Neil Young snubs Donald Trump, gives “Rockin’ in the Free World” to Bernie Sanders

turnabout is fair play..the canadians rock!


The Donald loses his campaign soundtrack to a hippie from Vermont





Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign kicked off like the joke that it is. The billionaire reality TV mogul came out in front of a crowd of partially paid supporters to Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” (and while riding down on an escalator, no less). Beyond the fact that the song is actually a critique of Republican George H. W. Bush’s presidency and the social polices that lead to income inequality, Trump’s use of the song was inappropriate because Young never gave him permission.

Young said in a statement that Trump was not authorized to use ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ in his presidential candidacy announcement.” The statement added that, “Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of America.”

Trump’s camp claimed they paid both ASCAP and BMI for rights to the song, but would cease from using it out of respect to Young. The singer, meanwhile, out of respect to his own political beliefs, has turned around and given Trump’s opponent Sanders permission to use “Rockin’ in the Free World”.

Sanders, the Democratic candidate from Vermont, walked out to the track at a rally in Denver attended by an over-flow audience of 4,500 people. Folks were reportedly standing in the atrium and lacrosse fields outside the auditorium to hear Sanders speak; as far as we know, none of them were paid to be there.

Watch footage of Sanders’ “Rockin’ in the Free World”-aided entrance below (scroll to the 5:00 mark).


and yeah..you are a bald, lying piece of shit!

schuylaar said:

turnabout is fair play..the canadians rock!


The Donald loses his campaign soundtrack to a hippie from Vermont

Unsurprisingly, Donald Trump’s presidential campaign kicked off like the joke that it is. The billionaire reality TV mogul came out in front of a crowd of partially paid supporters to Neil Young’s “Rockin’ in the Free World” (and while riding down on an escalator, no less). Beyond the fact that the song is actually a critique of Republican George H. W. Bush’s presidency and the social polices that lead to income inequality, Trump’s use of the song was inappropriate because Young never gave him permission.

Young said in a statement that Trump was not authorized to use ‘Rockin’ in the Free World’ in his presidential candidacy announcement.” The statement added that, “Neil Young, a Canadian citizen, is a supporter of Bernie Sanders for President of the United States of America.”

Trump’s camp claimed they paid both ASCAP and BMI for rights to the song, but would cease from using it out of respect to Young. The singer, meanwhile, out of respect to his own political beliefs, has turned around and given Trump’s opponent Sanders permission to use “Rockin’ in the Free World”.



Sanders, the Democratic candidate from Vermont, walked out to the track at a rally in Denver attended by an over-flow audience of 4,500 people. Folks were reportedly standing in the atrium and lacrosse fields outside the auditorium to hear Sanders speak; as far as we know, none of them were paid to be there.

Watch footage of Sanders’ “Rockin’ in the Free World”-aided entrance below (scroll to the 5:00 mark).

and yeah..you are a bald, lying piece of shit!

Click to expand...

Sky,

I covered this through my fox news thread but I still like reading about it because I am a Neil young fan and I don't care what Ronnie said about him.

nice.

Hillary Clinton is going to lose: She doesn’t even see the frustrated progressive wave that will nominate Bernie Sanders

no, she doesn't..

Clinton's positioning on TPP is way too cute. When it passes with Dems' implicit support, grass roots will explode

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/22/hil...ssive_wave_that_will_nominate_bernie_sanders/

Hillary Clinton went to New York’s Roosevelt Island earlier this month to relaunch her campaign for president. Her first kickoff fell flat, perhaps because she herself didn’t attend, opting instead to send a video greeting card in which people she still insists on calling ‘everyday Americans’ shared their life plans. (To go to school! Plant a garden! Get married!) She came on at the end to say she had plans of her own that include being president, and that she does it all for us.

She delivered a 45-minute speech that told us little more than that three-minute video. She still won’t say where she’d peg the minimum wage or if she’d ever rein in the surveillance state or get us out of Iraq. Most amazing is how she finesses the Trans Pacific Partnership that President Obama so covets. It’s the biggest deal in the history of commerce; its investor tribunals would substitute corporate for democratic will here and around the world — and Clinton hasn’t said boo about it. Some ask how she gets away with it. I’m not so sure she does.

Politicians have always ducked tough issues, but today’s Democrats are the worst. When the TPP came before the House, enough Democrats played it cute to leave the outcome in doubt till the very end. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi didn’t tip her hand until just before the vote. Many who voted no never said exactly why. Some want to curb currency manipulation. Some oppose the fast track process, others the secret tribunals or the intellectual property rules that actually restrain competition. If the caucus as a whole has a bottom line, no one knows what it is.

The TPP is a mystery because our leaders wish it so. We don’t know what’s in it because our president won’t let us read it, and not out of respect for precedent or protocol. George W. Bush showed us drafts of his trade agreements. We’re negotiating one right now with Europe, and Europeans get to read those drafts. If a comma gets cut from the TPP, hundreds of corporate lobbyists know in an instant. The only people who don’t know are the American people — and that’s only because our president thinks our knowing would ruin everything.

The process by which Congress considers the TPP is confusing in itself. The pact is still being negotiated by the 12 nations who’d be parties to it. The fight now is over legislation meant to grease the skids for it when it finally arrives. At issue are trade promotion authority or TPA — the ‘fast track’ by which Congress vows not to amend or filibuster a trade agreement it hasn’t even read– and trade adjustment assistance or TAA, which gives benefits (money, health insurance, job training) to workers who can prove to the federal government that they lost their jobs due to trade. Signed into law by John Kennedy, expanded by Bill Clinton and extended by George W. Bush, the half-century old program is set to expire in September. The bills now before Congress would keep it alive another six years.

Back in May the Senate approved a bill that included both TAA and TPA. On June 12, the House voted on both, but in separate bills under a rule requiring passage of each in order to send either to the Senate. The rule was alternatively described as an attempt to mirror the Senate bill, or a strategy to gain House passage, there being different majorities there for each provision. (Republicans are for trade promotion. Democrats are for trade assistance.) As a strategy for passage it was a dud. When fast track passed by eight votes (219 to 211), Democrats reversed field and bailed on the TAA just to derail the whole process.

The press called the June 12 votes a huge win for labor and a “humiliating defeat” (the Washington Post) for Obama. Reading such stories one might think fast track or even the TPP itself had suffered a crushing blow. Some on the left even called it historic. Paul Krugman wrote, “House Democrats shocked almost everyone by rejecting key provisions needed to complete the Trans-Pacific Partnership.” To Krugman it seemed a watershed: “Ever since Ronald Reagan’s election in 1980, Democrats have been on the ideological defensive. Even when they won elections they seemed afraid to endorse clearly progressive positions… But that era appears to be over.”

I wouldn’t pop any corks quite yet. For the first time ever Congress hit the pause button on globalization, but that’s all it did. House Dems didn’t suddenly lurch left; they just did what they always do. In 1993 they voted no on NAFTA. In 2002 they voted against the Iraq War. In 2010 they passed an Obamacare bill with a public option. But they can’t ignore their president or their donors forever. In 2008 they resisted Bush’s bailout but finally gave in to Obama and Wall Street. Republicans held firm, thus setting in motion the Tea Party and the sad, sorry debacle of 2010.

On Thursday the Republicans did what any fool could have predicted: they passed a new rule and sent the TPA to the Senate sans worker assistance. We don’t know what will happen next, but we do know fast track has already passed both houses of Congress once. In the end, Obama, Boehner, McConnell and their global capital partners will likely get their way, but June 12 may yet prove historic. In 2008 House Republicans lost the bailout battle but planted the seeds of a grass-roots movement that would win wars. Progressives should examine the precedent.

Krugman’s right: there’s a rumbling out there, but most Democrats are a long way from hearing it, let alone joining in. If House Dems stand firm, they too may plant the seeds of a grass-roots movement. Much of their party will resist. Every political party is really many parties. The Democrats’ presidential, Senate, governors’ and donors’ parties all line up with global capital. Even in the House, Minority Whip Steny Hoyer is a staunch ‘free trader’ and Pelosi herself spent the week before the vote quietly imploring her caucus to swallow the poison pill.

No one knows where scores of Democrats really stand. Both parties are caught in a crossfire between their donors and their base. Republican voters are suspicious of the TPP and hate fast track, mostly because they hate Obama. Democratic voters hate fast track but accept the TPP, mostly because they love Obama. Republicans in Congress are civil because they can’t bash Democrats for doing what their base wishes they would do. Democrats in Congress are quiet because they don’t want their donors to think they mean what they say — and don’t know when someone may offer them something to take one for the team by switching sides.

It’s hard to follow the bouncing ball when the topic’s so opaque, the bill’s locked up like a nuclear code and everyone’s lying or speaking in such empty phrases that they may as well be lying. The press isn’t helping. When all coverage is about motives, message or strategy, it’s easier for politicians to hide their views. This week I told two liberal friends that Pelosi is trying to find “a path to yes on fast track.” (Her words) Both said Pelosi and Clinton had broken with Obama, are moving left and now oppose the deal. In terms of strategy and message it was true — all except the part about Clinton and Pelosi opposing the deal.

No one plays the game better than Hillary Clinton, the Harry Houdini of syntax. The question is whether it’s a winning game, and if so for whom. It isn’t a winning game for progressives. We only win when debate is specific, honest and brave. The TPP debate is like those we have every day over government. The more abstract the terms, the harder it is for us to win. If we find ourselves debating ‘government’ or ‘bureaucracy,’ we lose. If we talk Medicare or Social Security, we win. We even win on foreign aid but only when armed with the facts.

It’s the same with the TPP. Everyone wants more ‘global cooperation’ but no one wants to let Big Pharma stamp out generic drugs or let Big Tobacco tell us how they’ll label their products. And no one wants some secretive global tribunal telling a state legislature how to govern. If there’s an easier case to make, I’ve never seen it. You may ask why every Democrat in Congress doesn’t make it, but we’ve gone over that. Whether they’re in thrall to their donors, their consultants, their leaders or their ambitions, whoever or whatever holds them back, they just can’t do it.

Clinton spoke on Roosevelt Island the day after the House TTP vote. She said the word ‘trade’ once, when breathlessly observing that she could see the new World Trade Center over her shoulder. In a year she has made just one statement on the issue. Months ago, when asked a question by NBC’s Andrea Mitchell she said, “Any trade deal has to produce jobs and raise wages and increase prosperity and protect our security. And we have to do our part in making sure we have the…. skills to be competitive.”

The morning after Announcement II, John Podesta, Clinton’s campaign chairman, appeared on “Meet the Press.” When asked her position on the TPP he managed to sound indignant: “She actually has been very clear about where she stands on trade…. First, does it grow jobs, grow wages and protect American workers and second, does it protect our national security…”

Podesta said Clinton would “render her final judgment” after the deal was done. That was it. Her non-answer would be her final answer until such time as it no longer mattered what she thought. Podesta’s performance may have tripped an alarm even in the tone-deaf Clinton camp. Later that day in Iowa, she talked for the first time on the record about the TPP. In a story headlined Trade Deal Comments Put Hillary Clinton at Odds With Her Former Boss, the Times told how she “bluntly suggested that the president should ‘listen to and work with’ Democrats to improve the deal and ensure better protections for American workers. If that cannot be done Mrs. Clinton said, ‘there should be no deal.’”

This may have been the story my liberal friends read. It reads as if Clinton came out swinging, but read it again and it’s clear she said even less there than she said to Andrea Mitchell. If Obama can’t work with Democratic House leaders who both support the TPP, there shouldn’t be a deal. But why wouldn’t he? Her verbal feint was sublimely subtle. Without changing her position, without even taking one, she repositioned herself on an issueroiling her party and nation. As message politics goes, it was state of the art. Too bad for Clinton it isn’t working.

Clinton’s trade talk is of a piece with her entire 2016 campaign. It’s also of a piece with Obama’s 2008 and 2012 campaigns. Clinton insiders make no secret of her desire to emulate him. Obama’s 2008 campaign had three hallmarks. One was its fundraising. Obama was the first Democratic presidential campaign to outraise a Republican on Wall Street and the first of either party to crack the code of Internet fundraising. The second was its massive, web-driven, volunteer effort, probably the biggest of any presidential campaign in history.

The third was its message, at once fiercely populist and reassuringly centrist — and vague. Much of it came from chief strategist David Axelrod who opined that for too long Democrats had been mired down in issues. His campaigns were famous for selling personalities rather than platforms, for finding ways to reconcile our conflicts in the biographies of his candidates. It worked for Obama. “Yes we can,” audiences called out. “Do what?” few bothered to ask, or thought they had to.

After eight years of Obama, I’m not sure Clinton can run that race, or that anyone can. I don’t think she can enlist Wall Street oligarchs and recruit an army of dewy-eyed volunteers. Above all, I don’t think she can spout populist rhetoric without any policy specifics to back it up. Clinton insiders also ingratiate themselves to reporters by dishing about her need to seem more authentic. Someone should tell them it’s hard to seem real when you won’t tell people what you really think.

This sums up my problem with Mrs Clinton rather well. Sure she's a democrat- but she's funded by the rich elite and will happily sell the ninety percent right down the river.

She's 'vague' because she doesn't want to get caught tipping her hand too early.

She's great at foreign policy but while that's an important aspect of the job, she has apparently forgotten that she's being hired to represent OUR interests.

Mr Sanders has been shouting from the rooftops about income inequality for a lot longer than it's been an issue on the DC radar. That gives him this thing Mrs Clinton didn't have with me; 'credibility.'

Neil Young should stick to music, endorsing Bernie Sanders is offered as evidence of that.

Vermin Supreme 2016 !

Lewis Black Endorses Bernie Sanders, Tells Bill Cosby to F Himself

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...ie-sanders-tells-bill-cosby-to-f-himself.html

I love Neil Young's music. He's a musical genius.

But he should shut the fuck up in regards to political issues. Because like all rich entertainers, he knows nothing about the real world.

TBoneJack said:

I love Neil Young's music. He's a musical genius.

But he should shut the fuck up in regards to political issues. Because like all rich entertainers, he knows nothing about the real world.

Click to expand...

was neil young always an entertainer? perhaps he's experienced the school of hard knocks himself..

o canada! hey! you guys have anything to add?

Neil Young and his little Canadian penis rock hard eh

Bernie Sanders & Cornel West: The radical alliance that could change everything..yes!

http://www.salon.com/2015/06/24/ber...adical_alliance_that_could_change_everything/

and there's the black vote, folks!

It's Official -- Bernie Sanders Has Overtaken Hillary Clinton In the Hearts and Minds of Democrats
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/its-official-bernie-sande_b_7660226.html

Rob Roy said:

Neil Young should stick to music, endorsing Bernie Sanders is offered as evidence of that.

Vermin Supreme 2016 !

Click to expand...

“To me, that’s treason,” Alice Cooper told the Canadian Press. “I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics.”

Until Bernie lays out his mandatory toothbrushing policy, I can't trust him.

ASCIIGHOST said:

“To me, that’s treason,” Alice Cooper told the Canadian Press. “I call it treason against rock ‘n’ roll because rock is the antithesis of politics. Rock should never be in bed with politics.”

Until Bernie lays out his mandatory toothbrushing policy, I can't trust him.

Click to expand...

On occasion he has spoken out against musicians who promote or opine on politics; for example, in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, he told the Canadian Press that the rock stars campaigning for and touring on behalf of Democratic candidateJohn Kerry were committing "treason against rock n' roll". He added, upon seeing a list of musicians who supported Kerry, "If I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."[121]

Well I hope Neil Young will remember,....a Southern man don`t need him around and way,......

ChesusRice said:

On occasion he has spoken out against musicians who promote or opine on politics; for example, in the run-up to the 2004 presidential election, he told the Canadian Press that the rock stars campaigning for and touring on behalf of Democratic candidateJohn Kerry were committing "treason against rock n' roll". He added, upon seeing a list of musicians who supported Kerry, "If I wasn't already a Bush supporter, I would have immediately switched. Linda Ronstadt? Don Henley? Geez, that's a good reason right there to vote for Bush."[121]

Click to expand...

From his lips to God's ears. Truer words have never been spoken.

Doobius1 said:

Neil Young and his little Canadian penis rock hard eh

Click to expand...

This one moves me to tears