Will Donald Trump shut up now?

[Tellos Athenaios]

lol, there are rules, and they need to be followed. A non-natural citizen cannot be president. That is an important rule, and it is there for a reason. I am not saying that Obama is not a citizen, but if he is not, the only course of action would be to kick him out and repeal all laws signed while he was in office.

These rules address whether or not you are electable into $office. So your complaints/requests-for-information should be directed at whoever is responsible for the elections that saw him win...

[Lemur]

Why is it important?
And what is the reason?

At the time the constitution of the United States was written, there was a legitimate fear that the Brits would try to take us back in some way. Barring non-natives from taking the supreme executive was meant as a safeguard against us backsliding into the British Empire, or becoming proxies for France. We were a small, poor nation at the time, and rightly fearful of a major European power meddling in our elections.

Not terribly relevant now, but you asked why it was in there.

[Shibumi]

At the time the constitution of the United States was written, there was a legitimate fear that the Brits would try to take us back in some way. Barring non-natives from taking the supreme executive was meant as a safeguard against us backsliding into the British Empire, or becoming proxies for France. We were a small, poor nation at the time, and rightly fearful of a major European power meddling in our elections.

Not terribly relevant now, but you asked why it was in there.

Thanks for the history lesson. As I read it I remembered it from school. Good to be reminded though.

Now as to how that is relevant now..

[drone]

Now as to how that is relevant now..

We don't like foriegners in charge of our armed forces.

[Xiahou]

According to WaPo birther ranks have been halved since Obama released his "long-form":

In interviews following the public release the president’s “long-form” birth certificate last week, fully 70 percent of Americans say Obama was born in Hawaii, a big bump-up from the 48 percent who said so a year ago. Even more say he was U.S.-born, or call that their best guess, for a total of 86 percent.

Overall, 10 percent of Americans say Obama was likely born abroad, down from 20 percent in an April 2010 Post-ABC poll. Almost all those who now say Obama was born in a foreign country say that it’s only their “suspicion;” just 1 percent claim “solid evidence” that the president was born elsewhere (9 percent said so last year).

The drop-off in the mistaken belief that Obama was not-U.S.-born has come most prominently among his sharpest critics. Today, 14 percent of Republicans say Obama was not born in the U.S., down from 31 percent in April of last year. Among the most conservative Republicans, the number of skeptics fell from 35 to 16 percent.

So, can we safely dismiss the small minority that remains as kooks at this point?

[a completely inoffensive name]

According to WaPo birther ranks have been halved since Obama released his "long-form":So, can we safely dismiss the small minority that remains as kooks at this point?

Not until mainstream politicians feel that they are no longer worth catering to.

[Lemur]

Not until mainstream politicians feel that they are no longer worth catering to.

I haven't heard a national-level politician playing semantics with this since the long form was posted. None of that, "I take him at his word," or "I suppose he's a citizen" or "It's an important question" any of that malarkey. I think the age of the birther is finally over.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I haven't heard a national-level politician playing semantics with this since the long form was posted. None of that, "I take him at his word," or "I suppose he's a citizen" or "It's an important question" any of that malarkey. I think the age of the birther is finally over.

Trump. Also, Bachmann was going to until the interviewer kept saying that this was the proof, is this over and to save face she had to say yes.

[Xiahou]

Trump. Also, Bachmann was going to until the interviewer kept saying that this was the proof, is this over and to save face she had to say yes.

link?

[a completely inoffensive name]

link?

Donald Trump continuing the birther fight.



Michelle Bachmann caving to George Stephanopoulos but not before concluding "Well, as long as it is introduced, I guess it is over."


It's not that hard to read between the lines in that video, full of "I guess" and "should" when really this is an issue where the facts have been out since 2009.

[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?

[Scienter]

I'm more interested in finding out what species of animal is currently residing on Donald Trump's cranium.

I'm going to go with a muskrat.

[HoreTore]

It seems the question is no longer "is it real?", but "why is it so obviously fake?"

The insane never rests.




Note to the mods: yes, this guy is a nazi, but youtube allows his ramblings, so.....

[Rhyfelwyr]

It seems the question is no longer "is it real?", but "why is it so obviously fake?"

The insane never rests.

idk, his sister does have a degree in photography after all, so this guys knows what he is talking about.

[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.

[Greyblades]

He was also in office when osama bin laden was assassinated, thats gotta help too.

[a completely inoffensive name]

He was also in office when osama bin laden was assassinated, thats gotta help too.

Depends. The typical political memory of Americans doesn't go back farther than 6 months ago. If I remember correctly from reading the book "Hardball", one of the main ideas from chapter 4 or something was that your constituents are always asking "What have you done for me lately?"

[PanzerJaeger]

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

Sad, but true. Block voting is the bane of the democratic process.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Sad, but true. Block voting is the bane of the democratic process.

I can think of a few other things that are worse for the democratic process.

[PanzerJaeger]

I can think of a few other things that are worse for the democratic process.

Really? Voting on race instead of issues seems the quickest path to banana republic status.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Voting on race has meant that the other 43 presidents have all been white. (Well that's not entirely true, by sheer force of numbers, most candidates would be white)


Obama may draw 95% of the Black vote, but Blacks vote Democrat by an overwhelming majority anyway. (80%?) Obama attract but a handful more, and probably he mobilises the Black vote too. I assume much of this is offset by non-Blacks not voting for a Black candidate.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Really? Voting on race instead of issues seems the quickest path to banana republic status.

No, voting for economically ignorant candidates is the quickest path to banana republic status.

Citizens vote on prejudices all the time and prejudices have determined a lot of previous presidential candidates, none of which ended up turning America into a 3rd world country because the candidates presented by the parties are for the most part intelligent people in the first place.

Most people never would have voted a Catholic into office until Kennedy made his brilliant PR move during his campaign. And there are still many people who would never vote for someone just because they are black (AKA the crazy birthers).

People voting off of prejudices and single issues and blocks are actually very much a part of the democratic process because most people are naturally prejudiced at something or other. No one escapes a bias completely.

Now, onto the stuff that are worse for the democratic process. Private, unregulated contributions are worse for the democratic process because not all wealth is distributed evenly in a capitalist society. Not that that is bad thing, but by introducing a system that establishes people who have more than others in terms of wealth because of their ability you give more political power to those with the wealth in the system than those who don't have much wealth. And that is inherently anti democratic because the purpose of a fundamentally democratic system is that all people's opinions are on the same level and igven the same opportunities.

Public funding would do more to save the American democratic system than looking down on people because they are human.

[PanzerJaeger]

In a healthy democracy, factions should develop around relevant public policy issues (taxes, size & scope of government, etc.). Block voting degrades that process into a form of base tribalism and, in effect, pushes the selection process further away from the public and into closed-door party halls. (Now, an argument can be made that parties know what's better for the people than the people themselves, and some European and other nations have implemented systems based partially on that concept, but it has never really been the American way.)

In any event, the devastating effects of that process can be seen in cities all across America. What were once some of America's most vibrant, clean, and safe cities have been turned into festering cesspools of human filth because black people voted for the black Democratic candidate regardless of positions, qualifications, or records. From Detroit to Memphis to our nation's own capitol, the plague has gutted the country and made urban living a non-starter for anyone with the choice to live elsewhere. Witness Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, who was convicted of snorting crack cocaine with hookers and sentenced to 6 months in prison, only to re-elected three times after he got out.

These effects haven't yet translated into national politics in a significant way because non-white minorities have traditionally constituted a tiny percentage of the voting electorate, although that will soon change. However, we have seen similar situations throughout our nation's history when regionalism - another form of tribalism - developed into a strong motivator for the voting public - the worst of which would of course be the Civil War. People voting for peripheral issues instead relevant ones has never served this nation or any other well.

Finally, perhaps the largest irony surrounding block voting is that it rarely helps the people who practice it. It hasn't worked for America's black population and it didn't work for the South - be it in the 19th Century or in the '60s with Wallace.

Public funding would do more to save the American democratic system than looking down on people because they are human.

I found this comment particularly interesting/disingenuous. If I announced that I will be voting for President Obama's presumably white (barring an Allan West upset, which would be awesome) opponent because he will be white and Obama is black, you wouldn't look down on me at all? You wouldn't make any personal judgments?

[a completely inoffensive name]

In a healthy democracy, factions should develop around relevant public policy issues (taxes, size & scope of government, etc.). Block voting degrades that process into a form of base tribalism and, in effect, pushes the selection process further away from the public and into closed-door party halls. (Now, an argument can be made that parties know what's better for the people than the people themselves, and some European and other nations have implemented systems based partially on that concept, but it has never really been the American way.)

In any event, the devastating effects of that process can be seen in cities all across America. What were once some of America's most vibrant, clean, and safe cities have been turned into festering cesspools of human filth because black people voted for the black Democratic candidate regardless of positions, qualifications, or records. From Detroit to Memphis to our nation's own capitol, the plague has gutted the country and made urban living a non-starter for anyone with the choice to live elsewhere. Witness Mayor Marion Barry of Washington, who was convicted of snorting crack cocaine with hookers and sentenced to 6 months in prison, only to re-elected three times after he got out.

These effects haven't yet translated into national politics in a significant way because non-white minorities have traditionally constituted a tiny percentage of the voting electorate, although that will soon change. However, we have seen similar situations throughout our nation's history when regionalism - another form of tribalism - developed into a strong motivator for the voting public - the worst of which would of course be the Civil War. People voting for peripheral issues instead relevant ones has never served this nation or any other well.

Finally, perhaps the largest irony surrounding block voting is that it rarely helps the people who practice it. It hasn't worked for America's black population and it didn't work for the South - be it in the 19th Century or in the '60s with Wallace.

Your idea of a healthy democracy is too separated from what reality actually is. Not everyone is informed, rational or even reasonable. People are people in the more negative sense and that won't change any time soon. Part of the goal of the American style of government is specifically to counter act these types of tribalism that some of the Founding Father's recognized within political voters. There will never be a tribe big enough to get what they want because the power is broken up and the opposition is not powerless as a minority.

You can list examples of block voting ruining specific regions but that doesn't help your argument which is fundamentally that people should change not our system. People won't change, you need a system to work with that. Those areas that fell due to massive uninformed block voting did not have the proper system set up to counter such acts of tribalism, and it should have. If it did, then it was a case that the public got what they wanted, and reaped the consequences from it. Democracy does not inherently provide better choice from other styles, it is simply one of more humane styles of choosing leadership.

EDIT: As an example take California. We have a Proposition system styled off of direct democracy where the public can change the law or the constitution themselves if a majority want it that way. This has made the fiscal situation so much impossible in California. Tons of money is mandated by public propositions to go to specific things and cannot be shifted around or have its funding reduced. Same goes when it comes to taxes. Now you need a 2/3rd majority to raise taxes. Now, you can say what you want about big government but practically taking away the ability to raise taxes period, is a stupid and shortsighted idea. Now, are you going to tell me that instead of scrapping this abused system that the public should be more responsible when it comes to Propositions? Even if on a personal level I agree with you (actually I do, I hate how people vote, if they do at all) the impracticality of asking all of California to put more thought into their vote rather than simply altering the Proposition system makes it an indefensible position imo.

I think we have had the Civil War conversation already, but suffice it to say I think you are wrong when it comes to the Civil War and the motivations behind both sides in it.

Also you two examples of bad black block voting are actually examples of good block voting. In both the Reconstruction Era and the 1960s, blacks for the most part improved their standard of living and did improve their communities through massive block voting. Black communities were hit hard by Jim Crow laws preventing their participation after Reconstruction and blacks were no doubt better off by the late 1960s than they were in the late 1950s.

I found this comment particularly interesting/disingenuous. If I announced that I will be voting for President Obama's presumably white (barring an Allan West upset, which would be awesome) opponent because he will be white and Obama is black, you wouldn't look down on me at all? You wouldn't make any personal judgments?

Well I personally would think you are an idiot if you did that. But I would be more concerned if you had the ability to buy your candidate's way into the position than what your candidate stood for or why you stand for him. Your opinion is your opinion, no matter how moronic it is, and it should get an equal say than the average person's voice, no more, no less. That is part of the ideals of America.

So I would look down on you, but that does not mean I would try to get you to change your style of voting. That reeks of authoritarianism. I would simply want your voice at the same level as everyone else, which means no private funds heavily favoring one candidate who is now able to saturate everything with 10x more advertisements than his opponent.

[Lemur]

In news that will crush the spirits of comedians across our great nation, The Donald has announced he will not run, but if he had, he wudda won.