Will Donald Trump shut up now?

[PanzerJaeger]

what else needs to be said really?

I never knew Trump's towers were built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters.

I think Baratunde has been reading a little bit too much about Malcolm X.

[Lemur]

I never knew Trump's towers were built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters.

As you're fond of saying, source? I missed the part where the vlogger made that assertion.

Disenfranchisement was, in fact, a favored tool during Jim Crow, as you well know. You may not agree with that guy's conclusions, but the parallels he draws are legit.

[PanzerJaeger]

As you're fond of saying, source? I missed the part where the vlogger made that assertion.

6:23

[Lemur]

PJ, the flaws in your argument are varied and multitudinous.

(1) You state that you are not "aware" of any birthers who have "cited racism as their prime motivator." Mm-hmmm. So let's get this straight, if a birther were to say anything short of, "The reason I am raising the issue of Obama's birth is that I hate negroes in general," well then, they don't fall within your ad hoc definition, do they? You've moved the goalposts so far back that they aren't even in the game. By you reasoning, anyone who does not preface a statement with, "I am a self-professed racist" cannot be a racist, and anyone suggesting racist motives is the real racist. Quite the little cul-de-sac.

(2) Equating birtherism and trutherism. This is arrant nonsense. Bitherism has been tacitly endorsed by sitting senators, congresscritters, major media figures, etc. ad infinitum. To summon a political/moral/media equivalence with a fatuous line of logic that truthers "also had celebrity members with large public forums," I mean, really, now. So a washed-up B-list like Danny Glover excuses, exonerates and equates Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? Really? Or do you really mean to suggest that the fringe truthers had the same pull and the same flirtation with Dem leadership that the Repubs have been playing with for the last three years? This is sophism, pure and simple.

(3) You seem to conflate every person who sees racial issues into one gigantic anti-white monstrosity, a neverending tide of black victimology that serves no purpose but to stifle debate and make good whites like you weary. I think you oversimplify and gloss over a great deal. Turning every person concerned with racism into a mini Al Sharpton may be convenient for your rhetoric and posturing, but it does a disservice to pretty much everybody, including yourself.

(4) You suggest that all critics of the current President are tarred with racism. I call BS. I haven't heard critics of the bank bailout being called racist. I haven't heard anyone calling the people who spoke out against our Libyan adventure racists. Please feel free to show me where the R word has been flung against people who argued against his tax policy or his take on DOMA. If you were correct, and racism were the blanket defense of every little thing Obama does, then wouldn't we be hearing it across the board? But the moment anyone points out that questioning his legitimacy as president, his citizenship, smacks of Jim Crow, and suddenly you're tired and fatigued from all of these uppity blacks and their enablers questioning the motives of freaking lunatics who won't accept any proof that the president is who he says it is, and demand papers or they're going to do something against this usurper.

It is your privilege as a well-born white American male to declare that you're all done with any discussion of race, class or sex. Hey, it's a free country, and you're empowered to say whatever you please. But be aware that in your fatigue and exhaustion with all things related to race, you're siding with scum like this:

[PanzerJaeger]

PJ, the flaws in your argument are varied and multitudinous.

Varied? Possibly. Multitudinous? Now you're just piling on.

In all seriousness, it is best that I step away from this discussion before it starts. I think you've made some good points and also a few flaws in your analysis as well, and I do appreciate the thought you put into it.

As for Grady Warren, he's not a TEA partier, he's just a con artist trying to sell tee shirts. Don't be another one of his victims, like all those poor people who supported his crusade against rich, white, cat-bait fishermen.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=431_1232680237

[Lemur]

Varied? Possibly. Multitudinous? Now you're just piling on.

True dat. I shouldn't type while sleepy. Makes me overreach.

As for Grady Warren, he's not a TEA partier, he's just a con artist trying to sell tee shirts.

Gadzooks! I been bamboozled! Oh, the shame. And I usually have a very good satire sensor. Dang it.

[PanzerJaeger]

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=431_1232680237

Did no one else find the cat-bait scam as funny as I did?

[Tuuvi]

Did no one else find the cat-bait scam as funny as I did?

I thought it was hilarious.

[Ronin]

I never knew Trump's towers were built on the blood of disrespected slaves and freedom fighters.

Given the emotional tone of the video that sentence is really the only point were he goes off the rails.

the rest is spot on.....and the fact that this tiny bit of hyperbole is the only thing you could pick on kinda proves that point.

[Ronin]

Has Donald Trump ever produced vaccination proof for that furry animal he carries around on his head?

I feel this might be the next big election issue!

[Louis VI the Fat]

That Teahad guy looks like the progressive, intellectual version of the European populist right that's been winning elections all over Europe the past year.


Half the Eurorgs here would instantly vote for him. Sadly, I'm not completely opposed to everything he says myself.

[Ronin]

That Teahad guy looks like the progressive, intellectual version of the European populist right that's been winning elections all over Europe the past year.

that guy comes across as an intellectual to you?

[Louis VI the Fat]

that guy comes across as an intellectual to you?

...as compared to the European populist right.


Who've been winning elections all across Europe. If he'd ran, by next year Teahad guy could be president in about a dozen West European countries. That is, if he would tone down a bit on the gun rights but crank up on the chest thumping and racism.

[Jolt]

Nevertheless, Donald Trump is still better than Sarah Palin (I think.)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Both videos are from before the long form birth certificate was made public last week.

[a completely inoffensive name]

ahh, my bad then.

[Lemur]

Going back to the OP, I doubt that The Donald will ever "shut up," but it looks as though nobody will be listening.

Hannity tries to defend Donald Trump by saying Trump has to first finish The Apprentice reality television show before participating in any debates. In the background, the focus group of Republican voters can actually be heard laughing at Hannity's claim. When focus group moderator Frank Luntz asks the group if they accept Hannity's reasoning they almost universally say no. Hannity tries to explain himself further, saying that Trump is "contractually obligated" to finish The Apprentice, but the group remains unconvinced.

The scene is important because it reflects upon the major obstacle for Trump in his attempt to win the Republican Party presidential nomination. Many voters do not view Trump as a "serious" candidate despite his repeated claims to the contrary. It certainly does not help Trump when people like Hannity explain his absence by pointing to a reality television show that must first be completed.

[Xiahou]

Anyone that ever considered him a serious GOP contender should have their heads examined. He's (imo) a complete joke and the worst sort of opportunist. And, no, he'll never shut up.

[Greyblades]

So basically he's a slightly less crazy glen beck?

[Lemur]

Anyone that ever considered him a serious GOP contender should have their heads examined.

I dunno, he's still being treated with a great deal of respect and deference on Fox. Until they turn on him, I suspect he's still in the game.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Trump has as much chance as any GOPer of knocking Obama off the perch in 2012. Therefore, he has a right to blather as much as he wishes.

Obama is:

1) the incumbent

2) a proven campaigner (more job experience with this than with the Presidency so far)

3) one of the best dems ever at raising campaign funds

4) intelligent

5) black (makes one core group of Dem voters a virtual closeout, est. 95%+ of this bloc)

6) a good speaker in front of large groups and solid on television, and

7) has no "stains" in his personal life -- unless you buy into the fabricated cert nonsense.


So, I suspect it's fairly irrelevant which GOP candidate goes up against Obama in 2012. Unless the economy double dips back into recession, none of them are going to be able to convince the undecideds that they would have done better or can do substantially better in the future.

Verdict: Obama stays -- not likely by a landslide, but with a solid if modest win.