I’m just suggesting that any of the PPP recipients who try to stop the Trump campaign from using songs, or actively campaign against Trump seem like they might have an optics issue.
As far as the others, I get that you want it both ways. You want the royalties for licensing your music and you want to appear “woke” (or whatever) by telling Trump that he can’t use what his campaign paid for.
On another music topic. Lady Antebellum changed their name to Lady A, because they want to be as woke as possible. Unfortunately this necessitates suing Anita White, an African American singer who’s gone by Lady A for 20ish years. I guess we now know how best to fight racism.
4 comments:
I rather doubt that for most of these musicians, it's not about wanting to appear woke as much it is they don't want to be associated in any way at all with the most corrupt, most deviant, most perverted racist and sexually predatory president in US history. Because, reason and just a little bit of basic decency.
Because, why would anyone want that? I think most conservatives, including you, don't appear to understand the deep level of revulsion that this man generates because of his awful, predatory, corrupt nature. If he were just Donald Trump, the man who was abused sufficiently by his parents that he came out completely amoral and perverted/broken, we could feel some sympathy For the Individual, Trump. But Trump, the predator, corrupt, con man president..., we are filled with loathing for his behavior.
Dan,
I understand your need to twist everything into a narrative that makes you feel good.
My point is, that these musicians want the money that they get from licensing their music for public use (use by ANYONE who pays the fees), but they also want to make it seem like Trump “stole” their music and that they have the ability to stop legal use of their songs.
But, beyond that, the point of the post was something else entirely.
"I rather doubt that for most of these musicians, it's not about wanting to appear woke as much it is they don't want to be associated in any way at all with the most corrupt, most deviant, most perverted racist and sexually predatory president in US history."
But Bill Clinton is no longer president, so...
"I think most conservatives, including you, don't appear to understand the deep level of revulsion that this man generates because of his awful, predatory, corrupt nature."
That's because this "revulsion" is so irrational given his many beneficial accomplishments in the face of constant attacks by loathsome people like Dan. Dan's constant assault on Trump is truly perverse.
So the “revulsion” against Trump is ok, but the revulsion against Biden or Clinton apparently doesn’t count.
Post a Comment