The Timekpper

He is not risking anything with Black voters, at least; not anymore. The damage has already been done.

he has not caused any damage, because a black person in their right mind would never vote for a twice bankrupt casino owner, a man who made his millions evicting poor people from their homes to build million dollar condos, i as a black man would vote for romney before trump. Bush was the first republican presidental candidate to get 20% of the black vote and if Bush ran today even with all his screw ups he would best trump with black folks in a heart beat. hell Sarah, Michelle and halley would best him in a heart beat as well.

if he does run i would love to see his divorce papers from his first wife along with all of his other shaddy deals.

TO: The Timekpper who wrote:

"He is not risking anything with Black voters, at least; not anymore. The damage has already been done."

^^^^^^^^^^^

Probably true, but I don't believe Trump will run because of his stock holdings, not to mention all of the skeltons he has hidden in his hundreds of closets. I don't believe The Donald could stop trading long enough to be POTUS, and NO, I don't believe minority voters would vote for The Donald over Barack Obama.

I can not see anyone actually taking him seriously. He is making a fool of himself, but he is not the only fool. Nothing surprises me anymore.

Trump will never disclose his finances, therefore he will not run for president. He is taking the "news" networks on a ride for some free publicity. Of course they will oblige.

That being said, anyone who would actually vote for this fool needs to have their head examined.

The dump Trump phenomenon is already here.

It's too late to backtrack now.

Fiesty:

I guess that makes you a blog whore.

Trump is not losing anything by you not watching. As long as he keep booking black celebrities for the show he will get the viewership. Maybe you should suggest that to your beloved MSNBC as to why they only have 1 black host (sometimes).

"Token" black celebrities?

Well,

InTheMiddleTX: You're just a racist whore. He's had black celebrities on for years, and yet he is still losing viewership... doubt he'll be on much longer like YOUR BELOVED glenn beck.

Msgp:

WTF said anything about Beck? I don't even watch Beck.

BTW: Why are you even addressing me? Calling me a racist...lol..now that is some funny shiznit.

Kick rocks twitch.

"Imagine, over 45 years ago a hospital in Hawai printed a birth notice in 2 newspapers knowing that this half black/half white baby was going to grow up top be the POTUS"

Funny, ain't it? Considering how likely it was even back then that anyone could even begin to fathom a black guy beign voted president. And as for the half-white/half-black idea I see tossed around- damned near everyone considers someone black, even thought they are of mixed heritage. Been that way for years and years.

"2007: Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

Both truthers and birthers are stupid; but my vote for most ignorant goes to Democrat "Truthers" .

Funny, MSNBC didnt seem to want to smear Democrats with the Truther label, did they?

What's going to happen when it's revealed that The Donald is a lying Birther, he's going to lie again of course.

Bob-1887910

"2007: Democrats in America are evenly divided on the question of whether George W. Bush knew about the 9/11 terrorist attacks in advance. Thirty-five percent (35%) of Democrats believe he did know, 39% say he did not know, and 26% are not sure."

Both truthers and birthers are stupid; but my vote for most ignorant goes to Democrat "Truthers" .

Funny, MSNBC didnt seem to want to smear Democrats with the Truther label, did they?”

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Maybe MSNBC was silent on the issue because there is some merit to it.

Nobody has kept it a secret or even tried to keep it a secret that George W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden grew up together and their families still do business together, it’s just that Republicans are ashamed of the fact that they elected someone who has direct ties to the terrorist who hit us on 9/11 and “just happened” to be POTUS at the time with the ability to enable “Operation Able Danger.”

What data are you using to claim 35% of Democrats are truthers? I've never meant anyone who was a truther, and no elected Democrat that is respected has ever supported the nuts who are truthers. And if they did they would be rightly vilified! Saying 35% of Democrats are truthers doesn't make it true, cite your source, or stop repeating it!

American Girl is mocking "lying birthers" while she herself is a leftwing fruitcake Truther. How rich is that? Richer than Trump himself.

September 06, 2007

Zogby: 42% of Democrats Want TEH TROOF about 9-11

So according to some new polling, almost half of Democrats are at the very least in the LIHOP camp (let it happen on purpose).

There are no truthers who are Congress members or running for president, because most Democrats think those people are extreme. In contrast, there are Republican Congress members who are birthers, and there are candidates running for president as Republicans who are birthers. And the Republican leadership has not turned away from them. So, frankly, seems to me the Republicans are far more extreme on this issue than the Democrats.

Incidentally, citing a poll from 4 years ago, while investigations of 9/11 were still underway, does not seem to me to be really relevant at this point. A poll done by Angus Reid Public Opinion in 2010 suggests that about 15% of the population are truthers, and in 2008, 27% of the people who voted for Obama were truthers.

But 43% of McCain voters were birthers.

So Republicans are a definite win on the crazy.

Personally, I believe it's racist to suggest that all black voters are supporters of Obama. Just because he is technically part black does not make him the only candidate a black American can support. If we used that logic, then that would leave Hispanics and women completely out of the equation, wouldn't it? And, I believe there would be no better Republican candidate than Donald Trump who exemplifies exactly what Republicans stand for. If it really is all about the money, then Trump is America's next President.

Wacko.

eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek!!!

Um, that would be the prefect administration to bring about the apocalypse. Either you're joking, or you're one of those religious freaks who wants the world to end. A sane person would not make that statment.

Dennis, Black voters votes count just like yours and we do vote in Presidential elections.

Brutus CA

Why does any of this even matter? Didn't President Obama carry something like 95% of the African American vote in 2008, so why would Trump be concerned about alienating a group of voters that he really has no chance of winning support from?

Someone enlighten me.

your right, but clinton got the same as well as roosevelt, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter so whats is there to inlighten you on.

Jeff:

That is exactly the man's point. African Americans are going to vote overwhelmingly Democrat irregardless of who is the candidate and regardless of what he/she says or do. You and every other black know this is true even if you don't want to say it publically.

This has been bred into the community and once something has a stranglehold, it is hard to break. It will continue to be proven when Obama is gone and they have to vote for the white man again. As long as he is a Democrat.......he has the community's vote.

IntheMiddle,

First, irregardless is not a word. Second, I don't recall electing you to speak for me. I don't speak for other African Americans, but I vote for the person I believe is best for the position based on their political stances on the issues that affect me here in the United States whether or not he or she is Independent, Democratic, or Republican. One reason I have never voted Republican is because I do not agree with their attempts to force their social agenda on others and the fact that they continue to tie this agenda to their political aspirations.

First, irregardless is not a word

Why, I believe it was ONLY yesterday ITM was bragging about his education! LMAO!

Don't quit your day job there at the BBQ shack ITM! ;o)

Hey Feisty, maybe you should do some research before you insult someone about their education, because irregardless is a word, and the woman who said it wasn't is dead wrong.

From Webster's:

Definition of IRREGARDLESS

nonstandard

: regardless

Usage Discussion of IRREGARDLESS

Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927. The most frequently repeated remark about it is that “there is no such word.” There is such a word, however. It is still used primarily in speech, although it can be found from time to time in edited prose. Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead.

Examples of IRREGARDLESS

1. I told them that irregardless of what you read in books, they's some members of the theatrical profession that occasionally visits the place where they sleep. —Ring Lardner, The Big Town, 1921

Origin of IRREGARDLESS

probably blend of irrespective and regardless
First Known Use: circa 1912

Wow I think that's twice today I've had to correct you...

Irregardless is an informal term commonly used in place of regardless or irrespective, which has caused controversy since it first appeared in the early twentieth century. Most dictionaries list it as "nonstandard" or "incorrect".

And, you, appear to be the actual moron. Good job, you rock.

Wow I think that's twice today I've had to correct you...

I'm sorry there little BRUTUS - I CAN'T hear you!

Would you take the tea bags out of your mouth and try again?

When I was in elementary school if a student would say "ain't" we would chant: "Ain't ain't a word because it ain't in the dictionary". Our teacher's made sure students knew not to use the term. Clearly there were people who said ain't, and everyone knew what they meant by the term, however at the time the dictionary was reserved for grammatically correct words, and ain't was not, and still is not grammatically correct. "Irregardless" like "ain't" is improper English. If you look at a dictionary written 20-30 years ago, before dictionaries began including slang, and improper English terms you would not find either word, but today they are both in the dictionary.

While a well educated person may use ain't to "catch attention or gain emphasis." (including candidates for president) they do so for emphasis with the knowledge it is improper English. Sadly too many people who use "irregardless" when they should use regardless or irrespective are unaware they are speaking improper English, they actually think they are speaking intelligently!

So yes "irregardless" is a word, because the dictionary defines a "word" as "something that is said". A word isn't defined as a proper English term. When someone says irregardless or ain't isn't a word, they aren't saying that people don't know what the speaker is saying, or that the speaker has just now invited a new word. By stating ain't or "irregardless" isn't a word they are saying the speaker is not speaking proper English.

When Feisty said it wasn't a word, she was referring to the fact it is not a grammatically correct word, not that there aren't people who misuse the term. You included most of what Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th edition states under the term "irregardless". However you failed to include how it begins: Irregardless /, ir-i-'gard-les/adv [prob. blend of irrespective and regardless] (ca. 1912) nonstand : REGARDLESS

Before the dictionary defines "irregardless" it indicates it is probably a blend, apparently the authors aren't entirely sure. The reason they don't know if it is a blend, or how the term was derived is because it is a grammatically incorrect term. It clearly states it is nonstandard in other words improper English, and it list the proper word regardless which it capitalized for emphasis.

You properly quoted what follows usage in the definition "Irregardless originated in dialectal American speech in the early 20th century. Its fairly widespread use in speech called it to the attention of usage commentators as early as 1927." The authors state that in the early 1900's certain American dialects started using the word (just as certain uneducated Americans used ain't, although ain't was commonly used by uneducated people over a 150 years earlier). The dictionary continues to inform its readers that commentators on proper English usage as early as 1927 started commenting on the fact it wasn't a word. The dictionary, which in past editions didn't include slang and improper English terms indicated it was a word. However given the definition of "word" this simply means there are people who use the term, it does not mean it is grammatically correct, or a properly used term.

So yes "irregardless" is a term commonly used by well meaning people who don't know it is improper English, and the proper term is irrespective or regardless. Sadly many people who would never use ain't, and who pride themselves on their intellect use "irregardless" when they should use irrespective or regardless, and by doing so display a gap in their education.

The dictionary continues: "Its reputation has not risen over the years, and it is still a long way from general acceptance. Use regardless instead." In other words "irregardless" is still consider improper English despite its first use almost 100 years ago, and the editors advise you to use regardless instead. If after a 100 years of usage irregardless" is still considered improper, then saying it isn't a word, meaning a proper word is correct.

So Brutus go ahead and use "irregardless" in place of regardless or irrespective, but you will come off as uneducated!

Maybe you missed my point.

I never said that "irregardless" was correct english, I said it was a word, a provided a source to back up my claim. I am well aware that "irregardless" is a double negative and is typically not used by most people.

My point was, that if you are going to insult someone on their level of education maybe you should see if they are even technically right in the usage of a word, whether it is correct grammar or not.

The original comment that Fiesty responded to, clearly stated that "irregardless" was NOT a word. Feisty then used this comment to attack another posters level of intellegence or education. I felt that she should understand that while doing that, that "irregardless" is in fact a real word, regardless of how incorrect the grammar is.

My point was that before she continues to attack people on this board, she should at least consider checking into what she is insulting them about.

But the real truth of this discussion has been lost on a small trivial matter. The bottom line is that Trum, running as a Republican could never have expected to win a majority of the African American vote, regardless of his tactics.

Who gives a flying ___— if the word was used incorrectly or spelled wrong, This whole I have an education so I am better than you is elitist bull anyway.

I only graduated high school, I did not go to college, I occasionally use and spell words wrong.

Guess what so do all of you and if you say you do not you are liars

Here's the difference...I do not think I am any better than someone who has a higher or lower education than myself.

The risk is these people will stop watching that trashy show of his!

Sarah Palin probably wants to be on celebrity apprentice...LOL

And the man is not a bafoon..He has created 1000's of decent jobs all over the United states...

He never,ever, "gave" anyone a job. If it does not benefit him, he wants nothing to do with you. Greedy to the max. Is that what we want as POTUS??

Trump was one of two successful bidders for riverboat casinos in Gary Indiana out of several who applied. The other license was granted to an African-American businessman from Detroit, who eventually bought out Trump's license as well after Trump found he could not compete. Trump never revamped the Gary airport. He only rented an industrial office building across the street from the airport. Trump never lived up to all the hype he created about his getting a casino boat in Gary. He sold out before any of his promises could be called-in. He is a blustering phony , who seemingly makes a name for himself by constantly telling us how smart he is. I for one would like to see his grade transcript from college...I think he has most recently exhibited a profound inability to read or to understand what it is he has read.