounds and all the Trump people did was applaude him for it. Now that it's the other way around (and I am curious what truth lies behind the accusations) the Trumpies are crying like little bitches because it is sooooo unnnn-faaaaiiirrrrrr.

Election is over and this is what the outcome is. Move on I say. But when I see people defend one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally I just can shake my head.

Anyway, just to answer to OP. Meat Loaf is not able to persorm in any form for any event. So no. If he was healthy, should he do it? It is simple, it is his decision. And I hope it is based on what he believes in. I think Trump is a threat for society, equality and morality, so I would not perform. If you don't see it my way or don't have an issue with these points, knock yourself out.

lorenzoduke

13 Jan 2017, 03:29

You don't have to support the President to appear at an inauguration .. however this time it has starkly divided a nation, and I am not in the least surprised that the vast majority of artists don't want to touch it with a bargepole, because of the effect it would have on their fans .. people are not very good at allowing their idols to have opinions that differ to theirs.

Actually I'd say - and keep in mind I do so from down here among the 'people', the wallowing silly ignorant pigs of fandom - that the problem we actually have is entertainer's selling out the goodwill they've earned from fans for producing music and entertainment in order to take a pious and patronising position of using said goodwill, fame and name in order to suggest to people which way to vote. Musicians are musicians and we like them for their music. A person using these things - of which their fanbase is certainly a part of building - to endorse a candidate one year and then say 'my political beliefs are none of your business' the next seems a little disingenuous. If someone wants to keep their political beliefs private, seems to me drawing attention to them in a hugely public way might be an ill advised move.

That said, the McCain incident seems to have been largely and mercifully forgotten and I doubt Meat will appear at the inauguration unless for some reason he's grown tired of royalty checks and curious what a few thousand copies of Bat Out Of Hell would look like on a bonfire.

lorenzoduke

13 Jan 2017, 03:33

You know what they say..... "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

Australian sales of recent albums would seem to suggest otherwise.

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 03:48

He could have just retired with his billions in the bank and avoided all this so called outrage.
He could have, but I think he enjoys running his empire too much for that. And honestly, I don't find anything wrong with that. But then he shouldn't have run for President, which, contrary to his megalomaniacal ravings, is a full-time job in itself. He's deluded if he actually thinks people are gullible enough (well, maybe some are) to believe that he won't discuss his business dealings with his sons. And, while it might be perfectly legal for him to simply put them in charge, it's not very ethical.

Personally, I don't think he ever really believed he could actually win, he just hated the Clintons that much.

As I said in my previous post, this is not going to just go away, and he's not going to get very far by constantly attacking the media, however right or wrong they might be.

Trump is, and only if you are ignorant you will deny, a narcissistic person. Everything Trump does has one purpose: Trump.

The only reason Trump went for the Presidency is the title PRESIDENT Trump.

I almost feel sorry for the people who believe otherwise.
Adje, I think your entire post was well-said, but especially this. Even if someone agrees with his policies, I don't understand how people can deny that his behavior isn't normal. His presidency is bound to implode at some point, I just hope too much damage isn't done before then.

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 04:07

AndrewG

13 Jan 2017, 04:17

He's deluded if he actually thinks people are gullible enough (well, maybe some are) to believe that he won't discuss his business dealings with his sons. And, while it might be perfectly legal for him to simply put them in charge, it's not very ethical.

The point is the media does not care about that fact or scrutinises this even though the press event was supposed to be about exactly that handover indeed. Instead they are going after another wild goose chase in my opinion. Perhaps it is helping Trump how the media are behaving. Buzz Feed is a load of clickbait crap. There is too much of this in the media now. "LOOK AT THIS" etc... rather than working on scrutinising important policies and deals.

Personally, I don't think he ever really believed he could actually win, he just hated the Clintons that much.

I thought this at one point but several things he said and policies he ran on went against exactly that. He could have run on a far more watered down ticket such as Romney did. He needed the controversy to win and he admitted that helped several times and he seems to believe this controversy to some extent is what is needed to help the USA. The Mexico wall thing to me doesn't sound crazy even if it is perceived as "controversial". Stronger borders would be needed if you don't want California to become part of Mexico over the next 50 years. People such as the pope can say "We should build bridges now" all they want. But I do not see them tearing down the walls of the Vatican or people leaving their front doors open at night etc.

His presidency is bound to implode at some point, I just hope too much damage isn't done before then.
I reckon in less than 4 years you will get to do this all again with Trump and perhaps Bill De Blasio or Elizabeth Warren or so as Democrat candidate. ;)

AndrewG

13 Jan 2017, 04:27

And I didn't expect Trump fans to be bigger whiners than the Clinton people. But wow. Trump has lied his entire campagn, insulted people of different backgrounds and all the Trump people did was applaude him for it. Now that it's the other way around (and I am curious what truth lies behind the accusations) the Trumpies are crying like little bitches because it is sooooo unnnn-faaaaiiirrrrrr.

It would be unfortunate if the new president to be would be involved in a string of affairs that are illegal. But if he is indeed he should be charged and dealt with accordingly. I wouldn't personally shed a tear at all over this.
I do hope however that you would also have reacted negatively if Hillary won and more information regarding her dodgy email deletion or dodgy Clinton Foundation stuff etc had come to light and would most likely have been pardoned by Obama. ;)

Election is over and this is what the outcome is. Move on I say. But when I see people defend one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally I just can shake my head.

I think you will be ending up with a concussion for every person you disagree with then. :twisted:

lorenzoduke

13 Jan 2017, 05:11

I know this isn't exactly the same thing you're referring to, but in general terms, do you think artists shouldn't speak out (including through their music) when they perceive injustice, just because some portion of their fanbase won't agree? Music in particular, IMO, can be an effective form of protest. I think it's a slippery slope to try to silence artists from speaking out.

What injustice was McCain trying to address exactly? The fact that he only had one elevator for his cars? I jest.

No, if a musician wants to use their position to trumpet their political stance they're welcome to go for it. They're also welcome to face the consequences and their fans are under no obligation to like it. It's the idea that certain people should be given a platform where they are beyond reproach - where they can stand up and say 'hey fans! Look where I am! Look who I'm singing for! Vote for this guy!' and we all have to go 'oh, well, crumbs, I shouldn't say anything negative about that because I might offend the person who just asked for my attention".

I don't think anyone on the planet has the right to be deliberately divisive, deliberately air their views and then be immune to any responses that are less than positive. Luckily very few people think that's true. Very few.

To get back to your original point, I don't think politics and rock n' roll mix and I don't enjoy overtly political artists but that's of course just personal preference.

Adje

13 Jan 2017, 05:20

It would be unfortunate if the new president to be would be involved in a string of affairs that are illegal. But if he is indeed he should be charged and dealt with accordingly. I wouldn't personally shed a tear at all over this.
I do hope however that you would also have reacted negatively if Hillary won and more information regarding her dodgy email deletion or dodgy Clinton Foundation stuff etc had come to light and would most likely have been pardoned by Obama. ;)

I like you so I am breaking my word and reply one more time.

You are missing a valuable point here, I think. I don't think many people disagree that Trump is a narcissistic person. And everybody knows how emotional and unfundamentally he reacts to news regarding himself. And nobody seems to be able to tame him. So if there is blackmail-worthy information out there (I have no clue if any of the leaked info contains any truth to it), you should worry. Because Trump will do anything to protect himself. And when a person like that get's pushed in a corner he is the most likely to agree to, whatever demands.

I am not saying that this info exists, but I rather have Hillary Clinton being blackmailed as a President than Donald Trump. From Hillary I am 80+% certain she won't put the safety of her country on the line to keep it under wraps. With Trump I am not even 5% sure. So yes, I want it out there. Bogus info and real private info.

And you must know that I have been negative about Clinton, even during election. I think the Clintons are corrupt, I do believe she has her own agenda but I also have no doubts that, in her own way, she wanted to do, what she believes, is best for the country.

With Trump, and the last months after the election have not comforted me whatsoever, I don't think he thinks on behalf of the people of his country but on behalf of himself. If the history of mankind has learned us anything at all it is that those people are the most dangerous. Especially when they feel their backs are put against a wall.

I think you will be ending up with a concussion for every person you disagree with then. :twisted:
Ya, but I meant the people I know and respect. Luckily not many of them go there -people defending one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally- ;)

Listen I don't know how Trump will do as a President. But I am pretty sure how he reacts in stress situations. I know how easy he sacrifises people for his own benefit. I know how many of his businesses went bankrupt, how many of his projects have been -let's say it friendly- indecent and what he does to get out of the mess. He is not the kind of person that cares about the tragedy of others until he knows his own situation is safe.

I saw the names of his advisors and his cabinet. It is anything but comforting. I know the values I have to life, and this man doesn't share any of mine. So I am worried. He has a short fuse and it is the most unpredictable person to ever set food at a major position, during my lifetime of 44 years.

Anyway Andrew, this is my last post on the matter. I think Trump is a mistake. I think nothing good will come from it and I hope not too many bad things will lead from it. But voters put their hope up on a populist. And that has never been a smart choise in the past. So let's just pray the past doesn't catch up on us.

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 06:18

The point is the media does not care about that fact or scrutinises this even though the press event was supposed to be about exactly that handover indeed. Instead they are going after another wild goose chase in my opinion.
Oh, they care, and they'll address it, but the fact is that the allegations over Russian involvement is a much more serious issue at the moment, and they had to strike while the iron was hot. I'm sure it's no coincidence that the story became public the night before the press conference was to take place.

And this isn't only about the lurid sex allegations; there is information coming out that he might have received money from the Kremlin through his associates, and/or enlisted Russian assistance to obtain the information that was later used against Hillary.

Buzz Feed is a load of clickbait crap.
Of course it is! Trump should know this (although with his obsession with social media, I'm not really that sure), so his trying to conflate what they reported with what CNN reported (which was not exactly the same thing) is a diversionary tactic that might confuse some people.

CNN did not report the details of the dossier because it couldn't be verified; they only reported that Trump was briefed on it's existence, which he denies. Interestingly, because Buzz Feed is clickbait crap, they aren't held to the same standards of journalism, thus would be the perfect outlet for such type of information (were there any truth to it) to come to light. (Recall incidents where The National Enquirer broke stories that later turned out to be true.)

I'd also argue that Trump brought this on himself. I recall weeks ago him stating that he didn't need intelligence briefings because he was too smart for all that; now he's claiming that he wasn't informed.

I reckon in less than 4 years you will get to do this all again with Trump and perhaps Bill De Blasio or Elizabeth Warren or so as Democrat candidate. ;)
I really hope not, because I don't think I could go through all of this again!

It would be unfortunate if the new president to be would be involved in a string of affairs that are illegal. But if he is indeed he should be charged and dealt with accordingly. I wouldn't personally shed a tear at all over this.
I do hope however that you would also have reacted negatively if Hillary won and more information regarding her dodgy email deletion or dodgy Clinton Foundation stuff etc had come to light and would most likely have been pardoned by Obama. ;)
The Department of Justice has announced that they will be investigating the FBI in regards to the handling of the Clinton e-mail situation and how it was again brought to light right before the election (contrary to policy). There is evidence that the director was aware that Trump was being investigated in regards to possible involvement with the Russians and didn't make the information public prior to the election (obviously). I think that's information the voters had a right to know.

stretch37

13 Jan 2017, 06:51

I like you so I am breaking my word and reply one more time.

You are missing a valuable point here, I think. I don't think many people disagree that Trump is a narcissistic person. And everybody knows how emotional and unfundamentally he reacts to news regarding himself. And nobody seems to be able to tame him. So if there is blackmail-worthy information out there (I have no clue if any of the leaked info contains any truth to it), you should worry. Because Trump will do anything to protect himself. And when a person like that get's pushed in a corner he is the most likely to agree to, whatever demands.

I am not saying that this info exists, but I rather have Hillary Clinton being blackmailed as a President than Donald Trump. From Hillary I am 80+% certain she won't put the safety of her country on the line to keep it under wraps. With Trump I am not even 5% sure. So yes, I want it out there. Bogus info and real private info.

And you must know that I have been negative about Clinton, even during election. I think the Clintons are corrupt, I do believe she has her own agenda but I also have no doubts that, in her own way, she wanted to do, what she believes, is best for the country.

With Trump, and the last months after the election have not comforted me whatsoever, I don't think he thinks on behalf of the people of his country but on behalf of himself. If the history of mankind has learned us anything at all it is that those people are the most dangerous. Especially when they feel their backs are put against a wall.

Ya, but I meant the people I know and respect. Luckily not many of them go there -people defending one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally- ;)

Listen I don't know how Trump will do as a President. But I am pretty sure how he reacts in stress situations. I know how easy he sacrifises people for his own benefit. I know how many of his businesses went bankrupt, how many of his projects have been -let's say it friendly- indecent and what he does to get out of the mess. He is not the kind of person that cares about the tragedy of others until he knows his own situation is safe.

I saw the names of his advisors and his cabinet. It is anything but comforting. I know the values I have to life, and this man doesn't share any of mine. So I am worried. He has a short fuse and it is the most unpredictable person to ever set food at a major position, during my lifetime of 44 years.

Anyway Andrew, this is my last post on the matter. I think Trump is a mistake. I think nothing good will come from it and I hope not too many bad things will lead from it. But voters put their hope up on a populist. And that has never been a smart choise in the past. So let's just pray the past doesn't catch up on us.

Hands down, best thing I have read on Trump vs Hilary in months. This actually made me somewhat relieved. After watching some video from people in other countries describing the situation, and reading this, I am relieved that others can see this situation with clarity. At least many, many people can, even if the US voters could not avoid this outcome in 2016...

Bravo Ad.

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 06:56

What injustice was McCain trying to address exactly? The fact that he only had one elevator for his cars? I jest.

No, if a musician wants to use their position to trumpet their political stance they're welcome to go for it. They're also welcome to face the consequences and their fans are under no obligation to like it. It's the idea that certain people should be given a platform where they are beyond reproach - where they can stand up and say 'hey fans! Look where I am! Look who I'm singing for! Vote for this guy!' and we all have to go 'oh, well, crumbs, I shouldn't say anything negative about that because I might offend the person who just asked for my attention".

I don't think anyone on the planet has the right to be deliberately divisive, deliberately air their views and then be immune to any responses that are less than positive. Luckily very few people think that's true. Very few.

To get back to your original point, I don't think politics and rock n' roll mix and I don't enjoy overtly political artists but that's of course just personal preference.
Thank you for answering honestly. ;) I wasn't suggesting (nor do I think that you thought I was) that artists should be immune from criticism for speaking out. I do, however disagree with those who say they should just "shut up and sing".

AndyK

13 Jan 2017, 12:26

There is an argument that Trump shouldn't even be at the forthcoming inauguration...

End if the day it's a political ceremony. I don't believe that any celebrity should be performing and therefore turning it into an entertainment show. (I'm trying to avoid using the phrase political circus even though to me and my beliefs it does seem to be turning into one)

To draw a parallel, it's like One Direction performing at the state opening of parliament just after the Queen's Speech. *shudder*

CarylB

13 Jan 2017, 16:09

Actually I'd say - and keep in mind I do so from down here among the 'people', the wallowing silly ignorant pigs of fandom - that the problem we actually have is entertainer's selling out the goodwill they've earned from fans for producing music and entertainment in order to take a pious and patronising position of using said goodwill, fame and name in order to suggest to people which way to vote. Musicians are musicians and we like them for their music. A person using these things - of which their fanbase is certainly a part of building - to endorse a candidate one year and then say 'my political beliefs are none of your business' the next seems a little disingenuous. If someone wants to keep their political beliefs private, seems to me drawing attention to them in a hugely public way might be an ill advised move.

Yes, that would be disengenuous, although Meat's stance was that he had a right to hold whatever belief he had back then (which is right imo), and on this occasion has simply avoided comment. Also, to be fair, he agreed on that occasion (I think the only occasion he has ever appeared at a rally, rather than an inauguration which is business rather than support) in return for a private meeting with the candidate to explore his concerns and the latter's intentions away from public statements

No, if a musician wants to use their position to trumpet their political stance they're welcome to go for it. They're also welcome to face the consequences and their fans are under no obligation to like it. It's the idea that certain people should be given a platform where they are beyond reproach - where they can stand up and say 'hey fans! Look where I am! Look who I'm singing for! Vote for this guy!' and we all have to go 'oh, well, crumbs, I shouldn't say anything negative about that because I might offend the person who just asked for my attention".

I don't think anyone on the planet has the right to be deliberately divisive, deliberately air their views and then be immune to any responses that are less than positive. Luckily very few people think that's true. Very few.

I agree .. although I think they should have to face reasoned argument rather than punishing hatred. I have given reasoned argument to people I know who support Trump; I do not vilify them as human beings, nor wiped them from my contact list. Had Meat publicly supported or endorsed Trump I would have been disappointed, I would perhaps have argued .. but that would not to me diminish the value of his work, and I would not have threatened to burn his albums, nor called him vile names. Artists, like anyone else, have a right to hold and express a view. We applaud them when they do this to draw attention to the plight of those we can all agree are in desperate need, to raise funding. I don't think we can reasonably heap hatred on them if their concern for their country's future inspires them to speak out, even if they are not on the side we favour, although they should be aware that they may well disappoint, even disaffect some of their fans.

You say you don't think rock and roll and politics mix. To me it's not so much whether they mix or not; everyone has the right to speak out on what they believe in, and like Julie I disagree with those who say they should just "shut up and sing"; but each has to accept the potential fall-out and make a wise judgement based on probabilities. I think one needs to be able to spot the contents of the chalice proffered. McCain's proved somewhat bitter .. this inaugural one is heavily poisoned.

CarylB

13 Jan 2017, 16:18

Adje, I agree with everything in your last post. I won't quote it all again, save this

With Trump, and the last months after the election have not comforted me whatsoever, I don't think he thinks on behalf of the people of his country but on behalf of himself. If the history of mankind has learned us anything at all it is that those people are the most dangerous. Especially when they feel their backs are put against a wall.

Yes. For the first time I find myself wishing I were 30 years older rather than younger, and could say "Oh well .. I'm on borrowed time now, so whatever happens I've had a bloody good innings".

loaferman61

13 Jan 2017, 17:11

No, what's pathetic is the way he spinelessly labelled CNN as "fake news" (social media buzzword of the day) to avoid answering a serious allegation. He's going to need to come up with a new strategy going forward, because he's not going to keep getting away with it. This scandal is just getting started, and he's not even in office yet.

https://youtu.be/BO-TyETzNO8
Link won't embed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html?_r=0

https://youtu.be/hbUQfhFj6ug

loaferman61

13 Jan 2017, 17:26

CarylB

13 Jan 2017, 18:06

PS Meat did appear at one inauguration fro George Bush in 2001.

Also for Bill Clinton. He's a professional artist .. both were business

CarylB

13 Jan 2017, 18:25

I don't think many people disagree that Trump is a narcissistic person. And everybody knows how emotional and unfundamentally he reacts to news regarding himself. And nobody seems to be able to tame him.

And this. We expect heads of state beyond tinpot dictatorships to have some level of gravitas. How on earth can any semblance of gravitas be achieved by a man with fingers flapping like a duck's ass on Twitter every time he feels criticised or slighted? ..

nightinr

13 Jan 2017, 19:04

ENOUGH, ENOUGH!! I know I created this thread but I think we've done US politics to death!

Can somebody create a new thread with some Meat related stuff!

loaferman61

13 Jan 2017, 20:42

ENOUGH, ENOUGH!! I know I created this thread but I think we've done US politics to death!

Can somebody create a new thread with some Meat related stuff!

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why did you just now reach this point? When the Trump slander was going strong nobody complained.

I personally would like to see politics and religion be off limits. Plenty of other boards for that.

Julie in the rv mirror

13 Jan 2017, 22:57

https://youtu.be/BO-TyETzNO8
Link won't embed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donna-brazile-wikileaks-cnn.html?_r=0

https://youtu.be/hbUQfhFj6ug

Oh, I'm not denying that there are problems with the media. My point is, he can't keep using that as an excuse to avoid answering questions that he doesn't like. Besides, how badly can they twist his words when he's speaking them on Live television?

Julie in the rv mirror

14 Jan 2017, 00:21

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why did you just now reach this point? When the Trump slander was going strong nobody complained.

I personally would like to see politics and religion be off limits. Plenty of other boards for that.
Politics are a huge issue right now, I think it's only natural that people want to talk about it.

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with discussing either, though I will admit that the off-topic section of the board might be a better place for it, so that people who don't wish to take part can avoid it. Here, though, not many people seem to venture into that section, so discussions don't tend to get started.

This comes back to something that was mentioned here a while ago, when someone asked how to get more discussion going on the forum. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot going on right now that's Meat-related, so if people still want to interact (which I'm all for, btw), they need to find something more to talk about.

Every message board out there has its own culture, and this is a great thing. The culture here (not a judgement, just an observation) is that people seem to be uncomfortable with disagreement, and some seem to be easily offended. There's nothing wrong with that, but when people are afraid to engage, for whatever reason, you limit conversation.

Every music-related message board that I'm on (aside from this one) that is still going relatively strong has an other music forum (which we do, though it's not very active) and a political forum. Of course, the problem that comes with discussing politics (and religion) is that it's an emotional subject that can get heated pretty quickly, and people do need to have a bit of a thick skin if you're going to wade into it. Compared to some places, the discussion here has actually been very civil, so I have to commend everyone for that. So, I think it's possible to have such discussions here and not have it go off the rails.

I'm not going to suggest we start a political forum, but maybe a general forum for current events would be of interest- just a thought. Maybe the "Life" section of the board would be sufficient if enough people start and/or contribute to topics. Or, maybe people have other things to do and just want all Meat, all the time. That's fine, too (though we're kind of talked-out there), though I think it's a missed opportunity, because I think people have a lot to say.

Anyway, I don't want to veer off topic any more (I'm used to some other boards where threads just flow where they go), but I just want to put it out there. I think we have a nice, though small community here, and I'd hate to see it just fade away.

CarylB

14 Jan 2017, 01:45

I think it would be naive to expect that a thread on this topic would not revolve around US politics; right down to the phrasing of the thread title .. ie not "Will Meat Loaf play", but "Should (he)", which invites opinion on whether he OUGHT to and thus the reasons for that opinion ;)

Politics are a huge issue right now, I think it's only natural that people want to talk about it.

Indeed .. and the US Presidency will affect all of us, far wider than the USA

Compared to some places, the discussion here has actually been very civil, so I have to commend everyone for that. So, I think it's possible to have such discussions here and not have it go off the rails.

I agree :-)

Julie in the rv mirror

14 Jan 2017, 05:20

nightinr

14 Jan 2017, 09:38

I do however think that we have to accept Trump has won through the democratic process. I would have preferred somebody else to win but that is life and let's all move on.

CarylB

14 Jan 2017, 10:23

I don't think anyone has suggested on this thread that they don't accept he has won (although I see some irony in a democratic process opening the door to what this winner seems to think is a theocracy) .. discussion has moved around people's fears (or in Andrew's case support) for what his inevitable Presidency might bring, and on the rights and wisdom of artists either supporting or opposing him, or indeed any political figure.

However, it's not like winning the 100 metres or a raffle is it? People can't simply move on after any election because the result will impact on their lives in some way. The winners need to be held to account, their decisions and actions observed; those they govern need to be vigilant, and if need be protest and exert pressure (a recent example in the UK was on disability benefit cuts). We don't always get the leaders we deserve, but if we roll over and accept anything they seek to introduce then we do deserve what they mete out

loaferman61

14 Jan 2017, 22:07

loaferman61

14 Jan 2017, 22:11

stretch37

14 Jan 2017, 22:14

I find it curious that most of this board which seems anti-Trump has now decided politics is a good topic. All through the Obama years there was hardly a peep. I do not see why - as we are constantly reminded a board dedicated to Meat Loaf (the old "his name is at the top" dead horse) now wants to turn political. Maybe I will have to start religious threads and see how that flies.

What do we have to talk about though? Meat's been sick, not like we'll get tons of great Meat Loaf news. Of course it turns to politics or current events. People just getting the conversation going is a normal thing in groups...

Just saw an Ad on NowThis on Facebook saying how repealing the affordable care act could result in a 9/11 level of deaths every month from people losing health care.

Crazy times we live in...

loaferman61

14 Jan 2017, 22:35

What do we have to talk about though? Meat's been sick, not like we'll get tons of great Meat Loaf news. Of course it turns to politics or current events. People just getting the conversation going is a normal thing in groups...

Just saw an Ad on NowThis on Facebook saying how repealing the affordable care act could result in a 9/11 level of deaths every month from people losing health care.

Crazy times we live in...

Based to a "study" by "The Urban Institute". That Facebook page has "don't leave us Obama" at the top.

nightinr

14 Jan 2017, 22:43

stretch37

14 Jan 2017, 23:03

Based to a "study" by "The Urban Institute". That Facebook page has "don't leave us Obama" at the top.

None of which I'm disputing. Yea, so its some left-leaning social media feed, so what?

The "Study" (http://www.techtimes.com/articles/192734/20170114/repealing-obamacare-will-result-in-36-000-deaths-each-year-claims-bernie-sanders.htm)has Bernie's support, so if you're far left learning, you'd probably support it just as wholeheartedly.

Anyways, I'm not far left leaning. I have my opinions, none of which I would I share much online.

But I do think that - coming from Canada, where if we have a curable illness, we most likely will live - that with 20 million people losing coverage overnight in the states (that's 2/3 of the population of Canada by the way), people will die. Of course they will. Many of them wont have any way to pay for their treatment...Their choice will be between draining their entire family's resources and being so in debt forever that they have no chance, and dying and letting their family have a future...

I'm not surprised that lawmakers aren't even attempting to make a new plan first for universal health care, then transition the people and phase out Obamacare. They've been so hell bent on killing Obamacare that they don't care, they just want it gone ASAP.

And you know, if universal health care that we have had in Canada my entire life was suddenly pulled out from under us, I can name off people - friends, family members - whose health and quality of life would immediately decrease. People I know and love would probably die far sooner by opting for no expensive treatments. So, it's kind of a big deal. And it does *not* take a massive amount of brain power to come to the conclusion that thousands each year MORE would die without universal health care.

CarylB

15 Jan 2017, 03:13

So let me get this straight. The POTUS is feared that he will spends his time on the rights of "artists". I would like that clarified before I address it.

Good, because that's not what I meant, and I think not what I said .. I referred to discussion turning to two things; one being fears about what his Presidency may bring, and the other on the rights and wisdom of artists coming out in support or opposition.

The majority of this thread mirrors why Trump got elected. The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is. This just puts off the silent majority who then are tempted to vote the opposite way. A similar thing happened in the UK over Brexit.

I don't agree that to be able to articulate one's views clearly implies that those who do think themselves "better", nor is it patronising, unless the reader chooses to grab that hat and shove it on their head .. in fact to claim this is a kind of inverted snobbery in itself imo, and diminishes both education and willingness to read, research, and to do one's best to inform oneself and to check out media articles against evidence one has seen and heard, against reports and studies etc. If the average is inarticulate we have a massive problem in education; when they are not prepared to read beyond headlines we have a ill-informed populace.

I think your comparison to Brexit is a massive over-simplification .. but will not drag this thread down that warren ;)

BostonAngel

15 Jan 2017, 04:10

Julie in the rv mirror

15 Jan 2017, 05:52

The majority of this thread mirrors why Trump got elected. The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is. This just puts off the silent majority who then are tempted to vote the opposite way. A similar thing happened in the UK over Brexit.
The last word I would use to describe myself is "elite", and I certainly don't think I'm any better than anyone else. I think the huge outcry over Trump's election has less to do with his policies and everything to do with Trump himself- people don't see him as being fit for the job- end of. I don't get why this seems so hard for some people to understand.

But I do think that - coming from Canada, where if we have a curable illness, we most likely will live - that with 20 million people losing coverage overnight in the states (that's 2/3 of the population of Canada by the way), people will die. Of course they will. Many of them wont have any way to pay for their treatment...Their choice will be between draining their entire family's resources and being so in debt forever that they have no chance, and dying and letting their family have a future...
My son is 22 years old. He had a surgery last year (he's fine, thankfully) that we would not have been able to afford were it not for the provision of Obamacare that allows him to remain on our insurance until he is 26. I'm concerned about what his situation is going to be in the near future, as his current job doesn't provide medical insurance.

I'm not surprised that lawmakers aren't even attempting to make a new plan first for universal health care, then transition the people and phase out Obamacare. They've been so hell bent on killing Obamacare that they don't care, they just want it gone ASAP.
That, to me, is the scariest part- they can't wait to get rid of it without first coming up with any kind of replacement plan.

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread with a real world example. As I think most people know, Bruce Springsteen has spoken out against Trump, and supported Hillary (though not nearly as strongly as he did Obama) during the campaign. It's been reported in the news (somewhat erroneously) that The B Street Band, a Springsteen tribute act, is playing the inauguration, and many Springsteen fans are quite angry, saying that the band should not play, even to the point of calling for a boycott of their future appearances.

For the sake of accuracy, the band isn't actually playing the inauguration, they are playing a gala the night before for a non-partisan organization called the New Jersey State Society, which holds this gala every four years, regardless of which candidate wins the election. In fact, The B Street band was contracted for next week's gig back in 2013, after they played when Obama won (they also played in 2009).

Critics are saying that the band should pull out of the gig in respect to Bruce's feelings about Trump, and/or that Bruce should somehow forbid them from using his music, which I'm not sure that he could do, even if he wanted to. For the record, Bruce or his representatives have so far declined to comment.

So, what do people think? Let's not make this about Bruce, but instead generalize it, or turn it around. We don't know for sure which candidate Meat preferred because he didn't tell us, but for the sake of conversation, let's pretend he supported Trump and Hillary won, and a Meat Loaf tribute act was contracted to play the same gala. Should they? Are tribute acts under some obligation to respect the politics of the artist they support? Would it be different if the gala in question was strictly for a certain candidate as opposed to a non-partisan affair? Given how there are members of some tribute acts present on the board, I'm interested in what people's thoughts and feelings are.

Also, do people think the original artist has a right to ask that the band shouldn't play, or to ask that their music not be used?

nightinr

15 Jan 2017, 10:14

stretch37

15 Jan 2017, 10:28

Julie in the rv mirror

15 Jan 2017, 11:27

I would have preferred Trump not to have won, but for the future of the great American nation and possibly the western world let's accept the result and move on.
It's precisely for the future of the United States, and by extension, the western world that people are concerned. If there is any truth to the allegations that Trump is in office in any part due to the influence of a foreign nation, that's quite troubling indeed. It would be illogical, irresponsible and wrong to just "accept the result and move on".

BostonAngel

15 Jan 2017, 14:36

Yes you don't need to explain the electoral college system. That is the American democratic system and therefore Trump did win by a majority.

Please explain to me how LOSING the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is winning by a majority????? If you count those that voted against him by voting 3rd party or write-in candidate he LOST by an even greater margin! You sound just like Trump we says he won BIGLY.
When discussing politics, you need to stick to facts, please. And the FACT is that Trump did not win by any type of majority!!!!!! He LOST the popular vote!

nightinr

15 Jan 2017, 15:25

Please explain to me how LOSING the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is winning by a majority????? If you count those that voted against him by voting 3rd party or write-in candidate he LOST by an even greater margin! You sound just like Trump we says he won BIGLY.
When discussing politics, you need to stick to facts, please. And the FACT is that Trump did not win by any type of majority!!!!!! He LOST the popular vote!

Hi Boston...yep as I will stick to the facts...he won a majority as he won more electoral college votes than any other party. This is the US democratic system.

Your argument is like saying you should win a soccer game because you had more shots than the opposition, but the opposition scored more goals. We knew the rules before the election let's just accept the result.

BostonAngel

15 Jan 2017, 18:58

Hi Boston...yep as I will stick to the facts...he won a majority as he won more electoral college votes than any other party. This is the US democratic system.

Your argument is like saying you should win a soccer game because you had more shots than the opposition, but the opposition scored more goals. We knew the rules before the election let's just accept the result.

You are incorrect. You know that what you stated is not how the election works. That makes your conclusion about a majority wrong. The majority of Americans didn't even vote at all! This is why discussing politics is a bad idea. You can't have a rational, logical discussion with someone, such as yourself who purposely bends and distorts statistics and the situation to fit their faulty narrative of reality.
So, I won't discuss this anymore.
And for the record, Meat Loaf should stay far away from any type of performance at the inauguration.

nightinr

15 Jan 2017, 19:11

You are incorrect. You know that what you stated is not how the election works. That makes your conclusion about a majority wrong. The majority of Americans didn't even vote at all! This is why discussing politics is a bad idea. You can't have a rational, logical discussion with someone, such as yourself who purposely bends and distorts statistics and the situation to fit their faulty narrative of reality.
So, I won't discuss this anymore.
And for the record, Meat Loaf should stay far away from any type of performance at the inauguration.

I'm not sure how I "bend and distorts statistics" I am simply telling you how the US electoral system works.

Can we please now move on. Boston you've made the right decision in not discussing this anymore.

CarylB

15 Jan 2017, 19:23

Yes you don't need to explain the electoral college system. That is the American democratic system and therefore Trump did win by a majority.

In 2005 in the UK Michael Howard got more of the popular vote than Tony Blair did in England, however Blair won comfortably. I dont remember the UK moaning about it day and night.

However, elections for Head of State and for parliament are like apples and oranges. The US uses the same first past the post system for congress and senate as we do for the commons. In the 20C and this one the UK has had 4 occasions when a government was formed without a majority of the public vote. Electoral reformists do moan about it, but in 2011 the UK voted against adopting a new system, and one advantage of the first past the post system is that in the vast majority of cases a government is elected with a majority which enables them to govern without being held hostage by a minority party. Another key difference is that in the UK we elect a party not a Prime Minister, and if the PM becomes sufficiently unpopular he/she can be replaced during that term. Of course the electorate does not have power to choose who that replacement would be, although there is a case that party members should be able to vote who should become leader (as recently happened with the Labour party here). There remains a difference between first past the post and using an electoral college to elect a Head of State, and many Americans believe the electoral college system as it currently exists is an anachronism, and reflects the popular vote less than first past the post in that key states can be won by a narrow majority yet exercise disproportionate influence on the outcome.

The last word I would use to describe myself is "elite", and I certainly don't think I'm any better than anyone else. I think the huge outcry over Trump's election has less to do with his policies and everything to do with Trump himself- people don't see him as being fit for the job- end of. I don't get why this seems so hard for some people to understand.

Exactly. And I agree also that the importunate rush to repeal the ACA in the absence of a replacement is horrifying.

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread .............

........ Are tribute acts under some obligation to respect the politics of the artist they support? Would it be different if the gala in question was strictly for a certain candidate as opposed to a non-partisan affair? Given how there are members of some tribute acts present on the board, I'm interested in what people's thoughts and feelings are.

Also, do people think the original artist has a right to ask that the band shouldn't play, or to ask that their music not be used?

I'd grant that any artist or group has a right to express a political opinion, although as I've already said they should arguably exercise wisdom, and this applies to a tribute group. In the case of an inaugural celebration, I think in most cases it's fair to see an appearance as business, a professional engagement (Meat for eg has appeared at both Democrat and Republican inaugurations). However, this US election has been particularly divisive; this President elect significantly despised by half the US electorate.

Trump repeatedly used music at rallies during his campaign without permission from the artists concerned, which provoked strong condemnation from many, prompting them to speak out strongly against not only that use but also about the man, his behaviour, ethics and policies (I use the last two words lightly). So do I think tributes to those artists should think long and hard before accepting an engagement for the inaugural celebrations? Yes, I do. They are likely to alienate at least a section of their fanbase, and may also alienate the artists concerned. The latter of itself may not worry them I guess, but any tribute who disaffects the artist sufficiently may well have cause to regret it .. he whose name is reduced here to a series of ***** found this to his cost ;)

As to whether the original artist has a right to ask that the band shouldn't play, they clearly have the right to request this of the tribute, but I'd guess no legal right to enforce it. I do think it's a sign of discourtesy to the artists on whose coat-tails they make a living to offer or agree to appear, and would most certainly be to ignore the artist's request were it made.

As to the artist asking that their music not be used, I think they have the right to to ask but no legal standing to refuse. One would think that tribute bands would have to seek approval directly from the original artists and negotiate payments for the use of their songs and, in some cases, identities. These assumptions would be wrong. Tribute bands pay nothing directly to the original artists whom they “pay tribute to” for live performances. This is because they fall through the cracks of the current licensing system for public performances of copyrighted works. Any money that is actually collected for tribute band performances is covered by licenses purchased by venues or promoters, not the bands themselves, and little if any actually reaches the original artist. As the law stands the artists to whom these bands pay tribute are not compensated, nor do they have any realcontrol over their tribute band counterparts’ use or exploitation of their works and personae.

However, they do have some muscle in terms of fair use as opposed to trade mark abuse, and the other area which might support a request not to use their music is the Right of Publicity in the USA, defined as “the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of their identity”, which in some jurisdictions has come to protect likeness, name, persona, catch phrase, and even voice. This leans towards (though doesn't insist on) good practice through which tribute bands would seek permission from the original artists they pay tribute to, so that original artists can maintain control over the goodwill associated with their identities. In cases where this has been used the plaintiff must demonstrate a commercial interest in his or her identity, the defendant must have commercially used some aspect of the plaintiff’s identity without permission, and finally, the defendant’s use must have caused some type of damage. The last is usually commercial damage (Apple Music brought a case against Beatlemania and won). It might be hard to demonstrate in court at this stage a case for damaging goodwill towards the original artist by the tribute's appearance at an unpopular inauguration, but a request not to use their music might be beefed up by referring to Right of Publicity.

loaferman61

15 Jan 2017, 19:39

Please explain to me how LOSING the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is winning by a majority????? If you count those that voted against him by voting 3rd party or write-in candidate he LOST by an even greater margin! You sound just like Trump we says he won BIGLY.
When discussing politics, you need to stick to facts, please. And the FACT is that Trump did not win by any type of majority!!!!!! He LOST the popular vote!

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2016/11/AZ.jpg?width=960

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

CarylB

17 Jan 2017, 00:35

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread with a real world example. As I think most people know, Bruce Springsteen has spoken out against Trump, and supported Hillary (though not nearly as strongly as he did Obama) during the campaign. It's been reported in the news (somewhat erroneously) that The B Street Band, a Springsteen tribute act, is playing the inauguration, and many Springsteen fans are quite angry, saying that the band should not play, even to the point of calling for a boycott of their future appearances.

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

stretch37

17 Jan 2017, 00:49

http://blogs-images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2016/11/AZ.jpg?width=960

"If ifs and buts were candies and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas".

It's the widest margin in the history of the USA. Nothing else has ever come that close - Where the electoral college voted for a president with 3 million less votes.

Now the question in my mind is: Did the electoral college just do its job as a "checks and balances system" and elect the person that will best govern the American people despite the popular vote, or did they just take part in the very kind of decision making that the Electoral College was designed to prevent?

History will be the judge of that...

AndrewG

17 Jan 2017, 11:34

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”

So when they can't go after the main artists, liberal fans go after the tribute bands next. Classy.

It's the widest margin in the history of the USA. Nothing else has ever come that close - Where the electoral college voted for a president with 3 million less votes.

Now the question in my mind is: Did the electoral college just do its job as a "checks and balances system" and elect the person that will best govern the American people despite the popular vote, or did they just take part in the very kind of decision making that the Electoral College was designed to prevent?

History will be the judge of that...
History won't give a crap.

Julie in the rv mirror

17 Jan 2017, 13:03

Interesting update .. they have pulled out saying " “Our decision is based SOLELY on the respect and gratitude we have for Bruce and the E Street Band.”
Yep, I came back to this thread to mention this. I think I'm in the minority in saying that I think all of this has been very unfair to the band. I could see some backlash if they accepted a job knowingly and specifically in honor of Trump; I think in that case, they should have respect for Bruce's beliefs. But in this case, they accepted the job before the candidates were even known, much less before they knew who the winner was. The party isn't even for Trump- it's for New Jersey residents who currently reside in D.C.

I do believe it was just business to them. In fact, they played for New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's inauguration as governor, ironically after Christie had asked Bruce to play, and Bruce turned him down because of politics (despite the fact that Christie is a huge Springsteen fan). Nobody made a big deal about it then.

I do feel sorry for the abuse the band members have taken on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, and I also blame the media for inaccurate reporting that lead to much misunderstanding. The band initially said that they would pull out if Bruce asked them to, which as far as anyone knows, he did not (nor did he comment at all on the matter). If I had to guess, he might not have been happy about the situation, but having come up through the same ranks as a working musician, I would think he would understand the "just business" aspect of the situation. Two band members did comment on Twitter and Facebook, and both appeared neutral to supportive. Steve Van Zandt tweeted:

Nice guys. Met them. I wouldn't say right or wrong. Up to them. But it's naive to think one can separate Art and Politics. Art IS Politics.

Regardless of what the tribute band members say, I do think they gave into public pressure, which I understand (they have to make a living), but I think it's sad. They seem rather overwhelmed by the controversy; one of the members stated to Rolling Stone:

Forte agrees. "All this stuff made it clear to us that this event is not worth it," he says. "It's just a job to us. We're just trying to hold up a contract. We're not trying to prove anything. We're just a fun band!

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/bruce-springsteen-cover-band-drops-out-of-donald-trump-party-w461203

(The article quotes Garry Tallent's tweet, but he later was more supportive on Facebook)

However, they do have some muscle in terms of fair use as opposed to trade mark abuse, and the other area which might support a request not to use their music is the Right of Publicity in the USA, defined as “the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of their identity”, which in some jurisdictions has come to protect likeness, name, persona, catch phrase, and even voice. This leans towards (though doesn't insist on) good practice through which tribute bands would seek permission from the original artists they pay tribute to, so that original artists can maintain control over the goodwill associated with their identities. In cases where this has been used the plaintiff must demonstrate a commercial interest in his or her identity, the defendant must have commercially used some aspect of the plaintiff’s identity without permission, and finally, the defendant’s use must have caused some type of damage. The last is usually commercial damage (Apple Music brought a case against Beatlemania and won). It might be hard to demonstrate in court at this stage a case for damaging goodwill towards the original artist by the tribute's appearance at an unpopular inauguration, but a request not to use their music might be beefed up by referring to Right of Publicity.
This is very interesting, Caryl- I did not know this (I was aware of the info you posted regarding licenses for live performances). I agree with you that it would probably be difficult for Bruce to demonstrate some damage over this, not to mention that many of Bruce's fans are Trump supporters (notice that Bruce has spoken harshly against Trump himself, but seems to sympathize with his voters), and I think it would make Bruce appear as a bully himself if he were to take any legal action.

loaferman61

17 Jan 2017, 15:45

Thank God the inauguration is only days away, so obviously Meat is not playing. Even bands who had gigs booked before the election are catching hell from the tolerant who believe in everyone's rights (oh, wait).

I doubt Meat was officially asked and if so, his back issues would make it virtually impossible. So I'm sure he would have said he was physically unable. It would have required getting the band back together and some rehearsal so it was never planned to happen.

Really we hope Meat is taking care of his health and concentrating on getting well regardless of any other political things. He can't play a gig of any kind now without pain at least until he gets better. If he ever decides to do any more live shows he will have to be very careful with his back and knees. The travel would be that much more difficult. I really want him to do what is best for him.

After 40 or more years as a performer he deserves the chance to take a rest while he decides what - if anything- he wants to do.

CarylB

17 Jan 2017, 17:55

So when they can't go after the main artists, liberal fans go after the tribute bands next. Classy.

No, it isn't .. because it's just business. But as I said, one has to exercise judgement and accept consequences, which shouldn't be abuse but may well incur disappointment.

I do feel sorry for the abuse the band members have taken on Facebook, Twitter, and the like, and I also blame the media for inaccurate reporting that lead to much misunderstanding. The band initially said that they would pull out if Bruce asked them to, which as far as anyone knows, he did not (nor did he comment at all on the matter). If I had to guess, he might not have been happy about the situation, but having come up through the same ranks as a working musician, I would think he would understand the "just business" aspect of the situation.

Agree with all of that

This is very interesting, Caryl- I did not know this (I was aware of the info you posted regarding licenses for live performances). I agree with you that it would probably be difficult for Bruce to demonstrate some damage over this, not to mention that many of Bruce's fans are Trump supporters (notice that Bruce has spoken harshly against Trump himself, but seems to sympathize with his voters), and I think it would make Bruce appear as a bully himself if he were to take any legal action.

Yes I agree it would. I suspect most tributes respect the artists concerned, and a quiet word would suffice if the artist had strong feelings. I thought the Right of Publicity was interesting though. I remember he whose name is **** set up a site where he actively encouraged those who mistakenly assumed it was of the artist himself. They got him on cyber-squatting, but this could have equally applied perhaps?

After 40 or more years as a performer he deserves the chance to take a rest while he decides what - if anything- he wants to do.

Agreed. He put in an appearance at a Bose outlet in Austin recently, so the rehab must be progressing, and as far as I know he wants still to support the premieres of the musical. I think touring is less likely, but I hope he is able to resume his acting career. He loves and lives to perform, and I'm sure there is plenty of film and TV gas in the tank ;)

stretch37

17 Jan 2017, 20:15

History won't give a crap.

Someone woke up in a ~~~~ing great mood :P

I disagree.

If trump does stupid shit, which he probably will, and causes the worst disaster for the USA in modern history, historians WILL WANT TO KNOW WHY.

Julie in the rv mirror

17 Jan 2017, 20:53

Even bands who had gigs booked before the election are catching hell from the tolerant who believe in everyone's rights (oh, wait).
Yeah, I think it's going too far, but I think it speaks to the strong feelings people have over this election. We've had plenty of Republican presidents, and there has never been controversy like in this case- it's unprecedented (yeah, I went there :twisted:).

I believe the left is actually very tolerant; I've seen plenty of mocking and childish name-calling going on the last eight years coming from the other side, and no one called them "snowflakes" and told them to just get over it. They opposed Obama at every turn, but now we're supposed to just give Trump a chance? Why?

Agreed. He put in an appearance at a Bose outlet in Austin recently, so the rehab must be progressing, and as far as I know he wants still to support the premieres of the musical. I think touring is less likely, but I hope he is able to resume his acting career. He loves and lives to perform, and I'm sure there is plenty of film and TV gas in the tank ;)
I agree that it would be a shame if Meat had to retire completely from performing. Hopefully, he will recover enough to work in some capacity.

AndrewG

18 Jan 2017, 02:44

I believe the left is actually very tolerant; I've seen plenty of mocking and childish name-calling going on the last eight years coming from the other side, and no one called them "snowflakes" and told them to just get over it. They opposed Obama at every turn, but now we're supposed to just give Trump a chance? Why?

I disagree.
Over the last 1 1/2 years I've seen from the left / so called tolerants / liberals:

A Labour parliament member call on UK voters to not listen to white old men, even though a white old man is in charge of their party (Labour has never had a female leader compared to conservatives) and it was still mostly white old men who ensured we do not speak German in this country. Had it not been for selfless white old men in the UK my family would never have existed.
Left wing press and some associated with government try to use the Jo Cox murder to push for an EU remain vote and paint those who wanted to leave the EU as fascist Nazis who were responsible for her death.
Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
Ganging up of liberals with @jack of Twitter (backed by Saudi money) to get many prominent right wing voices banned on that social media platform which has led to the setup of gab.ai. This happened whilst Twitter never took a stance against obvious bullies such as the sick one who annoyed Patti Russo for months. (I filed numerous Twitter complaints, no action was taken mostly).
It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
Been myself and those I agree with called a racist countless of times when those with other views lose the argument on rationality and facts. I think the term snowflake originally was much less bad than "racist". But to be honest all labels are now losing their worth since they are being used so frequently for very modest opposing views. Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist. In fact I would argue many who support limitless Eastern European immigration into the UK (mostly same race as white Brits) support racism through that policy since there is undoubtedly less opportunity for people from commonwealth (including other races) countries (see UK minimum earnings rules imposed on none EU immigrants recently). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who can speak and write our native language will fair better here quicker regardless of race. Does it make me a languistist? (is there such a thing?) I don't give a crap!

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash. I have no problem defending my case against 4, 5 or 50 of those who think otherwise on here. Do I think it is a proper reflection of the voting public what is posted on here and in particular this thread? No.

Left tolerant? Nah...

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:
rrBxZGWCdgs

CarylB

18 Jan 2017, 15:38

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash.

Given no-one has given you any "backlash" on here for your views, that's just daft. As Julie has said, the discussion here has been reasoned and generally courteous without rancour or name-calling. To give reasoned disagreement is not "backlash", and I would have no sympathy for anyone who is not prepared to join the discussion because of fear. They may be people who prefer not to or don't "talk politics" ... that's a choice they make. It's their right to choose .. but nothing on this thread would imply they would be attacked if they did, so I disagree with your assumption Andrew.

loaferman61

18 Jan 2017, 16:32

I disagree.
Over the last 1 1/2 years I've seen from the left / so called tolerants / liberals:

A Labour parliament member call on UK voters to not listen to white old men, even though a white old man is in charge of their party (Labour has never had a female leader compared to conservatives) and it was still mostly white old men who ensured we do not speak German in this country. Had it not been for selfless white old men in the UK my family would never have existed.
Left wing press and some associated with government try to use the Jo Cox murder to push for an EU remain vote and paint those who wanted to leave the EU as fascist Nazis who were responsible for her death.
Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
Ganging up of liberals with @jack of Twitter (backed by Saudi money) to get many prominent right wing voices banned on that social media platform which has led to the setup of gab.ai. This happened whilst Twitter never took a stance against obvious bullies such as the sick one who annoyed Patti Russo for months. (I filed numerous Twitter complaints, no action was taken mostly).
It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
Been myself and those I agree with called a racist countless of times when those with other views lose the argument on rationality and facts. I think the term snowflake originally was much less bad than "racist". But to be honest all labels are now losing their worth since they are being used so frequently for very modest opposing views. Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist. In fact I would argue many who support limitless Eastern European immigration into the UK (mostly same race as white Brits) support racism through that policy since there is undoubtedly less opportunity for people from commonwealth (including other races) countries (see UK minimum earnings rules imposed on none EU immigrants recently). It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that someone who can speak and write our native language will fair better here quicker regardless of race. Does it make me a languistist? (is there such a thing?) I don't give a crap!

Even here on MLUKFC I've seen hardly anyone speak out against the anti Trump camp even though I have received several messages from individuals saying they (quietly) agree with me or certain aspects of my arguments.
In other words some seem to be afraid to write what they really feel on this board in case of backlash. I have no problem defending my case against 4, 5 or 50 of those who think otherwise on here. Do I think it is a proper reflection of the voting public what is posted on here and in particular this thread? No.

Left tolerant? Nah...

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:
rrBxZGWCdgs

Excellent post. Yes there are few of us willing to defend Trump openly but I don't care either. One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic. I'd rather not have that political stuff in the Meat Loaf section of this forum. At least move it to where those of us who don't want it here won't have to read it mixed in with other topics.

I wonder if Meat would want this to devolve into politics? There are thousands of boards and reddits for politics.

CarylB

18 Jan 2017, 19:17

Excellent post. Yes there are few of us willing to defend Trump openly but I don't care either. One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.

A dislike/disgreement is hardly a "backlash".

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic. I'd rather not have that political stuff in the Meat Loaf section of this forum. At least move it to where those of us who don't want it here won't have to read it mixed in with other topics.

As I've said before, the thread title invited it by asking "Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?" rather than for eg "Do you think Meat WILL .. etc" No-one is forced to read any thread, but if you reads this one it is reasonable to expect people to be talking about the political aspect rather than the fee offered.

nightinr

18 Jan 2017, 19:55

BostonAngel

18 Jan 2017, 20:19

I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?

Personally I don't have strong political views but I have seen an increasingly amount of snobbish bullying from the liberal, social elite in recent years. Ironically this behaviour has probably led people to vote for Trump, Brexit etc

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

nightinr

18 Jan 2017, 20:45

You are demonizing others by calling ALL those that don't support Trump "The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is" And by calling those that don't support Brexit, similar names. It is Ok for YOU to make judgements and denonize others by calling them names You can't have it both ways. It is called hypocrisy and makes you a hypocrit!

I didn't call ALL those who didn't support Trump as the social, liberal elite. In fact it is probably a very small minority. Most people accept people have different views. Personally I would have preferred Trump not to have won but I respect people who voted either way as everyone's situation is different.

CarylB

18 Jan 2017, 21:40

I didn't call ALL those who didn't support Trump as the social, liberal elite. In fact it is probably a very small minority. Most people accept people have different views. Personally I would have preferred Trump not to have won but I respect people who voted either way as everyone's situation is different.

But to be fair that isn't what you implied is it? You wrote
I spoke earlier in the thread about the liberal, social elite who demonise people if they dare to share an opinion that they don't agree with.
In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist.

Saying if someone "openly says" (as if it's something that has to be kept secret) they voted Remain they are given the tag of "uneducated racist" does suggest it's far more common than not, rather than a small minority.

I think we know now that many voted for Brexit as a protest against government .. numbers of them have since said they regret doing this. From what I have seen and heard people say some clearly DID vote on "immigration" issues (despite the fact that we have always had absolute control of immigration, it is migrant EU workers that Brexit would end, not immigration per se). I know people who voted who are not in the least racist, but voted to leave because they are concerned about housing, genuinely believed the EU costs us more than we gain, thought we could stay in the free market even if we left, or believed the mystical figure that would be pumped into the NHS immediately (the last accepted a lie). Some are pissed now. Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes, and probably on both sides. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. So some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

There are those on BOTH sides who demonise those who voted the other way. Many Republicans demonised Obama throughout his administration. They were not a "liberal social elite" .. and anyway elite means the best, and the best do not descend to overt attacks, rudeness, bad language, name-calling, and demonisation whether they are liberal or not. They get informed, they attend to what is said and argue their case cogently, they reason. Shouting and screaming, rudeness and ill manners lose any argument. The wise do their best, accept what happens but if the outcome is one they fear, remain vigilant, hold those in power to account, and protest peacefully in the face of events they see as detrimental.

Neither side has the monopoly on demonising, and it's wrong to suggest any one does.

nightinr

18 Jan 2017, 21:52

But to be fair that isn't what you implied is it? You wrote

Saying if someone "openly says" (as if it's something that has to be kept secret) they voted Remain they are given the tag of "uneducated racist" does suggest it's far more common than not, rather than a small minority.

I think we know now that many voted for Brexit as a protest against government .. numbers of them have since said they regret doing this. From what I have seen and heard people say some DID vote on "immigration" issues (despite the fact that we have always had absolute control of immigration, it is migrant EU workers that Brexit would end, not immigration per se. I know people who voted because they believed the mystical figure that would be pumped into the NHS immediately; they accepted a lie. Some are pissed now. Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. Some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!

There are those on BOTH sides who demonise those who voted the other way. Many Republicans demonised Obama throughout his administration. They were not a "liberal social elite" .. and anyway elite means the best, and the best do not descend to overt attacks, rudeness, bad language, name-calling, and demonisation whether they are liberal or not. They get informed, they attend to what is said and argue their case cogently, they reason. Shouting and screaming, rudeness and ill manners lose any argument. The wise do their best, accept what happens but if the outcome is one they fear, remain vigilant, hold those in power to account, and protest peacefully in the face of events they see as detrimental.

Neither side has the monopoly on demonising, and it's wrong to suggest any one does.

I agree with most of this Caryl.

As we are talking on a Meat Loaf forum maybe we should use Meat Loaf as an example of how to behave re politics. I liked the way he didn't publically get drawn into the Trump vs Clinton debate. I do however think he was holding back some foreceful views but I may be wrong.

Other artists who I will class as the liberal, social elite were telling people how to vote and subsequently demonised voters post the election.

In some ways I am disappointed with myself for getting involved in this debate as I honestly don't have strong political views. I am all for the centre ground on the whole.

As Meat once said in an interview "religion and politics...no way we're going to talk about rock n roll".

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Jan 2017, 01:48

One post said Trump did not win any majority and called for facts, I posted the actual map with the majority of states red for Trump and got a dislike LOL.
I'm sure you do realize that the map is misleading, in that he could have won a state by only a few votes and it would be colored red. Additionally, many of the red states are those that are most sparsely populated- not really representative of a huge majority.

I am on other forums that make this look like a Sunday School picnic.
As am I, and it's based on that experience that I wrote my opinion above that I thought the left was more tolerant (maybe I should have said "Democrats" or "left-leaning" instead), in that the majority of the racist, bullying, name-calling comments come from those who identify themselves as Republicans, conservatives, and/or Trump supporters. It seems they aren't capable of expressing an opinion without using terms such as "libtard", which is offensive on several levels.

Call for political assassinations, mostly of Trump (including a Guardian journalist who wrote this). I think Trump's life is in far more danger than Obama's. I don't want to see anything bad happen to politicians from any side.
But yet, Trump himself made a comment while campaigning that could have been interpreted to encourage the assassination of Hillary Clinton.

It appears now socially acceptable to write things such as "Goodmorning everyone (except all the white people)" on places such as Twitter. I doubt such voices are from those who would vote republican / conservative or UKIP.
No, those people just write other racist things, such as the nonprofit director who called Michelle Obama an "ape in heels" in a Facebook post.

Someone concerned about immigration is not a racist.
No, not necessarily; but many racists are concerned about immigration. The difference between the two is the reason behind the concern and how one proposes to address those concerns.

And if you are a 100% liberal and happy about that, before you click dislike on this post consider this video of what liberal virtue signalling sometimes actually means... yes it means you could be the racist whether intentionally or not:
I'd never call myself 100% liberal; I lean that way, but my views are (like most people's, I think) actually somewhere in the middle. I don't personally have a problem with voter ID laws; in fact, the first time I heard that such laws could be considered racist, I thought it was kind of ridiculous, because I had never come across any people of color who didn't have any ID. But, my experience is in a large city (much like the people featured in the video); if one were to go to poor rural areas, you might have different answers. Although, that would be a factor of financial status, as opposed to race (though the two are often related). Are a large enough number of people affected that it's a legitimate concern? I honestly don't know- where I live, I think it's a non-issue. But, you can't make federal laws that apply to some areas and not to others. Not to mention, there are other means to identify voters besides asking for a photo ID (I actually had this conversation with an election judge the last time I voted, after the woman before me questioned why she didn't check for ID).

In the UK if somebody openly says they voted for Brexit they are given the tag as an uneducated racist. I'm guessing a similar thing is happening in the US?
Yes, but in the case of Trump, for example, the man was endorsed by the KKK and didn't immediately (if he ever did at all) renounce them. If his supporters disliked being called racist, they should have called him on that lack of action.

Do I think some voted without really knowing much about the basic facts, cost, implications? Yes, and probably on both sides. The "campaign" was misleading on one side and woefully absent on the other. So some will have voted in ignorance .. which doesn't mean they are stupid, just lacking clear information.

In the same way, some will have voted for Trump because they vote Republican, full stop. Some clearly fear immigrants, Muslims, Mexicans either racism, bigotry, or xenophobia. Trump played to this very colourfully and with disappointing success. Others voted for him because they genuinely believe he will deliver jobs, wealth, success. Some voted for change, any change. Of course not all who voted for Trump are "ignorant" or "uneducated" .. but I'd argue for eg that those who think repealing Obamacare is not the same as repealing the ACA are certainly ill-informed!
I agree, Caryl- well said. I think this video illustrates your last point- it's of course not a "scientific" poll, but I think it probably represents typical citizens:

sx2scvIFGjE

Before the election, I was called "elitist" here because I made a comment that I thought some people who voted for Trump might later be regretting that decision. I am Facebook friends with a former classmate who has been a Trump supporter; as the parent of a special-needs child, she is now (rightfully) concerned about his nominee for Secretary of Education, based on answers she gave in her confirmation hearing. (How she could have rationalized and excused Trump's mocking of a disabled reporter is beyond me- I think she fell for the "he didn't really do that" spin.) I won't go so far as to presume that my friend is regretting her decision, but it illustrates that when you vote for a candidate, you also vote for whomever that candidate might also place in key cabinet or (in the U.S.) Supreme Court positions. Likewise, some people who supported the repeal of "Obamacare" might not have fully realized they were affecting their own healthcare.

Other artists who I will class as the liberal, social elite were telling people how to vote and subsequently demonised voters post the election.
Can you give an example of an artist demonizing voters after the election?

Wario

19 Jan 2017, 01:57

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Jan 2017, 08:40

Wow, so it seems there's a part 2 to the above video; some interesting responses!

N6m7pWEMPlA

nightinr

19 Jan 2017, 09:57

you are very very meanspirited take a chill pill and relax.

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

Julie in the rv mirror

19 Jan 2017, 10:03

It looks like a few people are starting to feel buyer's remorse already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-regrets_us_587943bbe4b0e58057fed3f9?pecnkdj64idiy66r

AndrewG

19 Jan 2017, 11:15

Not sure if that is aimed at me or Boston?! If it is aimed towards me sorry for any offence I am just trying to stick up for the "silent majority". Or silent 49%...lets not get into the "majority" debate again!

Of course it is aimed at Boston. Jeez.

It looks like a few people are starting to feel buyer's remorse already:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-regrets_us_587943bbe4b0e58057fed3f9?pecnkdj64idiy66r
Now there is a fair and balanced "media organisation".
It has totally changed my opinion....not. Let me know when a nation can pay down its deficit, pay for social care, pay for infrastructure solely based on feelings rather than via work, taxes and trade, then I might start listening to them.

People should judge presidents on their results rather than based on judgements by news/media organisations.
I was impressed when Obama won. Seemed a much better choice than McCain (who seems a lot less balanced or stable than Trump I would say). However I'm not sure what the African Americans can really praise Obama for on the large scale after all this time. Hence perhaps many lacked enthusiasm to come out to the voting booths this time round, especially for Hillary.

African American Labor participation has totally not improved in 8 years.
http://media.mlxxfc.net/Screen Shot 2017-01-19 at 09.35.41.png

I guess one can perhaps be happy Obama at least didn't make things a whole lot worse. :shrug:
Obamacare? Meh maybe it works for some. I understand the concept and idea and it sounded great. But from what I understand the premiums and deductibles are so high for many people, there seems little point to having it at all. It's like those dodgy paying insurance on your mortgage scams, which when you qualify for using it (when unable to work through injury or whatever) only lasts for two years and when you look at the premiums you paid is less than the value you can ever take out.
Overall American healthcare (if you can pay for it at least) seems far better than that in most other countries. Far more advanced procedures such as proton therapy for children with almost incurable brain diseases happen over there far more than here in the UK from what I know.

In the UK we are now having a lot of problems with the NHS with regards to waiting lists (I don't get how Jeremy Hunt just stays in that position for years - must be me).

If I phone my doctor I will be lucky to be able to see her still this month or early Feb. If people think this is totally unrelated to immigration (whether directly or indirectly) then I think they are really wrong. You cannot continue to have 330K+ extra people pouring in, most having salaries in the tax free allowance range and not build extra hospitals, schools or doctor's practitioners. I really think people fail to realise that the net immigration figures alone are at the moment higher than the average natural increase of population we enjoyed between 1900 and 2000. Over 100 years we are talking 33 million if these figures do not change. I actually do not think there is a respectable UK political party out there taking this seriously at all, not even UKIP. Let me be clear: I am not against immigrants at all, I am against the immigration policies. The EU freedom of movement seems blackmail for allowing free trade. Large corporations can enjoy cheap labor at a cost of favouring Eastern Europeans over Brits in many sectors of employment now (I have seen this with my own eyes if people think I am basing this on the Daily Mail). I am a foreign born Brit so somewhat of an immigrant myself. I just think ultimately it is best to have a very very low net immigration figure, close to zero if possible. This is the best for other countries where people are emigrating from (no-one ever thinks about that it seems) and best for the UK. I do of course understand all the reasons why people want to come to the UK. But I think ghetto forming is very, very bad. Sweden has problems with this now, Bradford in the UK has problems, areas in London and Luton too. Not integration in my opinion and past government policies have really failed these areas and it does not seem to be changing. Ironically it is usually in these areas where people always vote for more socialist / liberal policies - make the government give more free stuff- rather than structural changes that could lead to more employment or opportunity for all.

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Michelle Obama stating "there is now no hope" was totally shameful in my opinion. Disgusting remark.

Inauguration is almost here. The time is right (for me at least) to move on and just live life. All one can do is vote for who and what they think is best. Beyond that hindsight debates such as this, although interesting are definitely not the best use of one's time.

glockenspiel

19 Jan 2017, 14:21

Without in any way wishing to denigrate the contents of previous posts, surely now that we know Loaf-at-Trump isn't happening, it's time to let this thread expire (??)

loaferman61

20 Jan 2017, 15:32

Without in any way wishing to denigrate the contents of previous posts, surely now that we know Loaf-at-Trump isn't happening, it's time to let this thread expire (??)

I agree. I had some facts I was going to post, but let it go. This thread is a moot point. I will be avoiding politics on this board from here on. I get enough of that on another site and actually come here to think about Meat Loaf and his music to get away from all the stuff going on in the "real world" and think about "Neverland" for a bit.

duke knooby

21 Jan 2017, 11:32

I've enjoyed reading this thread, it's livened up the board, so thanks to all that have contributed.

Julie in the rv mirror

21 Jan 2017, 12:11

I'd just like to make a couple more points, and then I will let it be:

Let me be clear: I am not against immigrants at all, I am against the immigration policies. The EU freedom of movement seems blackmail for allowing free trade. Large corporations can enjoy cheap labor at a cost of favouring Eastern Europeans over Brits in many sectors of employment now (I have seen this with my own eyes if people think I am basing this on the Daily Mail). I am a foreign born Brit so somewhat of an immigrant myself. I just think ultimately it is best to have a very very low net immigration figure, close to zero if possible. This is the best for other countries where people are emigrating from (no-one ever thinks about that it seems) and best for the UK. I do of course understand all the reasons why people want to come to the UK. But I think ghetto forming is very, very bad. Sweden has problems with this now, Bradford in the UK has problems, areas in London and Luton too. Not integration in my opinion and past government policies have really failed these areas and it does not seem to be changing. Ironically it is usually in these areas where people always vote for more socialist / liberal policies - make the government give more free stuff- rather than structural changes that could lead to more employment or opportunity for all.
Andrew, you make a very rational and reasoned argument. Perhaps if the current resident of the White House had been able to do the same, he would have garnered more support. Instead, he preyed on people's fears, saying that Mexicans "are criminals, they're rapists, they're bringing drugs.." and we're going to build a wall to keep them out. Do you see the difference? Can you understand why many consider that racist, or at least xenophobic? The people who are risking their lives to come across the border are for the most part, regular people who just want a better life for themselves and their families. He can build all the walls he wants, and he's not going to stop the drug cartels- they are too firmly established in the U.S. already. Ironically, the biggest Mexican criminal of them all was just brought to New York last night.

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.
Well, I disagree. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable, and take them to task when we don't agree with them. Otherwise, what is the point of having elections? We might as well have a dictator if we're just going to shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

Michelle Obama stating "there is now no hope" was totally shameful in my opinion. Disgusting remark.
Many people are feeling that way right now; not good at all for a new administration.

nightinr

21 Jan 2017, 15:00

On a lighter note Trump's Mrs is very easy on the eye

CarylB

21 Jan 2017, 22:00

In any case Trump is elected president of the USA, here in the UK we will have a conservative government until at least 2020 and probably well beyond going by what the alternatives are offering (mostly backwards retake the EU referendum ideas etc). People can keep on crying and talking their own countries down because they disagree with past decisions or past votes and elections. Ultimately I think that is a recipe for failure for a country and for the people themselves regardless of who is president, political leader or party and just trying to make the best of things.

Well, I disagree. I think we need to hold our leaders accountable, and take them to task when we don't agree with them. Otherwise, what is the point of having elections? We might as well have a dictator if we're just going to shrug our shoulders and make the best of it.

I agree Julie. The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

To have effect it should be done with clear reasoning not hate, with a calm voice rather than anger and violence, and with measured words not name-calling. But it is an important and constitutional monitoring process and debate, and essential if one is not finally left saying "Then they came for me .. and was no-one left to speak for me".

Many people are feeling that way right now; not good at all for a new administration.

And the removal within hours of pages from the White House website of the climate change web page, and the healthcare, civil rights, disabled worker rights and LGBT sections, will do nothing to allay fears and offer hope. The page on climate change was replaced with a page entitled "An America First Energy Plan" that ignores climate change entirely and says, "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

Obama's WhiteHouse.gov page on his first day in office featured a slate of issues he campaigned on; Trump's White House page doesn't even have a policy page on his signature campaign issue: immigration. His campaign website was more robust, featuring pages on a variety of issues and including press releases related to the black community, like "DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA." Now the words "black" or "African-American" do not appear once in any policy sheets on WhiteHouse.gov.

However, the website does make reference to Melania Trump's jewellery line. How is that separating government and family business?

nightinr

21 Jan 2017, 23:16

I agree Julie. The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.

To have effect it should be done with clear reasoning not hate, with a calm voice rather than anger and violence, and with measured words not name-calling. But it is an important and constitutional monitoring process and debate, and essential if one is not finally left saying "Then they came for me .. and was no-one left to speak for me".

And the removal within hours of pages from the White House website of the climate change web page, and the healthcare, civil rights, disabled worker rights and LGBT sections, will do nothing to allay fears and offer hope. The page on climate change was replaced with a page entitled "An America First Energy Plan" that ignores climate change entirely and says, "President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the U.S. rule."

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.

Obama's WhiteHouse.gov page on his first day in office featured a slate of issues he campaigned on; Trump's White House page doesn't even have a policy page on his signature campaign issue: immigration. His campaign website was more robust, featuring pages on a variety of issues and including press releases related to the black community, like "DONALD J. TRUMP’S NEW DEAL FOR BLACK AMERICA." Now the words "black" or "African-American" do not appear once in any policy sheets on WhiteHouse.gov.

However, the website does make reference to Melania Trump's jewellery line. How is that separating government and family business?

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

On a British point of view it is great to see The Churchill bust back in the Oval office that Obama so crudely chucked out!

CarylB

22 Jan 2017, 02:50

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

On a British point of view it is great to see The Churchill bust back in the Oval office that Obama so crudely chucked out!

Oh yes, in fact most of the protest marches have been peaceful. It's those that weren't that get the fingers and memes flapping on Facebook ;)

As far as the Churchill bust brou haha is concerned .. the bust in question, by British sculptor Jacob Epstein, was given to President George W Bush by the British government in 2001 and was placed in the Oval Office. But the statue was not donated, it was simply on loan for Bush’s term in office (a loan which the British government decided to extend when Bush was re-elected in 2004). Churchill disappeared from the White House Oval Office in 2009, when the loan ended, at the same time that Obama moved in.

Most news stories, and Boris, neglected to mention that there are two Churchill busts – the one on loan to Bush from 2001 to 2009, and a second bust which the White House has had since the 1960s and still has to this day, which is immediately outside the Oval Office. I think it's completely understandable and appropriate that the first black President of the USA decided to put a bust of Rev Martin Luther King Jr in there to daily "remind him of the people who helped get him there.

From this British point of view I have more concern about the isolationist determination of Trump and his threats to withdraw from NATO than I do about whether a copy of Churchill's bust is one side of the Oval Office doors than the other .. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).

Julie in the rv mirror

22 Jan 2017, 03:38

The whole basis of a democracy is that we don't have to "suck it up" as so many Trump supporters are saying (and many Brexit supporters here). We need to hold those in power accountable, speak up in protest when they propose things we believe are detrimental. This is NOT about loving your country or not, nor about "taking it down", nor should it be derided or dismissed as "crying", nor are those of us who are vigilant, stand up and speak out "snowflakes". It is a vital and essential part of any democracy, and shows love of one's country and concern for its people, all of them, whether or not we are personally affected.
Very well-said, Caryl. I might argue that it is in fact patriotic to question authority (and remove it if necessary) that appears damaging to your country.

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech. :|

The page on civil rights was replaced with a page entitled "Standing Up For Our Law Enforcement Community" that replaces concerns with how police act with a demand for more cops. It also paints predominantly black inner cities as shooting galleries. It includes the statement "In our nation’s capital, killings have risen by 50 percent", which is false: homicides in Washington, D.C. were down in 2016 over 2015.
I find that page extremely troubling, and I support the Law Enforcement Community. The wording to me sounds threatening: " The dangerous anti-police atmosphere in America is wrong. The Trump Administration will end it." How does he propose to do this? Send in the National Guard? Declare Martial Law (which can suspend people's rights)?

"Supporting law enforcement means supporting our citizens’ ability to protect themselves. We will uphold Americans’ Second Amendment rights at every level of our judicial system."

The Second Amendment reads as such: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

"Our job is not to make life more comfortable for the rioter, the looter, or the violent disrupter." More preying on fear.

We've seen his current war with the media; he's threatened to kick the press corps out of the White House unless they are nice to him. The first thing a tyrant wants to do is suppress the press.

Trump has mentioned Chicago specifically a couple of times; I won't deny that there is a real violence problem in some areas. And we do need more police, at least in this city, as they are short-staffed. I'm also all for a better relationship between the community and the police, but I don't want to see a police state. I was too young to remember the civil uprising and riots in the 60's, but my mother told me about how frightening it was; I fear we may be headed back there.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

In fairness I think the protests have been very modest. A couple of shop windows smashed by a few thugs.

The left wing media are almost encouraging people to protest.

Let's see how he gets on....hopefully he'll become more humble and inclusive!

Well, he had a chance to become humble and inclusive beginning with his inauguration speech; he did not.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ;)). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

(I know I said I'd let it be- I guess I went back on that.)

.. and I'm quite sure that he removed the one of MLK because Obama had put it there, nothing to do with Churchill or the British (although as he seems reluctant to get full facts before acting, he may well have seized on the Churchill bust to replace it because he erroneously believed Obama had actually moved the original one out, rather than simply have placed the copy immediately outside when the original was returned to the UK).
It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.

CarylB

22 Jan 2017, 07:24

And Trump did a pretty good job himself of "taking down" the country in his inaugural speech. :|

Yes he did .. the picture of a crumbling landscape with rusting factories like tombstones across the land. But there was no way he was going to pay one cent's tribute to just how far Obama had taken the country from crisis to recovery, not even to say 'We've started the recovery process, now here's more work to be done'

And you are spot on in saying his address was far from humble, far from inclusive. I found it rather frightening, just as his rally speeches, which this closely resembled.

He seems so committed to upholding the Second Amendment that he seems to have forgotten about the First, which gives the people the right to peaceful assembly, and also to freedom of speech and the press:

As you say, he continues to whip up fear, and his desperate need to control the press, to react irrationally to any perceived criticism, even as we've seen today to obliterate anything that wounds his huge ego, is very worrying. From his saying "It didn't rain, the sun came out" to the press briefing trying to prove the crowds were bigger than those at Obama's inauguration .. all lack any dignity, all make him look like a petulant toddler. And yes .. he wants to control and suppress the press like any tyrant.

Am I being overly dramatic? I truly hope so. But it seems to me it's being plainly spelled out, and just reinforces what he said all through his campaign. People say, "Oh, just wait until he's president. You'll see, he'll change." I tend to believe what Maya Angelou wisely said, "When people show you who they are, believe them."

I fear you are not. I knew virtually nothing of the man really before Meat was on CA. Trump showed me then a lot of who he is, particularly towards women and his business ethics. Similarly his petulant angry behaviour in Scotland when he didn't get everything his way. (His letters to Alec Salmon were utterly bizarre as business communications in their anger and threats, to the point of one doubting his mental balance, really. Nothing of negotiating just disturbing and crude attempts to bully his adversary into submission) Everything during his campaign has reinforced my assessment of his ethics, behaviour, instability; in his speeches, his response to any criticism or protest, and his fingers flapping like a duck's ass on Twitter. One might have hoped the last might stop after his inauguration .. but no. Adje said they seemed unable to control him, and he's right. I do not think him capable of change; his overweening arrogance and ego preclude it.

It does appear that the protests have so far been pretty peaceful, for the most part (we women know how to do it ;)). There have been a few sporadic incidents that for all we know could have been started by the right to make the other side look bad and incite unrest. I don't know what to believe anymore.

The protests on inauguration day included a group who attacked property etc But you can see clearly in one clip a placard representing a group of anarchists. They were not anti-Trump .. just anti-everything. They like to cause trouble, indiscriminately. One other group filmed smashing windows were Atifa .. a worldwide anti-fascist group, not democrats, "leftie liberals" or snowflakes ;) The protests today have been huge, peaceful, and powerful. I have the utmost respect for every woman, man and child around the world who marched today, peacefully and democratically. They know that Trump’s voters felt boasting about sexual assault didn’t disqualify him from the White House. And they reserved the right to deplore the world in which this can be true.

It is not an excess of political correctness to be appalled to see a sexual predator in the White House; not for any woman, nor for any who have wives, sisters, daughters, grand daughters. It is not unreasonable to be concerned at the almost immediate removal of the sections on LGBT rights, disabled rights, human rights, from the White House website. It is worthy to march in peaceful protest, whether one is an American or not; it's solidarity, it's caring for people's rights and the respect of women. People across the USA and around the world from London to Antarctica showed today in their hundreds of thousands that they care for people, for the disabled, for those who are gay or transgender, and that they believe women have a right to dignity and respect. Few who marched today will have held out real hope that they will bring Donald Trump down. They simply would not stay silent, nor should they have, nor should any of us. I salute all those who marched and who made their voices heard, for women, and for all those who fear erosion of years of social progress fought for and won. They are heroes in my book. :-)

https://www.facebook.com/TheRawStory/videos/vb.20324257234/10155009268012235/?type=2&theater&notif_t=video_reply&notif_id=1485059882646484

It's interesting that you say that; I kind of had the feeling that he chose to take his oath on Abraham Lincoln's Bible, because Obama had been the first president since Lincoln to do so (which I thought was powerfully symbolic); almost like he had to pee on Obama's territory. I just found it distasteful.

Yes, there has been quite a bit of leg-cocking I think, perhaps more to come .. I guess he sees himself as a powerful alpha male (I actually shuddered as I typed that) so it's not surprising .. but I agree, extremely distasteful

nightinr

22 Jan 2017, 11:12

stretch37

22 Jan 2017, 11:22

This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

That's a giant assumption.

Everybody loves to judge the shit out of Obama, or love him up to death. I think he did some good, and some bad. But his intention was ALWAYS to do good and to help everyone. I think we can agree that this is in sharp contrast to his successor.

CarylB

22 Jan 2017, 13:19

It always makes me laugh that Brits think Obama as this fantastic US President. If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump?

From a UK perspective Obama had the audacity to say the UK would be at the "back of the queue" if we voted for Brexit. A terrible, patronising thing to say. This coupled with him removing the Churchill bust showed that he had little respect for the UK.

I've clearly explained about the bust in vain. OUR GOVERNMENT removed it. Obama had the second one brought across and put just outside the Oval Office where he passed it every day. Obama wanted the UK to stay IN the EU, hence his saying what he did ... and if you think the isolationist (who has had the audacity to say he would not hesitate to drop bombs on Europe, does not consider Russia a threat, and has already demanded Brussels abandons plans for an EU Army if it wants the US is to continue its support for Nato) is likely to be rushing to trade deals without services delivered by the public sector to come under deal .... Even the guy tipped to be Trump’s ambassador to the EU has warned Downing Street to "read The Art of the Deal if they wanted to understand how Donald Trump’s mind works. It’s very different to a political mind."

Many suspect Trump’s interest in a deal is fueled mainly by a desire to anger his political enemies in Europe. It's far from clear not clear what Britain would get out of it, given US barriers are usually at state not country level. There is also the worry that the US will insist on opening up private sector access to public services, in particular the NHS, considered by all parties as the country’s most precious asset, and getting access for their private service providers to our public services .. and this Tory government with their ever increasing privatising agenda and May's desperation because there's no way she's going to get free market on her terms, could just get chewed up and spat out in negotiations with the Trump headed administration.

That's a giant assumption.

Everybody loves to judge the shit out of Obama, or love him up to death. I think he did some good, and some bad. But his intention was ALWAYS to do good and to help everyone. I think we can agree that this is in sharp contrast to his successor.

Agreed on all counts. He inherited a country in financial crisis and has steered it into emerging recovery, despite being constantly thwarted at every turn by a Republican congress who made it clear they would block him at every turn. He had a window of about 4 months when he had enough majority to push anything through. Hence the Executive Orders .. without which he could have done nothing and think of every budget that they held to a cliff-hanger! They fought him but he achieved:
* a universal health care programme which wasn't perfect by any means, but covered 32m people
* the act to spur economic growth amid greatest recession since the Great Depression, creating a total of nearly 3.7 million new private-sector jobs.
* passed Wall Street reforms
* turned the auto industry round
* repealed "Don't ask, don't tell
* reversed Bush's torture policies
* boosted fuel efficiency standards and finalised rules to limit carbon emissions from power plants
* tightened sanctions on Iraq and negotiated the deal to block a nuclear Iran
* undertook a stealth climate policy which if Trump doesn't undo it would mean many of the dirtiest power stations would close (sadly I expect this to be culled) and pushed Federal agencies to be green leaders. He secured U.S. commitment to a Global Agreement on Climate Change (another one for the culling :( )
* expanded Wilderness and Watershed Protection
* cracked down on bad for-profit colleges and improved school nutrition
* expanded health care for children
* steered though recognition of same-sex marriage
* Protected LGBTQ against employment discrimination and strengthened women's rights to fair pay

These are ones I can remember .. there are many more. But I know he reduced the federal deficit from close to 10% down to just over 3% .. not quite the country gasping in its last death throes painted by Trump's inauguration speech.

AND .. he avoided any personal scandal; the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to serve two terms with no serious personal or political scandal.

I didn't like the drone bombing in Syria, but I think he chose that as the lesser of the evils he felt compelled to choose. On the other hand he forced an agreement by Assad to destroy the country’s stockpile of chemical weapons, ended combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, and ordered the raid that eliminated Osama bin Laden.

He is intelligent, probing, thoughtful, measured and articulate, gracious, good humoured, and stayed all these things despite a persistent level of racism towards him and his family. Both he and his wife had to put up with the kind of racist comments and slurs that appalled me, and most decent people; the kind of things I haven't heard for decades.

Above and beyond all this he had, as you say, a very real desire to do good, to help those who needed help, to afford those who were not comfortably privileged their rights to pursue happiness. He only wanted to do good, he cared about the people he was elected to serve, and I agree this is in contrast to his successor.

This legacy is under threat. Trump and the now Republican-dominated Congress have pledged to undo much of what he achieved, including repealing the Affordable Care Act and reversing important achievements on immigration and climate change. These were undertaken by executive orders and Trump has stated he will cancel every Obama executive order immediately he takes office, and indeed showily signed away the ACA within an hour or so. Meanwhile he has surrounded himself with the new swamp of climate change deniers, those with vested interests in fossil fuel, businessmen who are more interested in profit than workers' rights.

As to If he was that successful do you really think America would have voted for Trump? Of course the point is that millions of them didn't. The Electoral College ties in with the popular vote far less than our constituency system, and had for eg the Presidency been decided by a vote as in our referendum, he wouldn't have been elected. They are stuck with the EC, and I'm not going to argue he "lost" on the popular vote .. but 3m more people didn't vote for him, and it wasn't a run between Obama and Trump.

However, I think the above answers why this "Brit" admires Obama, and yes, thinks he was one of the best Presidents the US has had for many years, fears the new incumbent, and is extremely sad to see the one go and very concerned to see the other ensconced. :(

As to the

nightinr

22 Jan 2017, 15:59

Some great points as always Caryl, but we must be mindful of the silent majority.

You list Obama's key achievements but has the average American see an improvement in their quality of life? The silent majority in effect elected Trump, Brexit and the Tory Government.

The silent majority is probably looking at this thread and shaking their head at many of the posts.

CarylB

22 Jan 2017, 17:04

I thought the majority supporting Trump were rather vociferous. I'm not going to try and second guess what you call the "silent majority", nor if there's one here shaking its head. No-one has been attacked or abused; if headshakers don't speak I cannot respond or discuss.

Many of us here and in the US haven't seen significant improvements in our standard of living over the past decade. Obama inherited a staggering financial crisis. He halted it and started to turn the country around. This cannot be achieved overnight, nor in a few years. It is a slow process. Those who don't look beyond their own paypackets may well not see what he has achieved, but that doesn't minimise what he did, and they would have been far worse off had he not done so. Growth rate is just under 3%, ahead of ours.

One thing Trump did immediately on taking office was to put mortgage premium cuts on hold. It would have cut annual mortgage insurance premium by one quarter of a percent, or 25 basis points, on most new mortgages. That reduction could save FHA-insured homeowners an average $500 in 2017. The cut would have benefited homebuyers who close on their mortgages on or after Jan. 27, and also borrowers who refinanced their mortgages with FHA loans. The FHA last cut insurance premiums by 50 basis points two years ago after HUD routinely raised them in the years after the financial crisis. This would have restored premiums to their pre-crisis levels.

Trump has coyly avoided offering much concrete in terms of strategy; just it's going to be wonderful, successful and big. We'll see.