Wannabe Dictator Donald Trump Calls for SNL to be Canceled Over Political Satire

In 2014, Egyptian political humorist Bassem Youssef, often called the Jon Stewart of Arab TV, was taken off the air due to his criticism of government leaders in Egypt.  When news hit the US, aptly covered on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, the move was condemned by freedom-loving Americans across the board.

But yesterday, Donald Trump sent out a tweet suggesting Saturday Night Live should be canceled, after the show once again satirized his debate performance as well as the status of the women in his camp.

Of course, the show was funny enough for him to host it last November.

In all seriousness though, Trump’s call for the show to be canceled is potentially a big deal.  Donald has made plenty of remarks on the campaign trail or on Twitter suggesting he may be more interested in a dictatorship than a Presidency with separation of powers.  He has shown a tendency to want to make unilateral decisions without the support of Congress, suspend due process, limit freedom of the press, and impose his will on the US.  Does that sound like America to you, or the Middle East?

This is someone who either doesn’t know how our government works or simply doesn’t care.  I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume the latter.  In either case, Donald Trump and the movement he represents pose an extreme danger to the representative democracy we have enjoyed for over 225 years.

 


Kevin Davis

Kevin Davis is the head writer and editor for SecularVoices, co-founder of Young Skeptics, and author of Understanding an Atheist. He is known for local and national secular activism and has spoken at conferences and events such as Reason Rally 2016 and the Ark Encounter Protest and Rally.

View all posts by Kevin Davis →

91 thoughts on “Wannabe Dictator Donald Trump Calls for SNL to be Canceled Over Political Satire

    1. With money from daddy, and from the IPO of the company he crashed & bankrupted, leaving investors broke, and from not paying contractors who did the hard work of building the buildings on which he then named for himself.

      That’s financially; but on the public stage he’s famous because he’s a shallow prick with a flair for showmanship & demagoguery, and that’s what many people in our nation seem to admire.

  1. It’s hardly just Trump. He’s now become the front man for lots of people who’d like to do away with “Democracy in America”.

    1. I remember talk-show host Tom Synder being interviewed back in the 70’s, and he said pretty much the same thing. There’s always an element of those with some power who want that power to be absolute. Sometimes I’ll see religionists on various forums who resent the Enlightenment and it brings a bit of a disturbing pause. I think Trump is a blow-hard, the consequence of divisive punditry and Fox faux news staging over the decades, but the danger might be in what doors his madness actually opens. You get someone with more political savvy and focused ambition, and there could eventually be a very real problem.

      1. Aye, I don’t at all like what I see going on. And if something can eventually lead to a very real problem, it is itself a very real problem.

  2. Trump uses this accusation that the media is “rigging” the election so much that it’s lost all meaning. What is he saying? News outlets are reporting popular stories about political candidates, and satirical shows are making fun of them… as has happened for decades now, and this is somehow “rigging” the election this time, seemingly solely because one candidate doesn’t like how he’s being portrayed?

    Trump needs to grow up.

      1. So the media gave $2 billion worth of free publicity to Trump to help Hillary?? Strange. And yet . . .

        Amy Goodman Blasts CNN for Airing Trump’s Empty Stage Instead of Sanders’ Speech

        http://usuncut.com/politics/amy-goodman-calls-media-blacking-bernies-speech/

        As Andrew Tyndall of the Tyndall Report observed, the networks have devoted a disproportionate amount of coverage to Donald Trump while virtually ignoring the other 2016 candidates on both sides of the aisle. Trump has been covered for a total of 175 minutes on cable news networks since the start of the campaign cycle in 2015. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has only had 60 minutes of coverage, while Bernie Sanders has had just 44 minutes of total cable coverage.

        1. Trump getting coverage because he’s not boring does not alter the fact the media is biased and colludes with Hillary’s campaign. Hillary also has refused to make herself available to the media, something an un-corrupt media would complain about. “Coverage” includes time devoted to media talking heads lying about Trump and calling him a Nazi. You should also ask yourself who benefited from Sanders not getting air time.

          1. Really?? You mean when he banned half a dozen news outlets from attending his rallies. You call that ‘available’? I guess you and Trumpton have the same concept of consent as well then!
            Dipshit

          2. It’s a fact he was available, look it up. It’s funny none of you complained when Obama and Hillary restricting reporter access.

          3. I’m not complaining. I couldn’t give a flying fuck, I’m just pointing out your lies and hypocrisy.

          4. Sooo in a pathetic attempt to discredit an argument I didn’t make and obviously to deflect from a position you can’t defend you post this link?
            What next? Ooo let me guess…BENGHAZI!!!

          5. And you have proved this how exactly? Resorting to ‘Frankisms’ is your best defence? Then again it is all you have!
            Trump only gives interviews to right wing news sites this you have proven unable to deny, Hillary didn’t give interviews to any news sites is all you have. Given the ridicule Trump opens himself up to perhaps he should have taken a leaf!.
            An interview with no answers to any questions asked, just a Trumpesque word salad, is not an improvement on no interview at all.
            And really after all the real truths about how shite and crooked Trump is (the majority from his own mouth) you are still clinging to the ‘crooked Hillary’ trope? Really?

          6. “Trump only gives interviews to right wing news sites”

            False. During the primaries Trump was available to reporters on a daily basis.

          7. FALSE. as we started out on this conversation as soon as he clicked that not all the press were sycophantic fools like you and Breitbart/Fox News he cut them off, banning them from ‘his’ rallies. A FACT that you have not and cannot deny. You are either deluded or a liar if you continue claim that he was available to ‘all’ reporters throughout the campaign, his banned list included Politico, the National Review, the Des Moines Register, Univision, BuzzFeed, the Daily Beast, Fusion, the Huffington Post, and Mother Jones whilst Sun-Sentinel, WSJ and CNN, CBS, Time reporters have been assaulted or removed from events by Trump security.
            Oh sure he was available alright.

          8. ???? you have not answered or made any attempt to refute any of the above points.
            Pretty much sums you up Otto. A whole load of nothing.

          9. Seriously Otto? You expect us all on here to believe that you would not take the greatest pleasure in being smug arsed git if you had half a chance? Trump withdrew the credentials all those news outlets from his rallies at some point. Fact. You have nothing. You are a blustering buffoon. A Trumpette!

          10. That Trump withdrew some credentials, like all campaigns do, doesn’t alter how available to the media he made himself.

          11. Trump’s willingness to do phone interviews — and the networks’ willingness to let him — was one of the strategies that helped him dominate media attention during the primary season…Clinton, meanwhile, has engaged with the media more sparingly than Trump and granted interviews only intermittently during the campaign. She rarely holds news conferences, in contrast to Trump, who has done so after several of his primary victories.

            Her relative reticence came up during an interview Wednesday with CNN. Asked by anchor Anderson Cooper whether she intended to co-opt some of Trump’s playbook and make herself “more available” to reporters during the general election, Clinton replied: “Well, look, he did it and it worked for him..”

            Clinton never answered whether she would herself become “more available”.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/clinton-trump-take-contrasting-approaches-to-dealing-with-media/2016/05/04/66e4969e-122b-11e6-93ae-50921721165d_story.html

          12. That may not have been the best strategy for Trump. The more people got to know him, the lower he sank in the polls.

          13. So the media and Hillary are conspiring and working together, and SIMULTANIOUSLY Hillary doesn’t make herself available to the media.

            I really don’t want to know what it is living inside your head.

          14. Which ever way the facts lie, they spin and spin until it points to a victim trump and big bad meanie Hillary. Plus Otto is a troll.

          15. I think he is just THAT dumb, to be honest. Ironically, a REAL goat might be just a bit smarter than him.

      2. Which, I mean… still isn’t rigging. It’s just… influencing public opinion. That’s something we still allow, in our political discourse. Are debates considered rigging the election? They alter the outcome in exactly the same way that media coverage might. Are attack ads or advocacy groups rigging the election too?

        This is sort of what I’m talking about, here: Trump is just throwing that word around to deligitimize any election outcome where he loses, in the process attempting to turn any form of disagreement with him into evidence of a shady conspiracy, when even at its worst it’s… not that.

          1. Even if you’re right, influencing public opinion via the media is not the same thing as rigging an election. Campaigns do the former all the time: whenever you see a Trump campaign ad, you’re seeing precisely the same technique played out on a smaller scale.

            What upsets me is careless and dishonest language designed to try and soften the blow from a losing battle. But I’ll give you a hint, champ: you don’t get to tell me what I’m thinking. That dog won’t hunt.

          2. What do you mean “even if” I’m right? Voters know when they are watching a campaign ad. They don’t know when the “objective” media is coordinating with the Clinton campaign. I’m glad the word “rigging” triggers you.

          3. “Even if,” you’re right, because you certainly haven’t demonstrated it in the slightest. You’ve just asserted it a bunch, and as anyone over the age of four knows, “because I said so,” is not a real answer.

            As for voters knowing that they’re watching a campaign ad… oh my, are you really so naive that you think that deception hasn’t been a part of politics for decades, if not centuries? Even if you’re right about collusion, you’re still wrong that it’s rigging. That word actually means something, you know.

            And finally, regarding triggering… do you have anything other than childish rhetorical grandstanding to offer? Ah, probably not: you are a Trump supporter, after all.

          4. Still not rigging, fool. Words have meanings, no matter how scared of losing to a girl your chosen candidate is.

          5. Unfortunately the same can’t be said of Fox News viewers. I’m glad you’re getting so upset when liberal news outlets do the same

          6. Only fools think the media is objective. The rest of us learned a very long time ago not to believe everything we hear and read.

          7. Most people know the media has a left wing bias. What many didn’t know that Wikileaks revealed was the media directly cooperating with Hillary’s campaign.

          8. That’ funny because all my left wing friends think the media is right-biased. So what does that tell you?

            That the media is left of right, and right of left, which puts it somewhere in the middle.

          9. Otto, you’re a troll. You’ve brought nothing to the table in the form of evidence to back up anything you’ve said. And in fact, truth be told, you just reinforce our determination not to vote Trump. So thanks for that, anyway.

      3. The media have given him billions of dollars worth of free publicity, and reported what he said. I’m sure he’s okay with the free publicity, but if he doesn’t want what he said reported – he shouldn’t say it.

      1. Damn that Pat Boone – bringing all the kids under Trump’s sway while Phil Robertson attracts all the intellectuals.

      1. Hillary is the one who wants to alter the First Amendment to restrict speech. Not surprised you are unaware of that.

          1. I know just asserting something without any evidence counts as “education” in Trumpworld, but this is just pathetic. You had multiple opportunities to back up your claims with at least some evidence, but you refuse to do so. Also, you clearly don’t know what QED means. Idiot.

          2. It’s funny you are unable to find out things Hillary advocates. I obviously know what QED means, you should look it up when you are done educating yourself about Hillary.

          3. You make a claim. You back it up.

            Then again, you are a Trumpite, so impervious to normal logical thought and discussion, so this must be new to you.

          4. So basically, I can claim Trump wants to lower the age of consent to 6 years, and link to his website, and that is proof that he actually wants to lower the age of consent to 6.

          5. Yet you want us to believe it when you do it. You really are a moron. Everything you’ve said is an outright lie and you know it.

          6. I’d hazard a guess that Otto Goat and other right wingers (yes, and some extremes on the left) dont much care whether something is factual or not.

          7. I googled Hillary wants to change first amendment or something like that, and the only sources that referred to it were right wing ones, no surprise there. It’s related to her wanting to repeal Citizens United, and the odd interpretation by certain members of the US Supreme Court that in some strange way conflated corporations’ political expenditures to influence elections with individuals’ right to free speech. Since the First Amendment was used to shore up the Citizens United case, this is where this stuff is coming from. It’s certainly a reach.

            I am of the opinion that the whole way this country goes about elections needs a major overhaul, starting with repealing Citizens United. I’d like to see a cap put on when candidates can start campaigning for office, starting just a few months before the elections, and a cap on how much they can spend. It’s gotten obscene and ridiculous.

  3. We’ve had Obama for 8 years so we already know about a lawless executive. Obama has violated the separation of powers by going around congress, issued illegal executive orders, created new law from the executive branch, entered into treaties without congressional approval, politiciized the DOJ, the IRS, the EPA and other regulatory agencies to avoid having to work with the elected congress and push his ideological agenda.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *