Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[acbytesla]

Correct. I thought that's what both sides of my mouth were saying.

Well, maybe one if my ears isn't working. It seemed as if you said the Pope should keep his opinions to himself.

 

[Stacko]

I disagree. It won't make a difference to most loyalists. But it will turn off some. It might sway some bigots who for whatever reason are not already on board. But it will make difference to some who strongly support the military who may have been Trump supporters or traditional GOP.

Dismissing this as if it is nothing is simply head in the sand. This is good for a five point bump.

Imagine if Hillary Clinton spent two days attacking the mother of the American killed at Benghazi that spoke at the RNC.

 

[phiwum]

In retrospect, would you rather have Cruz as the nominee?

ETA: I'm still interested in the answer to that but I am drawing the tread off-topic. I think Trump is going to alienate more people day by day with no clear turning point. Predicting his demise is futile because he will keep plenty of supporters and they will make lots of noise. I don't think he's going to add anyone though.

I could be wrong!

Goodness, yes, I would prefer Cruz.

Trump has degraded the entire electoral process. I don't expect presidential candidates to treat others with respect hereafter, because, win or lose, Trump gets attention with his antics and so far, it's not a bad strategy.

Trump's nomination has disgraced the Republican party but also the nation as a whole. It is a shame and an embarrassment that he is a serious candidate this late in the race.

Cruz is a committed ideologue, one who's ideas and tenacity can cause quite a bit of damage if elected, but a man who understands nothing of our government or governing is a much greater threat and shame to our entire nation.

 

[Ladewig]

Endless skirt-lifting and shrieking hasn't worked since day 1 with Trump. He's turned this kind of thing to his advantage. It's why he is winning. This is just more free advertising for Trump.

I'm upset! I'm throwing a tantrum!

Trump opponents can't seem to learn any other thing than shrieking about how upset they are.

Are you talking about posters in this thread? Because I have not seen any posts that involved shrieking. And even if there were, so ******* what? If people on this board want to complain by shrieking then let them complain by shrieking; they are not hurting anyone. Furthermore why does our alleged shrieking bother you so much? If you find it annoying then just ignore it.

 

[acbytesla]

Imagine if Hillary Clinton spent two days attacking the mother of the American killed at Benghazi that spoke at the RNC.

That's a fair equivalency.

 

[Tony Stark]

Imagine if Hillary Clinton spent two days attacking the mother of the American killed at Benghazi that spoke at the RNC.

The Republicans would definitely be calling for her head (well more than they usually do).

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

Sadly this will either make no difference or will actually attract support to Trump.

I'm not sure how it could attract more support. At best (from a certain perspective), his comments could be seen as a general attack on Muslims/Islam. But anyone who views that sort of thing positively has probably already thrown their support behind Trump.

I'm having trouble coming up with a previously untapped demographic that Trump's comments might, after all this time, finally appeal to.

 

[marplots]

Well, maybe one if my ears isn't working. It seemed as if you said the Pope should keep his opinions to himself.

Oh, yeah. I see where I went off track there. I was blending the idea of "infallable voice of God" as an authoritarian benchmark with the idea that arguing from status (pope, plumber, cripple, Muslim patriot) shouldn't get an automatic pass.

I messed it up, not you.

 

[tyr_13]

Endless skirt-lifting and shrieking hasn't worked since day 1 with Trump. He's turned this kind of thing to his advantage. It's why he is winning. This is just more free advertising for Trump.

I'm upset! I'm throwing a tantrum!

Trump opponents can't seem to learn any other thing than shrieking about how upset they are.

No. You are dismissing all criticisms of Trump, no matter how valid, by calling them names. Your name calling will not work. In addition, it's plainly hypocritical because you complain all the time about name calling.

It is his strength, not his weakness. Critics roll out a Muslim. In the PC world a white man can never do anything but take abuse from the special protected classes of privilege. It is this Muslim's privilege to say any nasty things they want about a white man.

So Trump critics figure this is it, we can destroy him because "He said something Yucky!" To a [insert class of privilege here]. A woman, a black, a muslim, etc.

Just keep policing every word out of his mouth and using the now discredited framing of "racist, sexist, idiot, etc."

Trump will, like Duterte in the Philippines, tell you to go **** yourselves.

From a third party perspective this is so obvious to me. I have torture, the brazen statements of seizing other countries' resources - plenty to disagree with.

But instead of taking on the issues we have the left incessantly acting like some Victorian princess feinting on her couch because Trump said something her fragile ears cannot bear to hear.

Trump ends up looking strong because instead of getting on his knees and begging forgiveness for upsetting the princess he tells her to grow up.

And instead of addressing the validity of the specific criticism, you complain about it being a criticism at all. Trump did not address the criticism either; he too simply complained about being criticized. This is not a rational argument in the least.

You're literally saying it's not just alright but laudable to call names, and attack not the criticisms of these people, but the people themselves, simply because they've criticized Trump. At the same time, being critical of Trump is in and of itself dismissed by you.

What specifically of Khan's words do you take issue with? His actual criticism of Trump? So far, you're only critical of his being critical, and shamefully of being a Muslim.

That something offends people in no way means they are only being critical because it was offensive. It being offensive can not be used as a shield from analysis or criticism.

 

[jhunter1163]

I think this will be Trump's Willie Horton; the albatross he just won't be able to shake.

 

[acbytesla]

Oh, yeah. I see where I went off track there. I was blending the idea of "infallable voice of God" as an authoritarian benchmark with the idea that arguing from status (pope, plumber, cripple, Muslim patriot) shouldn't get an automatic pass.

I messed it up, not you.

We get picky on the net in case you didnt notice. I kind of guessed what you were thinking.

I'm an atheist, but I have more respect for this Pope than any of his predecessors.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Imagine if Hillary Clinton spent two days attacking the mother of the American killed at Benghazi that spoke at the RNC.

That one is a good analogy. That mother claims Clinton said things the other relatives of lost loved ones say was not said.

Clinton doesn't even accuse her of having false memories. When interviewed on Fox by Chris Wallace who asked her specifically about it, Clinton spent 90% of the answer empathizing with the woman's loss and one sentence saying it may or may not have had an impact on the woman's memory.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The sign that a tactic is working is when the shills and dupes synchronize their watches and come out on the hour, every hour, to tell you it's not working. Nunh unh. Never laid a glove on him. He's the tangerine rebound king, he is. You can't phase Donald. He tells it like it is.

And this comes from someone who doesn't watch television. Someone who did not see the parade of Republicans, not just Democrats, roundly condemning this excess. Someone who doesn't know that the opening monologue of every talk show and comedy show is "What stupid thing did that hysterically funny Republican candidate for President do today?"

You can survive being referred to as a fascist, socialist, plutocrat, whatever. You may even be able to survive being called out on being a bigot in any of the forms you embrace. You can survive multiple spouses, investigations, dubious business deals, accusations of dishonesty. You can survive being a punch line once or twice, like "The Checkers Speech".

What you cannot survive is becoming a joke. And that's the state that Donald J. Trump has achieved. It's a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless. There's a bloc that I estimate at about 38 per cent that he has locked up. That consists of the hard line bigots and soft bigots like Islamophobes and easily frightened xenophobes. That also consists of people who, like several posters here, just couldn't vote Democrat if the GOP nominated a ticket of Carrot Top and Ted Bundy. He saw a bump after the floor show of the conention, but that's soft support. Those people are now singing "Is That All There Is" because after their sumptuous repast of Spam on Wonder Bread, they realize that they're still hungry, that there was no actual nutritional content because it wasn't really Spam on Wonder Bread, it was pictures of Spam on Wonder Bread. Zero calories, zero nutritional content.

 

[marplots]

What you cannot survive is becoming a joke. And that's the state that Donald J. Trump has achieved. It's a bad joke, but a joke nonetheless. There's a bloc that I estimate at about 38 per cent that he has locked up. That consists of the hard line bigots and soft bigots like Islamophobes and easily frightened xenophobes. That also consists of people who, like several posters here, just couldn't vote Democrat if the GOP nominated a ticket of Carrot Top and Ted Bundy. He saw a bump after the floor show of the conention, but that's soft support. Those people are now singing "Is That All There Is" because after their sumptuous repast of Spam on Wonder Bread, they realize that they're still hungry, that there was no actual nutritional content because it wasn't really Spam on Wonder Bread, it was pictures of Spam on Wonder Bread. Zero calories, zero nutritional content.

Do you expect to see this reflected in the polls?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Do you expect to see this reflected in the polls?

Patience, my boy, patience.

 

[marplots]

Patience, my boy, patience.

Nothing like an hypothesis to keep my eyes on the experiment.

 

[Noztradamus]

You're voting for Tarzan of the Apes as your president? Because he's all just fake muscles and shouting and that's what counts with you? Careful! You may find out he really is just a faeces-flinging monkey.

Tarzan of the Apes war an intelligent cultured gentleman, fluent in more than a dozen languages. Doesn't sound like anybody running this year.

 

[marplots]

Tarzan of the Apes war an intelligent cultured gentleman, fluent in more than a dozen languages. Doesn't sound like anybody running this year.

Born in Africa. Not eligible.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Do you expect to see this reflected in the polls?

I think we're already seeing the emptiness-of-program in the polls. The contrast being offered by the DNC was mentioned more by Independents and Republicans than by SkepticGinger and party stalwarts. Trump peaked from mid-June to the end of his convention. That was with a round-the-clock attack from the piss-weak Benghazi report and the non-indictment by the FBI. You've gotta admire that right wing sound machine. Instead of saying "oh, well, we lost that/those battle/s" they spun it into "What they really meant was she's guilty as sin but they just weren't able to say so" and they did a damned good job of it.

Trump went from 38% in the polls to 46%. That, I believe, is not popularity. It's the soft vote who were reacting to what was dominating the news cycle, and the Anti-Hillary news was selling more soap flakes. It's easier, as any Pol can tell you, to sell negatives. The DNC loved being able to attack Trump. He was the punchline and the exclamation point. But they decided to sell what they fell are positives. And that soft support, much being in the form of "well, I may not agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he's my party's candidate so I'm for him" is withering as the the "not agree with him on a lot" is getting to be the larger phrase in those voters' minds. He picked up eight points over a month; he's dropped three to five points in five days.

 

[marplots]

Trump went from 38% in the polls to 46%. That, I believe, is not popularity. It's the soft vote who were reacting to what was dominating the news cycle, and the Anti-Hillary news was selling more soap flakes. It's easier, as any Pol can tell you, to sell negatives. The DNC loved being able to attack Trump. He was the punchline and the exclamation point. But they decided to sell what they fell are positives. And that soft support, much being in the form of "well, I may not agree with him on a lot of stuff, but he's my party's candidate so I'm for him" is withering as the the "not agree with him on a lot" is getting to be the larger phrase in those voters' minds. He picked up eight points over a month; he's dropped three to five points in five days.

I'm genuinely curious - when do you think the poll numbers will reflect your analysis? A week from now? Two weeks?

The reason I ask is because I have been wrong about Trump's numbers consistently since he first announced. Over and over I thought his support would wane. It hasn't.

I would like you to be right, but without a clear prediction, I won't be able to tell.