Calling a neighborhood “ghetto” may not be racist, but calling people “ghetto” based on race, income, and/or where they live is dismissive, dehumanizing, and yes, probably racist.
Neither is “urban” or “inner-city” or “punk” or “thug”, right?
Sorry, you’re wrong there. The common understanding, even if you don’t share it, is that all of those are code words. If you use them, you can expect them to be interpreted that way. Any misunderstanding is not the audience’s fault, but yours.
“Ghetto”, in this context, is a racist phrase. So is the whole, “you’re the REAL racist” schtick.
But then, Donald Trump is a racist, too. That’s pretty much all he brings to the party. It’s no surprise to find racism in his supporters.
Hmm, so maybe he bought the rights to those debates and is doing his best to ensure high ratings? Very intriguing… 
The ratings will undoubtedly be higher. But what will hurt Republicans is that all of the sound bites played after the debate is over are going to be of Trump. Jeb Bush could give a great performance and it will be lost forever if it happens in the context of Trump promising to invade Mexico if elected. Trump’s mission is to get us talking about Trump.
So in my opinion, higher ratings for a debate (heck, I might even tune in to watch, but take a shower afterward) but none of the mainstream candidate(s) will be gaiing any traction as a result.
Can’t wait for the swimsuit competition, can you?
So, how do you propose I state that Obama really boosted the voting participation of lower income African Americans that live in urban areas? Is there a non-racist way for me state that fact?
Obama really boosted the voting participation of lower income African Americans that live in urban areas
You just did in your first sentence.
Edit: Ninja’d.
Unless you’re actually into politics, debates are pretty dull stuff. Trump might attract viewers looking for a laugh but they’ll likely be fiddling with their iPads or something on the couch until they hear Trump’s voice and look up. Unless the first debate is “The Trump Show”, it’s unlikely most of that audience will tune in for Debate #2.
Eh, putting aside on whether the GOP would benefit from higher or lower ratings*, I seriously doubt Trump will do much for the ratings (and “double or triple” as the OP suggests, is nuts). Anyone who doesn’t follow politics closely wants to see the train-wreck bits will see the clips the next day, without having to sit through Jeb Bush describing his tax-plan or whatever.
*(I don’t really have an opinion, but given how much of a big deal they’ve made of cutting back on the number of debates this cycle, its pretty clear that the GOP itself thinks they’re better off with fewer people seeing the debates).
Or come here. We’ve got people who enjoy that sort of thing. And will be willing to tell us all about it. And then some. 
As a life-long Dem, I rarely watch the Pubbie debates, as I’m unlikely to vote for any of their candidates. This go-around I am likely to watch. The field is so wide that someone is bound to rise from the debates and look like a front-runner. I’m curious to see who that might be.
I hope they do invite Trump. While no one else is likely to point out and describe the various elephants in the room, Trump will. If nothing else, it will be interesting to watch how the other candidates refute him. That might take some fancy-dancin’.
Well fuck, I’d watch that.
Right. They’ll have to seem like they’re refuting him while not saying anything which could be construed as disagreeing with his policies, which are fairly popular among the GOP electorate.
(Well, at least his immigration policy, which is also one of the most toxic policies among the general electorate.)
Trump won’t win. Jeb is the frontrunner, albeit a weakly. But Trump sucks up all the media attention, making it more difficult for plausible challengers to make their case. Also Overton Window: Trump makes Jeb look like a reasonable guy. Then again, Trump makes Tancrendo look dignified.
Unless the people who got excited about voting for Trump decide to stay home once it becomes apparent that it’s Jeb or Clinton.
Note that Tancredo isn’t saying Trump’s positions are wrong, just that he shouldn’t talk so openly about them.
Is Trump being paid to put on his performance, so as to make the other candidates look sane? (Just asking questions!)
Viewership might be higher, but that may not benefit the Republicans as it would just mean more people seeing Trump say craz shit.
Interestingly, here’s a clip of Trump on Letterman back in the 80s where he actually seems like a normal non-crazy rich businessman. In fact he’s even actually quite modest about his wealth:
