Conservatives unite, turn on SNL this Saturday night !!

[washamericom]

should be a good show, i haven't watched snl since the last time he hosted.

When was that?

SEASON 29 | EPISODE 16 | 4/03/2004

Were you a Trump superfan back then? Or.....did his appearance make you so Upset that you haven't watched the show since? What possible other reason could there be for this development. You last watched SNL the last time Donald Trump was the host.....in 2004?

Check this out. I do not believe your claim. You lied as a matter of habit here. Many nutters say things like this for some reason.....it's as if you think it gives you some strength or bolsters your nutter street cred.

Weird.

i'm a morning person now..., not really a development,
is jimmy fallon still in the cast ?, that guy is funny, destined for success someday

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is it true that the OP thinks SNL ratings will help elect Trump?

I DVR every SNL episode. I plan on watching. Trump is fine as an entertainer.

I wonder if Trump will get upset ( like he did when Obama roasted his ass at the WH Correspondents Dinner ) when one of the skits lampoons him and the fact that he is losing to Ben Carson?

There's no doubt the ratings will spike. That's what controversy does. Same reason they had Andrew Dice Clay host that one time.

There's also no doubt that the Rump-worshipers here will have no clue what that ratings spike means. Hint: if SNL had Adolf Hitler hosting that would spike the ratings too.

Of course it will. Let's face it, no one candidate other than Trump could have forced CNBC into cutting the debate program by one hour. Had Huckabee or Kasich made such a demand, NBC would have told them "if you don't like it, don't show up!"

Trump was the ratings getter and CNBC knew it. Without Trump, it wouldn't have been worth their time hosting it. Without Trump, they couldn't charge their sponsors what they did.

Rump is a ratings magnet, I agree. For the same reason that WWE or Gallagher smashing watermelons is. But who suggested he was responsible for cutting a debate by a hour? I'm not familiar with that (wasn't folllowing it either)?

Not a huge controversy but a controversy nonetheless. Here's a link to one of the articles:

Trump Right on 2-Hour Debate Win on CNBC

 

[Pogo]

Is it true that the OP thinks SNL ratings will help elect Trump?

I DVR every SNL episode. I plan on watching. Trump is fine as an entertainer.

I wonder if Trump will get upset ( like he did when Obama roasted his ass at the WH Correspondents Dinner ) when one of the skits lampoons him and the fact that he is losing to Ben Carson?

There's no doubt the ratings will spike. That's what controversy does. Same reason they had Andrew Dice Clay host that one time.

There's also no doubt that the Rump-worshipers here will have no clue what that ratings spike means. Hint: if SNL had Adolf Hitler hosting that would spike the ratings too.

Of course it will. Let's face it, no one candidate other than Trump could have forced CNBC into cutting the debate program by one hour. Had Huckabee or Kasich made such a demand, NBC would have told them "if you don't like it, don't show up!"

Trump was the ratings getter and CNBC knew it. Without Trump, it wouldn't have been worth their time hosting it. Without Trump, they couldn't charge their sponsors what they did.

Rump is a ratings magnet, I agree. For the same reason that WWE or Gallagher smashing watermelons is. But who suggested he was responsible for cutting a debate by a hour? I'm not familiar with that (wasn't folllowing it either)?

Not a huge controversy but a controversy nonetheless. Here's a link to one of the articles:

Trump Right on 2-Hour Debate Win on CNBC

Thanks for that, although I hardly consider the one-two punch of Newsmax and Donald Rump a "credible source" as to who influenced who.

Doubly interesting that the CNBC guy says it was always going to be two hours, and that Rump talks in terms of "getting the hell out of there".

Three and a half hours seems a long time -- two hours seems a long time -- but I'm counting TEN people on that stage. The more participants there are, the more each gets time cut out, if the total time is a constant. So ten people requires time, else it's not really a debate.

I think the criticism might be better focused on the idea of milking TV ratings out of a field that hasn't yet pared itself down to a manageable size. But on the other hand if you do want to preview the field, then you're gonna need time. Can't have it both ways.

How long was the Democratic debate with half as many participants?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Is it true that the OP thinks SNL ratings will help elect Trump?

I DVR every SNL episode. I plan on watching. Trump is fine as an entertainer.

I wonder if Trump will get upset ( like he did when Obama roasted his ass at the WH Correspondents Dinner ) when one of the skits lampoons him and the fact that he is losing to Ben Carson?

There's no doubt the ratings will spike. That's what controversy does. Same reason they had Andrew Dice Clay host that one time.

There's also no doubt that the Rump-worshipers here will have no clue what that ratings spike means. Hint: if SNL had Adolf Hitler hosting that would spike the ratings too.

Of course it will. Let's face it, no one candidate other than Trump could have forced CNBC into cutting the debate program by one hour. Had Huckabee or Kasich made such a demand, NBC would have told them "if you don't like it, don't show up!"

Trump was the ratings getter and CNBC knew it. Without Trump, it wouldn't have been worth their time hosting it. Without Trump, they couldn't charge their sponsors what they did.

Rump is a ratings magnet, I agree. For the same reason that WWE or Gallagher smashing watermelons is. But who suggested he was responsible for cutting a debate by a hour? I'm not familiar with that (wasn't folllowing it either)?

Not a huge controversy but a controversy nonetheless. Here's a link to one of the articles:

Trump Right on 2-Hour Debate Win on CNBC

Thanks for that, although I hardly consider the one-two punch of Newsmax and Donald Rump a "credible source" as to who influenced who.

Doubly interesting that the CNBC guy says it was always going to be two hours, and that Rump talks in terms of "getting the hell out of there".

Three and a half hours seems a long time -- two hours seems a long time -- but I'm counting TEN people on that stage. The more participants there are, the more each gets time cut out, if the total time is a constant. So ten people requires time, else it's not really a debate.

I think the criticism might be better focused on the idea of milking TV ratings out of a field that hasn't yet pared itself down to a manageable size. But on the other hand if you do want to preview the field, then you're gonna need time. Can't have it both ways.

How long was the Democratic debate with half as many participants?

Given the types of questions that were asked, I don't think we would have learned much more if the debate were even five hours. The questions were designed to start trouble between the candidates which they did.

In the Democrat debate, you learned just about everything you needed to know as a Democrat voter. In fact I have no idea WTF they will be discussing in the next Democrat debate.

 

[blackhawk]

I didn't watch SNL when Hillary did her appearance on it not watching Trump on it either.

 

[Pogo]

I didn't watch SNL when Hillary did her appearance on it not watching Trump on it either.

I fired my TV long ago so won't be watching either. Before I chucked the boob tube SNL was about the only thing I would watch anyway besides sports; I figured I could get what I wanted to see online and that's proved to be true as long as you don't mind waiting for a later view (or don't mind paying for a live sports stream).

Saw the last Hillary skit after the show though. It was pretty good, although the ending was really lame. I always find it interesting to watch people performing out of their own element to see how well they do at it.

 

[DigitalDrifter]

With this video of Latino children cursing, it's even more important to show these people that their boycott is a dud.
Conservatives unite, TURN IT ON !!!

 

[Pogo]

With this video of Latino children cursing, it's even more important to show these people that their boycott is a dud.
Conservatives unite, TURN IT ON !!!

uhhh.... what video?

He didn't say they were "cursers" --- he said they were rapists.

Wonder if they'll do a skit about that. I would hope so.

 

[bendog]

With this video of Latino children cursing, it's even more important to show these people that their boycott is a dud.
Conservatives unite, TURN IT ON !!!

uhhh.... what video?

He didn't say they were "cursers" --- he said they were rapists.

Wonder if they'll do a skit about that. I would hope so.

I hope I remember to TiVo it. I don't watch SNL anymore ... it's past my bed time.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

With this video of Latino children cursing, it's even more important to show these people that their boycott is a dud.
Conservatives unite, TURN IT ON !!!

uhhh.... what video?

He didn't say they were "cursers" --- he said they were rapists.

Wonder if they'll do a skit about that. I would hope so.

Video of Latino children cursing:

‘F**k you racist f**k!’: Pro-Hillary PAC Uses Foul-mouthed Hispanic Children to Attack Trump » Infowars Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

 

[Pogo]

Jeepers gosh whiz! I guess only Latinos use profanity -- who knew? Ya learn sump'm every ******* day.

Ah where would we be without Alex Jones. Laughing less I suspect.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Jeepers gosh whiz! I guess only Latinos use profanity -- who knew? Ya learn sump'm every ******* day.

Ah where would we be without Alex Jones. Laughing less I suspect.

You didn't even know about the video. Do you suppose you would have known if Huckabee or Kasich made a similar video about Hilary? Bet it would be the talk of MSM for weeks.

 

[Pogo]

Did Hillary call an ethnic group "rapists"? Hey, Rump knew he'd get backlash, I'm sure this doesn't surprise him. He traded any credibility with Latinos in exchange for the drooling genuflecting of those who hate them. He's a gambler. Sometimes that works on balance, sometimes it doesn't and you go bankrupt four times.

No I didn't know about that video -- the other poster just made an oblique reference without posting it, so thanks for that. Hey, you know who should make another one like it? Women.

And then after that, "The Blacks". That one's easy -- doesn't even need dialogue. You just open on a close-up of the infamous Rump Board Game and pan back to various black people counting Rump Play Money. Rump's voice in the background going "I hate it I hate it". Then the camera pans back further and we see that the whole thing's being shot by short guys wearing yarmulkes.

I kill me. I can feel SNL writers reading this right now going "HEY WAIT! New Material!!"

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Did Hillary call an ethnic group "rapists"? Hey, Rump knew he'd get backlash, I'm sure this doesn't surprise him. He traded any credibility with Latinos in exchange for the drooling genuflecting of those who hate them. He's a gambler. Sometimes that works on balance, sometimes it doesn't and you go bankrupt four times.

No I didn't know about that video -- the other poster just made an oblique reference without posting it, so thanks for that. Hey, you know who should make another one like it? Women.

And then after that, "The Blacks". That one's easy -- doesn't even need dialogue. You just open on a close-up of the infamous Rump Board Game and pan back to various black people counting Rump Play Money. Rump's voice in the background going "I hate it I hate it". Then the camera pans back further and we see that the whole thing's being shot by short guys wearing yarmulkes.

I kill me. I can feel SNL writers reading this right now going "HEY WAIT! New Material!!"

Who has done more disservice to the blacks than this administration?

Unemployment--particularly younger male blacks is almost twice the national average. We've never seen so many disturbances by blacks such as riots and protests under any other administration since the Civil Rights act was passed. We have a President who threw out a huge Welcome Mat on our borders for people that come here and take jobs blacks would otherwise have had.

Now I understand candidates have no control over what their little groups throw out there, but at the very least, Hillary should have said she doesn't approve of these children using language I would have never been allowed to utter as a child in front of my parents or any adult. I also stand by my point it's being swept under the rug my MSM because this video supports a Democrat candidate.

 

[Pogo]

Did Hillary call an ethnic group "rapists"? Hey, Rump knew he'd get backlash, I'm sure this doesn't surprise him. He traded any credibility with Latinos in exchange for the drooling genuflecting of those who hate them. He's a gambler. Sometimes that works on balance, sometimes it doesn't and you go bankrupt four times.

No I didn't know about that video -- the other poster just made an oblique reference without posting it, so thanks for that. Hey, you know who should make another one like it? Women.

And then after that, "The Blacks". That one's easy -- doesn't even need dialogue. You just open on a close-up of the infamous Rump Board Game and pan back to various black people counting Rump Play Money. Rump's voice in the background going "I hate it I hate it". Then the camera pans back further and we see that the whole thing's being shot by short guys wearing yarmulkes.

I kill me. I can feel SNL writers reading this right now going "HEY WAIT! New Material!!"

Who has done more disservice to the blacks than this administration?

Oh, uh... the first fifteen Presidents.... Andrew Johnson... Woodrow Wilson.... probably a few more...

Unemployment--particularly younger male blacks is almost twice the national average. We've never seen so many disturbances by blacks such as riots and protests under any other administration since the Civil Rights act was passed. We have a President who threw out a huge Welcome Mat on our borders for people that come here and take jobs blacks would otherwise have had.

Piffle. Hype, statistical cherrypicking and speculation, but it's got nothing to do with my post.

Now I understand candidates have no control over what their little groups throw out there, but at the very least, Hillary should have said she doesn't approve of these children using language I would have never been allowed to utter as a child in front of my parents or any adult. I also stand by my point it's being swept under the rug my MSM because this video supports a Democrat candidate.

Hillary didn't make this ad or approve it. That's an association fallacy, bro. And it doesn't "support a Democratic candidate" --- it doesn't even mention a Democratic candidate. Matter of fact they don't mention anybody at all except Rump. Might wanna watch your own video if you wanna claim to be offended by it.

Ya ever think that maybe it's not known because it's what we call in broadcasting NBQ (Not Broadcast Quality - meaning it's got "****"s in it)?

 

[BULLDOG]

There's no doubt the ratings will spike. That's what controversy does. Same reason they had Andrew Dice Clay host that one time.

There's also no doubt that the Rump-worshipers here will have no clue what that ratings spike means. Hint: if SNL had Adolf Hitler hosting that would spike the ratings too.

Of course it will. Let's face it, no one candidate other than Trump could have forced CNBC into cutting the debate program by one hour. Had Huckabee or Kasich made such a demand, NBC would have told them "if you don't like it, don't show up!"

Trump was the ratings getter and CNBC knew it. Without Trump, it wouldn't have been worth their time hosting it. Without Trump, they couldn't charge their sponsors what they did.

Rump is a ratings magnet, I agree. For the same reason that WWE or Gallagher smashing watermelons is. But who suggested he was responsible for cutting a debate by a hour? I'm not familiar with that (wasn't folllowing it either)?

Not a huge controversy but a controversy nonetheless. Here's a link to one of the articles:

Trump Right on 2-Hour Debate Win on CNBC

Thanks for that, although I hardly consider the one-two punch of Newsmax and Donald Rump a "credible source" as to who influenced who.

Doubly interesting that the CNBC guy says it was always going to be two hours, and that Rump talks in terms of "getting the hell out of there".

Three and a half hours seems a long time -- two hours seems a long time -- but I'm counting TEN people on that stage. The more participants there are, the more each gets time cut out, if the total time is a constant. So ten people requires time, else it's not really a debate.

I think the criticism might be better focused on the idea of milking TV ratings out of a field that hasn't yet pared itself down to a manageable size. But on the other hand if you do want to preview the field, then you're gonna need time. Can't have it both ways.

How long was the Democratic debate with half as many participants?

Given the types of questions that were asked, I don't think we would have learned much more if the debate were even five hours. The questions were designed to start trouble between the candidates which they did.

In the Democrat debate, you learned just about everything you needed to know as a Democrat voter. In fact I have no idea WTF they will be discussing in the next Democrat debate.

The questions were chosen to match the behavior and statements of the contestants. If they had been talking about substantive things, their questions would have been about substantive things. As it is, they act like a bunch of school kids, and the questions reflected that.

 

[S.J.]

I haven't watched it in years but I'll watch it this time.

 

[Katzndogz]

Jeepers gosh whiz! I guess only Latinos use profanity -- who knew? Ya learn sump'm every ******* day.

Ah where would we be without Alex Jones. Laughing less I suspect.

This is great stuff. Whoever did it should do more of the same.

This is what Latinos teach their children. This is what they are like.

Or as one Democrat put it, it's campaign gold for Trump.

 

[Rotagilla]

tv is for idiots...a weapon of mass distraction to keep the herd passive.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course it will. Let's face it, no one candidate other than Trump could have forced CNBC into cutting the debate program by one hour. Had Huckabee or Kasich made such a demand, NBC would have told them "if you don't like it, don't show up!"

Trump was the ratings getter and CNBC knew it. Without Trump, it wouldn't have been worth their time hosting it. Without Trump, they couldn't charge their sponsors what they did.

Rump is a ratings magnet, I agree. For the same reason that WWE or Gallagher smashing watermelons is. But who suggested he was responsible for cutting a debate by a hour? I'm not familiar with that (wasn't folllowing it either)?

Not a huge controversy but a controversy nonetheless. Here's a link to one of the articles:

Trump Right on 2-Hour Debate Win on CNBC

Thanks for that, although I hardly consider the one-two punch of Newsmax and Donald Rump a "credible source" as to who influenced who.

Doubly interesting that the CNBC guy says it was always going to be two hours, and that Rump talks in terms of "getting the hell out of there".

Three and a half hours seems a long time -- two hours seems a long time -- but I'm counting TEN people on that stage. The more participants there are, the more each gets time cut out, if the total time is a constant. So ten people requires time, else it's not really a debate.

I think the criticism might be better focused on the idea of milking TV ratings out of a field that hasn't yet pared itself down to a manageable size. But on the other hand if you do want to preview the field, then you're gonna need time. Can't have it both ways.

How long was the Democratic debate with half as many participants?

Given the types of questions that were asked, I don't think we would have learned much more if the debate were even five hours. The questions were designed to start trouble between the candidates which they did.

In the Democrat debate, you learned just about everything you needed to know as a Democrat voter. In fact I have no idea WTF they will be discussing in the next Democrat debate.

The questions were chosen to match the behavior and statements of the contestants. If they had been talking about substantive things, their questions would have been about substantive things. As it is, they act like a bunch of school kids, and the questions reflected that.

No, the type of questions prompted them to act like a bunch of children. That was our complaint in the first place.

Donald Trump is controversial, and what better way to stir up ratings than to make him (or others) say controversial things--especially in the heat of anger?

The goal of NBC was two-fold: one of course was to make as much money as they can selling advertising, and two was to try and make all Republicans look bad, or at least as close as they could get. You didn't get much of that in the Democrat debate.