I can't remember exactly who it was, but more than once an artist called a political campaign and had them stop using the song (I think one example was Bruce)

ETA - a link, and Bruce was one of the objectors

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/16/politics/music-in-campaigns/

Pretty sure Rage Against the Machine went after Paul Ryan pretty hard for using one of their songs or claiming to be a fan. Talk about not listening to the lyrics! Just who did he think he was fooling with that?

Trump knows he has no prayer but he is an attention whore and will do anything to get press.

Man I hope most of these jokers make it to the GOP debates as it will be a three ring circus and comedy gold.

No political commentary here at all. But I'm watching Donald Trump announce his candidacy for President and he's using Neil Young's, "Keep on Rockin' in the Free World" for theme music. Do y'all think Neil signed off on this?

I'm thinking of Ronald Reagan using Springsteen's, "Born in the USA" (did he even read the lyrics?). Do politicians consult with the songwriters? If you pay the royalty fee, can you use the song/music at your discretion?

EDIT: misspelled "read". RB

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by Rusty]

The campaign needs to get permission from the artist and/or artist rep (and in some cases the record label and song writer/publisher if different from performer) or be subject to lawsuit. Here is what ASCAP says:

http://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf

Regarding Trump, I didn't think he'd actually pull the trigger. Should be entertaining. So now we have 12 declared GOP candidates...anyone else want to jump in???

http://www.ascap.com/~/media/files/pdf/advocacy-legislation/political_campaign.pdf
[Edited on 6/16/2015 by gondicar]

I can't remember exactly who it was, but more than once an artist called a political campaign and had them stop using the song (I think one example was Bruce)

Heart asked Sarah Palin to stop using "Barricuda."

http://l.yimg.com/os/publish-images/omg/2014-04-04/cb24b210-bc42-11e3-a13d-5739b97a3bec_Screen-Shot-2014-04-04-at-2-45-05-PM.pn g">

Pretty sure Rage Against the Machine went after Paul Ryan pretty hard for using one of their songs or claiming to be a fan. Talk about not listening to the lyrics! Just who did he think he was fooling with that?

He wasn't trying to fool anybody. He's a fan and listens to RATM when he works out.

note the masonic illuminati handshake

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

From the DNC...

"Today, Donald Trump became the second major Republican candidate to announce for president in two days. He adds some much-needed seriousness that has previously been lacking from the GOP field, and we look forward to hearing more about his ideas for the nation."

Here's one for Pelosi...

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

What makes you think a billionaire would have the public's interest at heart. They did not become rich by worrying about the little man.

Besides Trump has had his share of failures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

Just because someone is rich means they are qualified to run this country

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by Bill_Graham]

It's just so disheartening, envisioning a Clinton vs. Bush "choice"....

Lord help us.

There is something appealing about a candidate rich enough to finance his own ride without being beholden to a bunch of special interest donors. I liked what he said about Ford - who plans to open a 2.5 billion dollar facility in Mexico: "(if elected) I'll impose a 30% tax on every vehicle and part that comes into this country". He said that no other candidate has the means to make and enforce this threat - as Ford (and other companies) and their subsidiaries finance so many candidates.

For the record, I find Trump to be a pompous and self-serving a$$ with a monumental ego. It is the ego, however that just might make him want to be a leader. You know the wealthy, power types - always concerned about their legacies.

As someone stated in another thread - the whole GOP primary should provide some great entertainment. Personally, I think the Dem's will provide a few chuckles of their own. 😉

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

What makes you think a billionaire would have the public's interest at heart. They did not become rich by worrying about the little man.

Besides Trump has had his share of failures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

Just because someone is rich means they are qualified to run this country

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by Bill_Graham]

Yeah, I feel real connected to Hillary being as how destitute she and Bill are.

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

What makes you think a billionaire would have the public's interest at heart. They did not become rich by worrying about the little man.

Besides Trump has had his share of failures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

Just because someone is rich means they are qualified to run this country

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by Bill_Graham]

Yeah, I feel real connected to Hillary being as how destitute she and Bill are.

Who ever said any of these rich politicians are connected to their constituents? I was responding to Alloaks post implying a business person like Trump would make a better President despite having zero political experience and will somehow get the economy roaring again. As if he is some Obi Kenobi who will hypnotize the current politicians in Washington to bend to his will.

This is not his TV program where Trump can order people to do his bidding. He would have to navigate the gridlock in Washington the same as any other politician.

It's just so disheartening, envisioning a Clinton vs. Bush "choice"....

Lord help us.

Look at the bright side. If we get eight years of Hillary, then Chelsea will be ready to run in 2024.

There is something appealing about a candidate rich enough to finance his own ride without being beholden to a bunch of special interest donors. I liked what he said about Ford - who plans to open a 2.5 billion dollar facility in Mexico: "(if elected) I'll impose a 30% tax on every vehicle and part that comes into this country". He said that no other candidate has the means to make and enforce this threat - as Ford (and other companies) and their subsidiaries finance so many candidates.

For the record, I find Trump to be a pompous and self-serving a$$ with a monumental ego. It is the ego, however that just might make him want to be a leader. You know the wealthy, power types - always concerned about their legacies.

As someone stated in another thread - the whole GOP primary should provide some great entertainment. Personally, I think the Dem's will provide a few chuckles of their own. 😉

LOL Trump says a lot of bold things, few of which could ever become a reality. I think he forgets there is a little thing called NAFTA which eliminated the tariffs he claims he would implement.

And as far as him being able to get things done because he is not controlled by big business I wonder if he realizes he can't just order things to get done like on his TV show and fire people who displease him.

Even if by some miracle he actually won he would have to deal with politicians from both parties who are controlled by big business. Like I said he comes out every election making big claims to get publicity.

As far as the Democratic debates are concerned, considering the lack of completion Hilliary has, I doubt they will come close to the entertainment circus the GOP debates promise.

It's just so disheartening, envisioning a Clinton vs. Bush "choice"....

Lord help us.

Look at the bright side. If we get eight years of Hillary, then Chelsea will be ready to run in 2024.

Your obsession / love affair with Hillary is noted...AGAIN. The good news is you can transfer it to her daughter. Seems you're already on that path.

It's just so disheartening, envisioning a Clinton vs. Bush "choice"....

Lord help us.

Look at the bright side. If we get eight years of Hillary, then Chelsea will be ready to run in 2024.

And considering what trainwreck the Republican party is in the POTUS elections she would probably win. 😛

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

What makes you think a billionaire would have the public's interest at heart. They did not become rich by worrying about the little man.

Besides Trump has had his share of failures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

Just because someone is rich means they are qualified to run this country

Who said anything about being rich making a person qualified? Actually, we're not likely to ever have a "poor" candidate, nor one that's never suffered failure.

A huge part of the job is team-building. I have no doubt that Trump could surround himself with all the right people. A zero growth economy can no longer be an option.

So I'm in the gym today running the treadmill & thought the TV was on Comedy Central, but it was actually a political channel. On the tube was the guy with the squirrel on his head actually throwing his hat in the ring.

Saw Trump take some pot shots today at Jeb (the guy who no longer uses his last name) & Rubio.

The funny thing is that he'll probably end up keeping skilled or semi skilled candidates out of the GOP primary debates (example - John Kasich).

As far as the debates go, it's guaranteed to be a real laugh fest when Trump has to answer questions of substance and goes after his fellow GOP brethren.

So who will moderate these love fest debates? Best guess is David Shipman. For those who may not know him, David is a ringmaster with The Greatest Show On Earth.

So, I guess Neil's okay with it?

Not an endorsement here (so hold your fire), but as with H. Ross Perot - it's good to hear a politician speaking in plain terms and saying what he means as opposed to dancing all around a question and coming up with a bunch of double-talk that doesn't come close to addressing the actual question. Let's see how it plays on the road.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

What makes you think a billionaire would have the public's interest at heart. They did not become rich by worrying about the little man.

Besides Trump has had his share of failures.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/12-donald-trump-businesses-that-no-longer-exist-204923129.html

Just because someone is rich means they are qualified to run this country

[Edited on 6/16/2015 by Bill_Graham]

Yeah, I feel real connected to Hillary being as how destitute she and Bill are.

She seemed all in on Obamanomics. Never mind the exploding debt, contracting economy, wage stagnation, lack of high paying job creation, one in five in poverty, record food stamp usage, low labor participation rate, ect, ect. She commended his handling of the economy and nothing in her re-launch speech indicated any departure from the status quo.

Her reasoning for middle class slippage and wage stagnation was that CEO's were paying themselves too much money......Oh. Pretty amusing coming from someone with a family income of $100 million over the last two years. Her ideas to jumpstart the economy run along the lines of universal child care and no-debt college for everyone. And of course, she doesn't believe businesses and corporations create jobs.

Zero-growth economics simply can no longer be an option.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

Trump certainly is getting economies growing - in Turkey, Argentina, South Korea, Uruguay, Panama, and the Phillipines - where his newest projects are.

I think a reality show veteran is just what the US needs.

I just heard on TV that Trump hasn't filed papers yet with the FEC to officially declare.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

Trump certainly is getting economies growing - in Turkey, Argentina, South Korea, Uruguay, Panama, and the Phillipines - where his newest projects are.

A lesson here somewhere? Business friendly environments.

A non-politician with a wealth of real world experience appeals to me. He'd be a much better President than what we have now, especially economically. We simply must get the economy growing again. Obamanomics = Zero growth.

Trump certainly is getting economies growing - in Turkey, Argentina, South Korea, Uruguay, Panama, and the Phillipines - where his newest projects are.

A lesson here somewhere? Business friendly environments.

Sorry, I thought you were in favor of growing the economy in the US.

Smartly, much of the rest of the world has abandoned the failed economic model of central planning, cronyism, over regulation, government controls, ect. Moving more in the direction of pure capitalism.

Strangely, the USA seems intent on moving in the opposite direction, toward the failed models. This trend must be revered.