Cont: The Trump Presidency IX: Nein, Nein!

Status
Not open for further replies.
dudalb said:
Reagan never actually used "Born in the USA" in one of his campaigns..coming from a Show Biz background he knew better then that....but referenced it in a couple of speeches.
Click to expand...

… which was really weird to anyone who knew the lyrics.

ETA:
Born down in a dead man's town
The first kick I took was when I hit the ground
End up like a dog that's been beat too much
Till you spend half your life just covering up

Born in the U.S.A., I was born in the U.S.A.
I was born in the U.S.A., born in the U.S.A.

Got in a little hometown jam
So they put a rifle in my hand
Sent me off to a foreign land
To go and kill the yellow man

Born in the U.S.A., I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A., born in the U.S.A.

Come back home to the refinery
Hiring man said "son if it was up to me"
Went down to see my V.A. man
He said "son, don't you understand"

I had a brother at Khe Sahn
Fighting off the Viet Cong
They're still there, he's all gone
He had a woman he loved in Saigon
I got a picture of him in her arms now

Down in the shadow of the penitentiary
Out by the gas fires of the refinery
I'm ten years burning down the road
Nowhere to run ain't got nowhere to go

Born in the U.S.A., I was born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A., I'm a long gone daddy in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A., born in the U.S.A.
Born in the U.S.A., I'm a cool rocking daddy in the U.S.A.
 
Last edited:
There is a key difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump in terms of impeachment:

Clinton was impeached for something he did in Office that had nothing to do with elections.

Nixon was going to be impeached for criminally trying to influence future elections.

But Trump has demonstrably broken the law in order to get elected.

So unavoidably, the question of "Is this person still fit to be President?" that was asked of Clinton and Nixon becomes in the case of Trump a "was this person ever fit to be President?"

Republicans today are in a much tighter spot then they were with Nixon, because impeaching Trump for what he did in the run up to get elected is to call the legitimacy of his presidency and everything he has done so far into question.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK if you have a public performance license then you have permission to play anything you want to. The rights organisations then work out (guesstimate) how many times any particular artists' songs have been played in public and assign royalties to the relevant copyright holder accordingly.

I imagine that the US system is very similar. I certainly can't imagine that you have to get permission from each individual artist that you want to play a song of. Can you imagine the hassle that a wedding DJ would have to go through? Especially when there's a request for a song they don't have the license to. Rather than just downloading it, as happens now, they'd have to download it and contact the band mid-gig. And think how much hassle it'd be for a band to have to individually grant each DJ/restaurant/pub/music venue/festival organiser/etc. the rights to use their music.

Seems untenable to me. So I'd imagine that the Trump rallies have a music license, and that with that license they can play Aerosmith if they want to, regardless of how Aerosmith feel about it. Aerosmith might be able to bring some kind of civil case to try to get them to stop, but I'm not even sure I could see that being successful.
Click to expand...


Aerosmith has been through this before with Trump, back in 2015.

This is not the first time Tyler has ordered Trump not to use his music. The Aerosmith song Dream On was played during Trump’s 2015 election campaign, prompting a letter stating that playing the song violated Tyler’s copyright. Performance rights for the song were removed, though Trump tweeted: “Even though I have the legal right to use Steven Tyler’s song, he asked me not to. Have better one to take its place! ... Steven Tyler got more publicity on his song request than he’s gotten in 10 years. Good for him!”
Click to expand...


This time their letter included this.

This week’s letter to Trump adds: “We demanded Mr Tyler’s public performance societies terminate their licences with you in 2015 in connection with Dream On and any other musical compositions written or co-written by Mr Tyler. As such, we are unaware of any remaining public performance licence still in existence which grants Mr Trump the right to use his music in connection with the rallies or any other purpose”.
Click to expand...
 
Segnosaur said:
I really do have to wonder about that one juror...

Manafort was found guilty on 8 of the charges... what was the rational behind blocking some but allowing other charges to go through? Why not either vote 'not guilty' on all of the charges, or vote 'guilty' on everything and thus prevent the whole "lone biased standout" accusation that will ensure? Manafort is likely going to prison for a long time based on the 8 charges anyways (so you're not really saving him by voting not guilty on 10 of the charges.)

Did they really think the case against Manfort was really that weak on the 10 charges? Or were they biased and just miscalculated what his punishment would be on the charges he was convicted on?
Click to expand...

One explanation I read (don't remember where. WaPo?) was that it looked like a compromise solution. For example, he was convicted of bank fraud but not conspiracy to commit bank fraud. This theory says one side got a conviction on one count while the other side got a not guilty on some other.

Caveat emptor.
 
SezMe said:
One explanation I read (don't remember where. WaPo?) was that it looked like a compromise solution. For example, he was convicted of bank fraud but not conspiracy to commit bank fraud. This theory says one side got a conviction on one count while the other side got a not guilty on some other.

Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...

There weren't really two sides. Eleven jurors voted to convict on all 18 counts; one held out on 10 charges. The others eventually gave up trying to explain it all to her.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/23/us/manafort-juror-paula-duncan.html

There might -- maybe -- be an argument that "conspiracy to commit bank fraud" is contained within "bank fraud." But failing to declare foreign accounts, fraudulent loan applications etc. were about as straightforward as they could be.
https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/23/politics/read-verdict-sheet-paul-manafort-jury/index.html
 
The Great Zaganza said:
There is a key difference between Nixon, Clinton and Trump in terms of impeachment:....
Click to expand...
With Nixon, there was an actual crime, using his office to break laws, more than just the Watergate break-in. There was his enemies list, breaking into Ellsworth's psychiatrist's office, the slush fund to pay for the law-breaking, and I assume condoning if not working with Hoover's campaign against political protestors.

Don't forget Reagan pushing drug running for political gain.

GW did a lot of the things Nixon did, using the DoJ to influence elections. Voter suppression, filling the ranks of the DoJ with new grads from the then not accredited Pat Robertson's Liberty Law school. The whole affair trying to get torture approved while Ashcroft was in intensive care.

And all the POTUSes lying about Vietnam.

But oh that faux outrage, Clinton committed that most horrible crime of all, he lied under oath about philandering. Yes, looking back he should have been condemned for pushing himself on women, and a corporate CEO would be fired for similar offenses.

I'm sorry, the hypocrisy of acting all outraged at both Clintons, what a crock of ****.
 
SezMe said:
One explanation I read (don't remember where. WaPo?) was that it looked like a compromise solution. For example, he was convicted of bank fraud but not conspiracy to commit bank fraud. This theory says one side got a conviction on one count while the other side got a not guilty on some other.

Caveat emptor.
Click to expand...


As I understand it, one juror found Manafort guilty on eight counts, but held out against the other eleven for a mistrial on ten others.

I'm not sure how compromise was involved with that. If there had been a few "not guilty" verdicts that might make sense, but there wasn't.
 
alfaniner said:
That went on for nearly 30 solid minutes. I loved it.
Click to expand...

It's good that her husband actively avoided being tarnished by association with Trump. Anyone who stays with this administration is damaged goods and there's not a lot of money in being a cautionary tale. Who would want anyone base enough to support this administration when this is all over?
 
acbytesla said:
I'm not sure how the royalty issues are dealt with, but it is a bit of PR problem when you start playing the music of an artist who bad mouths you for playing his music. It's one thing to play a various mixture of songs. But if you play a particular artist's song as part of your intro or right after you finish, you're doing more than genetically playing music. You are creating a theme.... it gives the audience the idea that the artist endorses you.
Click to expand...

Which is an entirely different question than whether or not they sought "permission".
 
Tonight's rally in Columbus could be interesting. There are a number of Republicans in Ohio not real fond of Trump. Kasich has got to be there - it's the State GOP dinner or something like that. Think they'll share a dais or sit on opposite sides of the hall?

Has he got a rally planned or just glad-handing with the locals? I love his rallies because his extemporaneous stuff usually originates from the Q-bots and their ilk.
 
Segnosaur said:
Trump has some more legal problems...

From: https://www.theguardian.com/music/2...mp-to-stop-playing-aerosmith-music-at-rallies
Steven Tyler, the lead singer of Aerosmith, has ordered Donald Trump to stop playing Aerosmith songs at his political rallies... In a cease-and-desist letter, Tyler’s lawyers argued: “Mr Trump is creating the false impression that our client has given his consent for the use of his music, and even that he endorses the presidency of Mr Trump.”

Perhaps if none of Trump's other crimes cause him to be kicked out of office, Aerosmithgate might do it.
Click to expand...

I think Aerosmith should compromise on this. They should offer to make Trump his own song, “Dude (Acts Like a Baby)”
 
Trump Tweets

"Our Economy is setting records on virtually every front - Probably the best our country has ever done. Tremendous value created since the Election. The World is respecting us again! Companies are moving back to the U.S.A."
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"Our Economy is setting records on virtually every front - Probably the best our country has ever done. Tremendous value created since the Election. The World is respecting us again! Companies are moving back to the U.S.A."
Click to expand...
That's not Trump, it doesn't make a petty dig at anyone on his enemies list. That's an underling waving a shoe around like Baghdad Bob.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets

"Our Economy is setting records on virtually every front - Probably the best our country has ever done. Tremendous value created since the Election. The World is respecting us again! Companies are moving back to the U.S.A."
Click to expand...


Can't be bothered to fact check any of that, probably can't go wrong simply assuming its all garbage.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom