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: 6
113
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:50 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
Truthful.
So, he is going to "open" libel laws?




posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Deny Arrogance



Trump did not say anything about SNL "rigging the election."

Actually, he did.


False.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

With Donald, there is no difference.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

I can't tell the future, but I agree that the media needs to be held accountable for defamation.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

So, typical Trump blather.


If you want to call it that. He calls it "truthful hyperbole".

"Truthful Hyperbole" haha. Trump has made rationalizing a national sport. Thank you for that. That's my phrase of the day.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

With Donald, there is no difference.


I guess that makes his kisses particularly vile.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you said:

Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws.
Seems you were telling the future.

The media can be held accountable. If it can be proven that they have lied.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

His rhetoric is actually legendary, to the surprise of many I'm sure. And yes, if you thought it was a joke, he actually does call it truthful hyperbole.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Trump says a lot of things. Most, like this, are nonsensical.

What does he mean by "open up libel law?" How would he have them changed. (Putting aside for the moment, that they are for the most part state statutes.)


You'd have to ask him. I am just stating that the false accusation that he wants to close down the media for writing things that he doesn't like are complete nonsense, peddled by both those who know better and also by fools who jump to the first anti-Trump conclusion they can think of.


To this day, people still bring this up as a reason to avoid Trump. Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws. It was simply a threat to a lying media.


Translation- He was lying.

The irony.


Except he was making the point that the media is writing hitpieces.


And lying about what he would do about it if elected.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you said:

Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws.
Seems you were telling the future.

The media can be held accountable. If it can be proven that they have lied.


What I was trying to get across was that he was making a threat, not saying what he was going to do.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
There is an old saying: Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.

The absolute worst people to pick a fight with are comedians, for they are sneaky and once a door is opened up a little, will yank it wide open.

If history tells us anything, it is that is very true, and there is a lot in the history in the country that would support that to no end. The saddest part is that the GOP candidate obviously is not a student of history.

For reference on such, might we look back to April of 1992, where a then Vice President Dan Quayle, decided to take on a fictional TV character, called Murphy Brown, and once he did, it opened a door that they exploited and made him and the Republican party kind of sorry that he did such and it pretty much aided in Bush senior not getting re-elected that year. They made fun on Quayle, and Bush, and did it during national prime time television viewing. One should wonder if that Quayle did not open that door, would it had been that if it had not been a totally different election that year.

Another point in case on this issue was back in 1988. One of the most influential and powerful people at the time by the name of Jerry Falwell, took on a magazine, and its publisher, Larry Flynt, and lost in the courts. The bases being that in Hustler, it ran a parody about Jerry Falwell, as being an incestuous drunk. He object and sued, and it was fought out in the courts and ultimately lost the court case, as the court upheld the first amendment on the part of Flynt and Hustler magazine.

If the GOP candidate is thinking that this is going to get better with him being president, he is sadly mistaken. Political figures and well known ones are often the brunt of jokes, some classy and others not so, but they are in the spot light, every move is reported and looked at, discussed and ultimately comes into the public eye. Even more serious ones, end up with nick names that are not so flattering.

Personally I think that he should never had said anything, taken it as flattery, and just let it roll like water off a ducks back. Now it there is a good chance he is going to see far worse unflattering things coming out, some true, and some not so true, and ultimately, it will continue for a few years.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you said:

Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws.
Seems you were telling the future.

The media can be held accountable. If it can be proven that they have lied.


Not correct.
A person can sue for defamation just from the effect of inaccurate information written about them. Lying does not have to be proven.
Now a public person has less recourse - they need to prove malice. They are not as protected as the ordinary man or woman in the street.
edit on 16/10/2016 by UKTruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

The plaintiff has to prove the story is untrue.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: UKTruth

The plaintiff has to prove the story is untrue.


Correct, but not that the author of the story lied. Just printing inaccurate information by mistake if it is against a non public person is enough to be sued, and possibly lose, a defamation case.
A public person has to also prove malice.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth


A person can sue for defamation just from the effect of inaccurate information written about them.
They also have to prove that the information was inaccurate.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you said:

Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws.
Seems you were telling the future.

The media can be held accountable. If it can be proven that they have lied.


What I was trying to get across was that he was making a threat, not saying what he was going to do.


Ah, saying one thing in public...



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth


A person can sue for defamation just from the effect of inaccurate information written about them.
They also have to prove that the information was inaccurate.



Yep - but they do not need to prove that the author lied. For non public people it's all about the information, not the intent. Of course if they can prove malice or lying then it will help their case, but it is not necessary.

Perhaps this is exactly what Trump was referring to... it's a better bet than he wanted to judge every case based on his own views with no process.

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



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: UKTruth

So, how is Trump going to "open" that up?



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But you said:

Of course, he is not going to open up any libel laws.
Seems you were telling the future.

The media can be held accountable. If it can be proven that they have lied.


What I was trying to get across was that he was making a threat, not saying what he was going to do.


Ah, saying one thing in public...


That's why we refrain from quote-mining.



posted on Oct, 16 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

So, how is Trump going to "open" that up?


You'd have to ask him - see above for a possibility.




top topics



 
113
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join