2000s US rockers spark controversy after banning Donald Trump voters from their latest tour
The lead singer of 2000s US rockers The Red Jumpsuit Apparatus has sparked controversy after banning Trump supporters from attending the band's shows.
Frontman Ronnie Winter made the declaration in a video posted to his band's official Instagram page over the weekend, eliciting a mixed reaction from some of the rocker's fans on social media.
'If you voted for Donald Trump, do not come to my shows — forever, not just like these four years,' he said passionately.
He then went on to call out Christian Trump supporters, ranting: 'If you're Christian and you voted for Donald Trump, shame on you. You are not allowed to come to my shows. I don't want you there. Don't come to my shows.'
Winter continued: 'Do not come to my shows because you're going to hear a lot of propaganda, and you're going to hear like the actual words of Jesus.'
'You're going to see a lot of acceptance from all areas of life and races, and um, you're just going to see a lot of harmony, OK? That's not what you're about, OK? Don't come. Refunds are available. Forever, don't come. Goodbye.'
'It's awesome that you love Face Down, but it's not for you. It's not your song, OK? It is not your song,' he added, mentioning the band's most successful song that hit the charts back in 2006.
While numerous fans supported the star's views, Winter comments were soon inundated with comments from Trump voters, with one replying: 'Poor baby doesn't want people to come to his show that voted for trump. Did your wittle feewings get hurt? Dawww, don't worry, nobody wants to see a one hit wonder anyway!'
Another commented: 'When is the next show out West? Can't wait to be there with all my Maga buddies.'
'No one's goes to your shows anyway dude so I don't think you have to worry about Trump supporters coming bud,' sneered another.
Elsewhere during his social media rant, Winter lashed out at fans who have criticised his liberal beliefs, insisting that being 'woke' just means 'being awake'.
'Look man, the thing about being woke is you're awake, and once you're awake you can never go to sleep,' he said. 'Not only has nothing changed, but everything they said was going to happen – the woke people – has happened. You have done nothing but prove them right.'
Winter is the latest in a long line of musicians who are speaking up against Donald Trump as tensions continue to rise in the US in recent months, and in Los Angles over the last week.
Winter joins a growing list of musicians who have spoken out against Trump's second term. Bruce Springsteen lashed out at Trump during his latest tour that's been marred by illness.
'In my home, the America I love, the America I've written about, that has been a beacon of hope and liberty for 250 years, is currently in the hands of a corrupt, incompetent and treasonous administration,' Springsteen told a sellout crowd last moth.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
3 hours ago
- ABC News
Trump can keep control of National Guard in LA, appeals court rules
A US appeals court has let Donald Trump retain control on Thursday of California's National Guard while the state's Democratic governor proceeds with a lawsuit challenging the Republican president's use of the troops to quell protests in Los Angeles. Mr Trump's decision to send troops into Los Angeles prompted a national debate about the use of the military on US soil and inflamed political tension in the country's second most populous city. On Thursday (local time), a three-judge panel of the San Francisco-based 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals extended its pause on US District Judge Charles Breyer's June 12 ruling that Mr Trump had unlawfully called the National Guard into federal service. Mr Trump probably acted within his authority, the panel said, adding his administration probably complied with the requirement to coordinate with Governor Gavin Newsom, and even if it did not, he had no authority to veto Mr Trump's directive. "And although we hold that the president likely has authority to federalise the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalised National Guard may engage," it wrote in its opinion. Mr Newsom could still challenge the use of the National Guard and US Marines under other laws, including the bar on using troops in domestic law enforcement, it added. The governor could raise those issues at a court hearing on Friday in front of Judge Breyer, it said. In a post on X after the decision, Mr Newsom vowed to pursue his challenge. "The president is not a king and is not above the law," he said. "We will press forward with our challenge to President Trump's authoritarian use of US military soldiers against our citizens." Mr Trump hailed the decision in a post on Truth Social. "This is a great decision for our country and we will continue to protect and defend law-abiding Americans," he said. "This is much bigger than Gavin, because all over the United States, if our cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should state and local police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done." Judge Breyer's ruling was issued in a lawsuit against Mr Trump's action brought by Mr Newsom, where he ruled that Mr Trump violated a US law governing a president's ability to take control of a state's National Guard by failing to coordinate with the governor. It also found that the conditions set out under the statute to allow this move, such as a rebellion against federal authority, did not exist. Judge Breyer ordered Mr Trump to return control of California's National Guard to Mr Newsom. Hours after Judge Breyer acted, the 9th Circuit panel had put the judge's move on hold temporarily. Amid protests and turmoil in Los Angeles over Mr Trump's immigration raids, the president on June 7 took control of California's National Guard and deployed 4,000 troops against Mr Newsom's wishes. Mr Trump also ordered 700 US Marines to the city after sending in the National Guard. Judge Breyer has not yet ruled on the legality of the Marine Corps mobilisation. At a court hearing on Tuesday on whether to extend the pause on Judge Breyer's decision, members of the 9th Circuit panel questioned lawyers for California and the Trump administration on what role, if any, courts should have in reviewing Mr Trump's authority to deploy the troops. The law sets out three conditions by which a president can federalise state National Guard forces, including an invasion, a "rebellion or danger of a rebellion" against the government or a situation in which the US government is unable with regular forces to execute the country's laws. The appeals court said the final condition had probably been met because protesters hurled items at immigration authorities' vehicles, used a trash dumpster as battering rams, threw Molotov cocktails and vandalised property, frustrating law enforcement. The Justice Department has said once the president determines an emergency exists that warrants the use of the National Guard, no court or state governor can review that decision. The appeals court rejected that argument. The protests in Los Angeles ran for more than a week before they ebbed, leading Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass to lift a curfew she had imposed. In its June 9 lawsuit, California said Mr Trump's deployment of the National Guard and the Marines violated the state's sovereignty and US laws that forbid federal troops from participating in civilian law enforcement. The Trump administration has denied that troops are engaging in law enforcement, saying they are instead protecting federal buildings and personnel, including US Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers. The 9th Circuit panel is comprised of two judges appointed by Mr Trump during his first term and one appointee of Democratic former President Joe Biden. Reuters
News.com.au
3 hours ago
- News.com.au
Bruce Springsteen avoided movie biopic set during filming of ‘deeply personal' scenes
The Dancing in the Dark hitmaker frequently visited the set of Deliver Me From Nowhere, to observe Jeremy Allen White portraying him and recreating scenes from his life. However, Springsteen revealed to Rolling Stone that he deliberately avoided the set whenever White was filming "deeply personal" scenes, because he didn't want his presence to affect The Bear star's performance. 'If there was a scene coming up that was sometimes really deeply personal, I wanted the actors to feel completely free, and I didn't want to get in the way, and so I would just stay at home.'
SBS Australia
5 hours ago
- SBS Australia
'Unmitigated disaster': What Donald Trump could be weighing up on Iran
US President Donald Trump says he's considering whether or not to involve the US in the Israel-Iran conflict. Source: AAP, Press Association / Suzanne Plunkett As hostilities between Israel and Iran continue, United States President Donald Trump is keeping the world guessing as to what he might do next. Israel launched a sweeping aerial campaign against Iran a week ago, calling it a "pre-emptive" strike to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Iran has denied plans to develop such weapons and retaliated by launching counterstrikes on Israel. Trump has repeatedly criticised Iran, called for an "unconditional surrender", and floated the possibility of US action in Iran. On Thursday, Trump said he has yet to decide how the US would proceed, but will do so in the next two weeks. He has indicated there is still a chance of negotiating with Iran. "Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future, I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks," press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters, quoting a message from Trump. Leavitt told a regular briefing at the White House that Trump was interested in pursuing a diplomatic solution with Iran, but his top priority was ensuring that Iran could not obtain a nuclear weapon. Professor Wesley Widmaier, from the Australian National University's Department of International Relations, said domestic policies could play a major role in Trump's decision. Widmaier said a portion of Trump's voter base may not support involvement in the conflict. "I think right now he is poised on the horns of a dilemma between the isolationist MAGA [Make America Great Again] coalition base and anti-Iran pro-Israel kind of foreign policy imperative," he said. "And politicians like to keep things ambiguous for as long as possible; it gives them maximum mobility." Widmaier said the two-week time frame will provide Trump with an extension to weigh up tensions in his supporter base, political strategy and pressure, and the US relationship with Israel. Michael Green, professor and CEO of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney, said Trump is likely deciding whether or not to use a 13,000kg Massive Ordnance Penetrator 'bunker buster' bomb on an Iranian underground nuclear facility. Only the US military has the bunker buster bomb. "I believe that the decision he has to make is whether or not the US drops that bunker-busting bomb on Fordo, the remaining intact part of Iran's nuclear weapons programs," he said. "The reason he might do it is because the Israelis believe that the Iranians are weeks away from creating nuclear weapons capability. The reason to not do it is because there's no guarantee of success." Trump has not outlined exactly what US involvement in Iran could look like, but he has floated several possible scenarios. Comments and social media posts about his plans have veered from proposing a swift diplomatic solution to suggesting the US might join the fighting on Israel's side. On Wednesday, he said nobody knew what he would do. A day earlier, he mused on social media about killing Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, then demanded Iran's unconditional surrender. Iran has warned of "all-out war" if the US joins the military action. Green said while the Iranian regime is vulnerable, it could still "lash out" and cause threats to US forces and allied interests. He said Trump may be hoping the threat of the bunker buster bomb could influence Iranians to agree to peacefully give up their nuclear capability. "I am sceptical that Iran will, even under this huge amount of pressure, give up their nuclear program, [but] they might agree to meet, they might agree to talk about it, to dissipate the pressure," he said. "The most likely scenario is they put something out there to save themselves and it will be debated whether it's enough, and Donald Trump may or may not take it." Widmaier said he believes the US bombing Iran would be a "disaster". "My sense is this would all be leading to a disaster. It would just be a disaster for the region, it would be a disaster for American foreign policy," he said. If the Trump administration decides to pursue US action in Iran, Widmaier said it would need to have clear aims and a clear exit strategy. He said the US government would also want to be sure of public support if it were to take action. "These are lessons of the Vietnam war, these are lessons of the Iraq war, and I see no sense that they really know what they want," Widmaier said. Wars are easy to start, but hard to end. Wesley Windmaier "I say with a high level of confidence that it would be an unmitigated disaster, and it's something absolutely to be avoided. "I don't think you need a PhD to see that, given the disastrous military interventions that are a history of US foreign policy." While Trump has publicly criticised Iran and sided with Israel, US action against Iran is not guaranteed. In the next two weeks, Trump will weigh up different factors and scenarios, including opposition from some of his Republican colleagues, some of whom have said the US should avoid war. Kentucky senator Rand Paul said he hoped Trump would not give in to pressure to get involved. "It's not the US' job to be involved in this war," Paul said on NBC's Meet the Press on Sunday. Republican representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky said on X: "This is not our war. We should not engage our military here." Widmaier said it's possible the president could opt out of the US becoming directly involved in another Middle East conflict. He pointed out Trump does have a record of holding off in the context of Iran. "In his first term, he came right up to the brink of ordering some strikes against Iranian sites, and he backed off at the last possible minute," Widmaier said. "So he does seem to have some inhibitions against, it may be that at the last minute he pulls back ... he does have a pragmatic streak too." — Additional reporting by Reuters and the Australian Associated Press
