Trump's Next Move Towards a Fascist State: Take Away Licensing of T.V. Networks

[Ame®icano]

why don't you prove you're not gay?

go ahead prove a negative...I want to see this

Prove I'm not gay? Though it is flattering anytime someone is attracted to you, I'm going to have to tell you I'm not interested, I prefer women. Keep up hope, you'll find a nice husband some day.

Asking for proof that Trump hasn't already started taking action against networks is not proving a negative.

Yes it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Good luck with that.

Just wait and see he'll claim he never made such claims about Trump, or that he did not started this thread.

 

[Lewdog]

Prove I'm not gay? Though it is flattering anytime someone is attracted to you, I'm going to have to tell you I'm not interested, I prefer women. Keep up hope, you'll find a nice husband some day.

Asking for proof that Trump hasn't already started taking action against networks is not proving a negative.

Yes it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Good luck with that.

Just wait and see he'll claim he never made such claims about Trump, or that he did not started this thread.

Child, don't you have some patients in your Psychiatry office to see?

How many posts have you made at this point that has nothing to do with Trump's statement?

So let's be blunt, do you not support the Constitution?

 

[Flopper]

Trump suggests challenging NBC's broadcast license

Well, it looks like trump has had enough of liberal propoganda.

Hopefully this will be the end of MSNBC. NBC, CNN et al.

Once we shut down the propoganda networks, i bet our country will be stronger than ever before!

Laughing at you dumabass Trumpsters and your dear leader.

THIS IS NOT HOW ANY OF THIS WORKS. President cannot simply shut down a media outlet like some oligarch in near-third world shithole (see Putin's tactics)

We still have something called First Amendment in this country and you deplorables are not going to change that.

No, but he could have the FCC revoke the licenses of the lamestream media outlets, and if they continue to put out FAKE news, be shut down and have the liars arrested as enemies of the state. See pretty easy when Commies come out of the wordwork and declare how they hate the US.

Every time a liberal opens their piehole and "CLAIM" that we are the stupid ones, I just roll on the floor and laugh my ass off about how stupid they are... Stupid is as stupid votes, and they vote Democrat....

Who will determine what is and is not fake news? Currently, our citizens have that right. Thankfully, both the constitution and Federal Communications Act limit the governments ability censor the media.

 

[Ame®icano]

How that "over the loudspeakers" sneaked in there?

Child, now you pivoted from your implied argument about "rules" to now cherry picking "loud speakers."

At some point you need to just admit defeat and give up.

The rule does NOT prevent praying, it prevents praying over the loudspeakers, you moron.

No child, it prevents organized prayer in public schools.

Yes, organized by school officials as is in this case, over the loudspeakers. Students are not prevented from praying, you dumbass.

Funny, I call you a kid, you start calling me a child. How original...

Child, I am just showing you how cool you look! You should be flattered!

It's funny to watch you pivot time after time after time.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a quote from Obama threatening to take away the network licenses of a group for talking ill of him. You've had hours to find one. Is this like the Republican plan for healthcare that took 8 years?

I explained it to you already, moron.

You do know what Barry's admin is?
You do know when president appoint someone to the post, that someone does what president ask him to do. So when he appointed new Chair of the FCC and they try to implement new regulations, such as "fairness doctrine", who's responsible for those regulations?

 

[Lewdog]

Child, now you pivoted from your implied argument about "rules" to now cherry picking "loud speakers."

At some point you need to just admit defeat and give up.

The rule does NOT prevent praying, it prevents praying over the loudspeakers, you moron.

No child, it prevents organized prayer in public schools.

Yes, organized by school officials as is in this case, over the loudspeakers. Students are not prevented from praying, you dumbass.

Funny, I call you a kid, you start calling me a child. How original...

Child, I am just showing you how cool you look! You should be flattered!

It's funny to watch you pivot time after time after time.

I'm still waiting for you to give me a quote from Obama threatening to take away the network licenses of a group for talking ill of him. You've had hours to find one. Is this like the Republican plan for healthcare that took 8 years?

I explained it to you already, moron.

You do know what Barry's admin is?
You do know when president appoint someone to the post, that someone does what president ask him to do. So when he appointed new Chair of the FCC and they try to implement new regulations, such as "fairness doctrine", who's responsible for those regulations?

I'm still waiting on a quote from Obama. Even a tweet will do. Go ahead. Can you give me some kind of time line for when you might have that?

 

[Ame®icano]

Prove I'm not gay? Though it is flattering anytime someone is attracted to you, I'm going to have to tell you I'm not interested, I prefer women. Keep up hope, you'll find a nice husband some day.

Asking for proof that Trump hasn't already started taking action against networks is not proving a negative.

Yes it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Uh no, if you make a statement that someone isn't doing something, you have to prove it. If you can't prove it don't make the statement. That's pretty straight forward. This isn't about me making a statement and then asking you to prove me wrong. Do you understand that?

What's the title of this (your) thread?

You made a claim that he's asking you to prove. You haven't done that, so he doesn't have to prove nothing to you, moron.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Uh no, if you make a statement that someone isn't doing something, you have to prove it. If you can't prove it don't make the statement. That's pretty straight forward. This isn't about me making a statement and then asking you to prove me wrong. Do you understand that?

god youre dumb, thats called proving a negative. are you 5 years old?

if you say he IS DOING it then you prove the positive.


you know in courts the cops have to prove guilt
the defense does not need to prove not guilt

can you follow along now?

Back in 30's progressive Democrats were proposing euthanizing people like this.

 

[Ame®icano]

Nope, they can't.

There actually ARE things your employer can't "make" you do. You know that, right?

And if taken to court and the individual said they were kneeling to pray, guess who would win?

Public schools stop people from praying all the time, so I assume the employer would win. However, the Muzzie savages always win when they want to afflict everyone with their religion.

It's hard to say how the courts would rule.

However, they aren't praying. Their employer isn't violating their rights in any way by telling them not to disrespect the flag.

You do know that schools and work are two different places right? The government can stop people from praying in schools because there is a rule that is about separation of church and state.

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes it is.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Good luck with that.

Just wait and see he'll claim he never made such claims about Trump, or that he did not started this thread.

Child, don't you have some patients in your Psychiatry office to see?

How many posts have you made at this point that has nothing to do with Trump's statement?

So let's be blunt, do you not support the Constitution?

Let's be blunt, do you realize you're imbecile?

 

[Lewdog]

There actually ARE things your employer can't "make" you do. You know that, right?

And if taken to court and the individual said they were kneeling to pray, guess who would win?

Public schools stop people from praying all the time, so I assume the employer would win. However, the Muzzie savages always win when they want to afflict everyone with their religion.

It's hard to say how the courts would rule.

However, they aren't praying. Their employer isn't violating their rights in any way by telling them not to disrespect the flag.

You do know that schools and work are two different places right? The government can stop people from praying in schools because there is a rule that is about separation of church and state.

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

 

[Lewdog]

does he know hasnt is a negative?

what kind of intelligence are we dealing with in him?

Oh, you want to play that game?

Ok prove if Trump has started the process of changing the process of networks renewing their licenses. The original poster said he hasn't, but they provided no proof. Do you understand that when you make a statement you are supposed to provide proof?

wait you want me to prove a theory i dont agree with? uh....nope

youre the one saying hes doing it, you provide proof

Good luck with that.

Just wait and see he'll claim he never made such claims about Trump, or that he did not started this thread.

Child, don't you have some patients in your Psychiatry office to see?

How many posts have you made at this point that has nothing to do with Trump's statement?

So let's be blunt, do you not support the Constitution?

Let's be blunt, do you realize you're imbecile?

So you're afraid to answer? Got that quote from Obama yet Child?

 

[Ame®icano]

Public schools stop people from praying all the time, so I assume the employer would win. However, the Muzzie savages always win when they want to afflict everyone with their religion.

It's hard to say how the courts would rule.

However, they aren't praying. Their employer isn't violating their rights in any way by telling them not to disrespect the flag.

You do know that schools and work are two different places right? The government can stop people from praying in schools because there is a rule that is about separation of church and state.

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

Where have I ever said there was Barry's quote saying that, cretin? Find it...

From the first reply to you (post 343), it was always Barry's admin.

 

[Lewdog]

You do know that schools and work are two different places right? The government can stop people from praying in schools because there is a rule that is about separation of church and state.

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

Where have I ever said there was Barry's quote saying that, cretin? Find it...

From the first reply to you (post 343), it was always Barry's admin.

It was stated that Obama did the same Trump is doing now. Yet you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence quoting Obama threatening to take any media outlets license. None. Zilch. Nada.

 

[Ame®icano]

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

Where have I ever said there was Barry's quote saying that, cretin? Find it...

From the first reply to you (post 343), it was always Barry's admin.

It was stated that Obama did the same Trump is doing now. Yet you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence quoting Obama threatening to take any media outlets license. None. Zilch. Nada.

It was stated that Barry's admin was doing the same and that's exactly what I said to you in the first reply, along with a question were you screaming back then? Only think I overlook is that you couldn't possibly be screaming at him back then, since you were still in your daddy's balls.

What do you think, for whom admin is working and whose instructions it follows?

 

[irosie91]

trump should stop tweeting. Ivanna gave him bad advice. So many stupid americans take go nuts over every casual word

 

[irosie91]

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

Where have I ever said there was Barry's quote saying that, cretin? Find it...

From the first reply to you (post 343), it was always Barry's admin.

It was stated that Obama did the same Trump is doing now. Yet you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence quoting Obama threatening to take any media outlets license. None. Zilch. Nada.

he was crafty enough to NOT MENTION IT-----it seems to me that lots of INTEREST GROUPS got away with successfully
threatening media agents from reporting the news AS IS

 

[Ame®icano]

trump should stop tweeting. Ivanna gave him bad advice. So many stupid americans take go nuts over every casual word

Unlike you, I want him to continue. I don't weigh on every single word in the tweet, I just look for the meaning. As long he drives media crazy, I can't get enough of it.

 

[irosie91]

trump should stop tweeting. Ivanna gave him bad advice. So many stupid americans take go nuts over every casual word

Unlike you, I want him to continue. I don't weigh on every single word in the tweet, I just look for the meaning. As long he drives media crazy, I can't get enough of it.

I is a bored old lady. Trump INTERESTS me because he is slightly weird-----BUT ---in my estimation, a lot more HONEST than is hellcat. Most politics BORE ME-------Trump adds interest value. HOWEVER ---his tweets get him in trouble to some extent because americans have a hard time READING and ATTRIBUTE meanings that do not exist.
Trump made a comment about FAKE NEWS-----not "anything critical of him"
People who attract attention ------ALWAYS get in trouble

 

[Coyote]

How can people continue to support this guy? Can you think of any other historical figures that wanted to silence anyone that talked ill of them...?

""With all of the Fake News coming out of NBC and the Networks, at what point is it appropriate to challenge their License? Bad for country!" Mr Trump wrote in a tweet."

Trump raises a thoughtful and legitimate question. The airwaves belong to the public and there are FCC rules regarding their use. And some licensees such as CNN and MSNBC consistently broadcast hoaxes or "fake news" as Trump has labeled them.

Here is the relevant law regarding broadcast hoaxes.


§ 73.1217 Broadcast hoaxes.
No licensee or permittee of any broadcast station shall broadcast false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if:

(a) The licensee knows this information is false;

(b) It is forseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm, and

(c) Broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.

Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.


So what it basically comes down to is whether or not any of their multitude of broadcast hoaxes have ever directly caused substantial public harm. I agree with Trump that this needs to be looked into. For instance, they could investigate the possibility that any of these Milwaukee riots or the unprecedented terrorist attacks at the inauguration were incited by their fake news stories.

Fake news as TRUMP labels them. Therein lies the problem.

The main thing is intent, knowingly broadcasting false info about a crime or disaster. There is a lot of sloppy fact checking going on but that is not a crime.

The only example I can think of that fulfills some of the criteria in an MSN story is Fox's Seth Rich one, it was on a crime, knowingly false and caused harm to the family but even that probably wouldn't fly.

Those types of laws usually have very high bars like free speech laws and for good reason. They could easily be used to silence them.

The other thing is network broadcasting is now only a small part of the media...much of the false news comes on the largely unregulated internet.

The best protection in this info age is to teach people critical thinking.

I saw that report on Seth Rich. I didn't see anything in it that was demonstrably false.

If you did I'd certainly like you to show us the part that was demonstrably false.

This article offers a good analysis on the many false claims including attributing things to people they did not say. They are facing multiple lawsuits over this mess.

No Apology, No Explanation: Fox News And The Seth Rich Story

Actually it was 1 allegedly false claim and the story was retracted very soon thereafter. And the claim is not demonstrably false.

The article was May 16, it wasnt retracted until the 23rd, not very quickly.

The claim is demonstratably false on multiple levels starting with using false quotes that they even conceded were false.

In a three-way taped conversation that took place a few hours after the Rich story ran, Butowsky and Zimmerman conceded Wheeler had never said what her story claimed.​

And that is just one item. Compare that to Dan Rather who in his haste to smear Bush committed what used to be a major journalistic faux pas - not checking his facts or verifying authenticity. A public apology was issued, and Rather eventually stepped down. Fox has issued no apology and no one lost tbeir jobs.

 

[bendog]

And they can’t actually stop someone from praying...they simply don’t allow teacher led public prayer.

which is fine

Lewdog still doesn't get it.

Hey, how about you go find that quote from Obama, then come back and attempt to ridicule me all you want.

Where have I ever said there was Barry's quote saying that, cretin? Find it...

From the first reply to you (post 343), it was always Barry's admin.

It was stated that Obama did the same Trump is doing now. Yet you have yet to provide a single shred of evidence quoting Obama threatening to take any media outlets license. None. Zilch. Nada.

I think they are confusing some dems wanting to bring back the fairness doctrine. I don't recall whether Obama weighed in. After the whole birther thing, imo the Trumpbots can jam any complaints about truth in media up their arses. Jmo on that. LOL