It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Donald Trump thinks SNL is rigging the election and should be canceled

page: 4
113
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: underwerks




If he keeps up with this, nobody will believe him at all when he loses and starts screaming about the conspiracy of the election being rigged.

You are very wrong about that. And it won't be a good thing.

I meant nobody would believe him outside of his own cult of adoration. He can say anything and his supporters will eat it up because they hate the other side so much. That's a given.




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:55 PM
link   
For Trump nothing is his own fault. He is never wrong, he knows better than everybody else and everything is always the best of the worst. He clearly has some issues he needs to see somebody about.

He has given up on the election and now seems only to want to lash out and bring everybody else down with him.
And the truth is he has nobody to blame but, himself. He tried to play himself off as this super business man when it turned out most people here could have taken what he was given and done better. He chose to run a campaign during the primaries that limit his appeal in the election, he chose to attack his own party, he chose to go on these rambling nonsensical rants, he chose to lie non stop when speaking and during debates, he chose to be ignorant about foreign affairs, them military and economics when he has a pack of experts to help him, he chose to hire idiots to run his campaign. And just like he never takes responsibility for any of his many many many failures he will not do so with this election either.

Honestly I hope goes and gets some help. Clearly the man has had some sort of break down.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Swills

You've just insulted coke and meth heads the world over.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 12:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Gryphon66
A "man" who wants to be President is fighting with a television show.

If you want to give this "man" the nuke codes, for whatever reason, you're as nutty as he is.


Not only would he have the Nuke codes, this idiot and his temper tantrums is doing exactly what hes done before........

Advocating shutting down forms of media that says things he doesnt like......

A few years ago when Obama was picking and choosing media to let in on meetings, Conservatives like myself were APPALLED that anyone in that position of power would stifle any media outlet.......

Now Trump supporters are advocating for it, or outright ignoring Trumps repeated threats of doing just that.....

They have lost their damn minds


Trump has said he would open up liable laws so people could sue the media more easily if they slandered and lied. That has nothing to do with shutting down the media in some Dystopian future you are trying to scare people with.

What kind of effect do you think it would have on what writers write if there's always a possibility that thanks to Trump "opening" up libel laws (whatever that really means outside of TrumpSpeak) they may get arrested and fined for writing something that is actual truth but doesn't go along with what Trump wants to hear about himself? This is one of the most insidious forms of censorship. He's in effect using his power to squash any opinion he doesn't agree with.


No, any reporter who actually tells the truth and has the required evidence for any claim against another person would be safe from any problem. That is how it should it be. You are effectively saying it's insidious to hold the press to account and ensure they report the truth. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, but not free from the consequences.
edit on 16/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth



That is how it should it be.

And, how is it now?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
a reply to: UnBreakable

I think the more important numbers are from the swing states... what were Trump leads (some of them healthy) are now Clinton leads and in some blue states where she was under some threat she has pulled away again. I think the 85/15 odds are about right at this stage.



She's going to win, no doubt. But if she is so much better than Trump, as the media and pundits are saying, then she should be ahead by at least 25.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: underwerks




If he keeps up with this, nobody will believe him at all when he loses and starts screaming about the conspiracy of the election being rigged.

You are very wrong about that. And it won't be a good thing.

I meant nobody would believe him outside of his own cult of adoration. He can say anything and his supporters will eat it up because they hate the other side so much. That's a given.


But of course, that can't possibly be said about Hillary supporters.

Never mind about the irredeemable deplorables.
edit on 10jY by UnBreakable because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: UnBreakable

Clinton has a likely 256 electoral votes. She needs 14 out of the 112 "toss ups."
Trump has a likely 179 electoral votes. He needs 91 of the "toss ups."

That's quite a bit ahead.
www.realclearpolitics.com...



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Gryphon66
A "man" who wants to be President is fighting with a television show.

If you want to give this "man" the nuke codes, for whatever reason, you're as nutty as he is.


Not only would he have the Nuke codes, this idiot and his temper tantrums is doing exactly what hes done before........

Advocating shutting down forms of media that says things he doesnt like......

A few years ago when Obama was picking and choosing media to let in on meetings, Conservatives like myself were APPALLED that anyone in that position of power would stifle any media outlet.......

Now Trump supporters are advocating for it, or outright ignoring Trumps repeated threats of doing just that.....

They have lost their damn minds


Trump has said he would open up liable laws so people could sue the media more easily if they slandered and lied. That has nothing to do with shutting down the media in some Dystopian future you are trying to scare people with.

What kind of effect do you think it would have on what writers write if there's always a possibility that thanks to Trump "opening" up libel laws (whatever that really means outside of TrumpSpeak) they may get arrested and fined for writing something that is actual truth but doesn't go along with what Trump wants to hear about himself? This is one of the most insidious forms of censorship. He's in effect using his power to squash any opinion he doesn't agree with.


No, any reporter who actually tells the truth and has the required evidence for any claim against another person would be safe from any problem. That is how it should it be. You are effectively saying it's insidious to hold the press to account and ensure they report the truth. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, but not free from the consequences.

We already have libel laws that take care of everything you just posted. Trump wants to go further, and make it easier to sue for news coverage that's unfavorable even if it's true. I never stated it's insidious to hold the press to account and ensure they report the truth. Quite the opposite. I'm talking about opinion pieces, which Trump wants to be able to silence if they aren't Trump-positive. Any further "opening" of our libel laws by a Trump admin would be government censorship, headed towards fascism, plain and simple.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:17 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

That's not true.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnBreakable

Clinton has a likely 256 electoral votes. She needs 14 out of the 112 "toss ups."
Trump has a likely 179 electoral votes. He needs 91 of the "toss ups."


Hmmm, 91 + 14 = 105 out of "112 toss ups"

So if Clinton gets her 14 and Trump gets his 91, is that when the Supreme Court or Congress step in to declare Clinton the winner?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: underwerks

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: Gryphon66
A "man" who wants to be President is fighting with a television show.

If you want to give this "man" the nuke codes, for whatever reason, you're as nutty as he is.


Not only would he have the Nuke codes, this idiot and his temper tantrums is doing exactly what hes done before........

Advocating shutting down forms of media that says things he doesnt like......

A few years ago when Obama was picking and choosing media to let in on meetings, Conservatives like myself were APPALLED that anyone in that position of power would stifle any media outlet.......

Now Trump supporters are advocating for it, or outright ignoring Trumps repeated threats of doing just that.....

They have lost their damn minds


Trump has said he would open up liable laws so people could sue the media more easily if they slandered and lied. That has nothing to do with shutting down the media in some Dystopian future you are trying to scare people with.

What kind of effect do you think it would have on what writers write if there's always a possibility that thanks to Trump "opening" up libel laws (whatever that really means outside of TrumpSpeak) they may get arrested and fined for writing something that is actual truth but doesn't go along with what Trump wants to hear about himself? This is one of the most insidious forms of censorship. He's in effect using his power to squash any opinion he doesn't agree with.


No, any reporter who actually tells the truth and has the required evidence for any claim against another person would be safe from any problem. That is how it should it be. You are effectively saying it's insidious to hold the press to account and ensure they report the truth. Everyone should be free to say whatever they want, but not free from the consequences.

We already have libel laws that take care of everything you just posted. Trump wants to go further, and make it easier to sue for news coverage that's unfavorable even if it's true. I never stated it's insidious to hold the press to account and ensure they report the truth. Quite the opposite. I'm talking about opinion pieces, which Trump wants to be able to silence if they aren't Trump-positive. Any further "opening" of our libel laws by a Trump admin would be government censorship, headed towards fascism, plain and simple.


Totally untrue -


Please link me any statement from Trump that says he wants to open libel laws for people to sue just because they don't like what is written about them even if it is true.
edit on 16/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:24 PM
link   
Trump's emotional age seems to be around junior high school level, which would explain much of what he says and does.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: redmage

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UnBreakable

Clinton has a likely 256 electoral votes. She needs 14 out of the 112 "toss ups."
Trump has a likely 179 electoral votes. He needs 91 of the "toss ups."


Hmmm, 91 + 14 = 105 out of "112 toss ups"

So if Clinton gets her 14 and Trump gets his 91, is that when the Supreme Court or Congress step in to declare Clinton the winner?


Trump needs 100 of the 112 current toss up electoral college votes, or more specifically he can only afford to lose 1 of the smaller of the 10 toss up states.

Clinton just needs to win NC at this stage and can afford to lose the other 9 including Florida, Ohio, New Hampshire, Nevada, and Minnesota.

The path for Trump is incredibly narrow and it's going to take a major event or news story at this point for him to win.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So How do you feel about Trumps tweet about SNL? Given he has appeared twice on the show.

Any thoughts on the actual pathetic topic?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected,"

www.politico.com...

There is no law which protects the New York Times from lawsuits.

edit on 10/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth


"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected,"

www.politico.com...


Thanks - now could you try and post something that actually says he wants to open up libel laws even for things that are true... I've bolded the section for you that dismisses your source as not interesting to the debate. For avoidance of any doubt, note the use of the word 'and' and not the word 'or'.



"One of the things I'm going to do if I win, and I hope we do and we're certainly leading. I'm going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws. So when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they're totally protected,"

edit on 16/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   
Yeah.....there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment


Maybe Trump should read the constitution before he opens his big fat stupid orange mouth.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Yeah.....there is a little thing called the 1st Amendment


Maybe Trump should read the constitution before he opens his big fat stupid orange mouth.




The first amendment does not protect a person from being sued for smearing with false accusations. Maybe you should read it.

here is some help for you:

Statements made about a public person (political candidates, governmental officeholder, movie star, author, celebrity, sports hero, etc.) are usually exempt, even if they are untrue and harmful. However, if they were made with malice – with hate, dislike, intent and/or desire to harm and with reckless disregard for the truth – the public person may have a cause of action. This was determined by the U.S. Supreme Court and has been re-interpreted various times.

edit on 16/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So, no negative Op-eds in newspapers anymore?
So, no need for a plaintiff to prove that the paper lied? He just automatically wins lots of money because...why?




edit on 10/16/2016 by Phage because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
113
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join