• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

Good morning. At this point I'm pretty sure Trump can't say anything that will cause his core supporters to leave his camp. That's fine. That's so pretty small group. I'm confident it's a lot smaller than what it appears.

He could have one of these moments, and some might say he already has, and the unsinkable rubber ducks that are his base will find a way to blame it on Hillary/Media/Obama/He really didn't mean that/Hes still better than Hillary. The GOP created this guy and now they don't like what they see but they have painted themselves into this corner. I'm of the opinion that in the unlikely event that Trump wins, the GOP will be damaged far more than they would if he lost. It's probably their best strategy to focus completely on the down ticket and ignore Trump completely. The GOP could recover much quicker that way if they learn anything from this fiasco.
ETA. Should they choose to ignore Trump, they will be added to the blame list as well. Oh, wait, Trump has already been blaming his own party for trying to undermine his campaign.
 
Last edited:
Regnad Kcin said:
And he's put off journalists to an extreme degree, but neither are demographic groups.
Click to expand...

If you made all the journalists hate your guts, you can hardly expect them to write nice stories about you. He sowed the seeds, now he's reaping the whirlwind. Oops!
 
jhunter1163 said:
It'll be the event associated with Trump, like Michael Dukakis/Willie Horton and John Kerry/Swift Boat.
Click to expand...

Without any real evidence, I still think there will be something even bigger and more decisive coming down the line. A leaked tax return, financial ties to questionable Russians, something else.... I think it is even possible that something he skated by on the first pass will come up again and he will fight so hard to set everyone straight that he will surpass the Khan stuff.
 
acbytesla said:
The media chases ratings. I can't stand Trump, but he's interesting. I wish the media focused on hard news, but it has devolved into chasing whatever grabs the public's attention a long time ago.

Trump was the story in January and my guess he'll be the story up to a week after the election and then no one will want to hear his name.
Click to expand...

It is amazing that the 1976 classic film "Network" predicted exactly where US Media was going. Although Howard Beale is the most famous character,the one who resembles the people running the news networks nowdays is Robert Duvall's. ("God, If I get fired, I will be a man without a Corporation!".
 
Ladewig said:
Without any real evidence, I still think there will be something even bigger and more decisive coming down the line. A leaked tax return, financial ties to questionable Russians, something else.... I think it is even possible that something he skated by on the first pass will come up again and he will fight so hard to set everyone straight that he will surpass the Khan stuff.
Click to expand...

Let's not leave a smoking gun for some of Trump's more interesting Business Associates in his New Jersey Casino interests....You know,members of an certain Italian American Fraternal Organization......
 
acbytesla said:
The media chases ratings. I can't stand Trump, but he's interesting. I wish the media focused on hard news, but it has devolved into chasing whatever grabs the public's attention a long time ago.

Trump was the story in January and my guess he'll be the story up to a week after the election and then no one will want to hear his name.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more, though it does take the wind of the more conspiratorial sails when you factor ratings in; never ascribe to evil what can be explained by ratings, in a variation on a theme.

Any time someone starts down the "they just don't want you to know this stuff, maaaahn!" road, I bring this up and it works pretty much every time. It's not that they don't want us to know, it's that we don't usually care enough to know, and they know it.

At least Reuters, the AP and the BBC haven't devolved into four idiots shouting at each other and self-important blowhards bellowing their opinion all offered under the pretense that it's news.
 
Polaris said:
Couldn't agree more, though it does take the wind of the more conspiratorial sails when you factor ratings in; never ascribe to evil what can be explained by ratings, in a variation on a theme.

Any time someone starts down the "they just don't want you to know this stuff, maaaahn!" road, I bring this up and it works pretty much every time. It's not that they don't want us to know, it's that we don't usually care enough to know, and they know it.

At least Reuters, the AP and the BBC haven't devolved into four idiots shouting at each other and self-important blowhards bellowing their opinion all offered under the pretense that it's news.
Click to expand...

Like I said, back in 1976 "Network" predicted all of this.
 
Polaris said:
<snip>

Any time someone starts down the "they just don't want you to know this stuff, maaaahn!" road, I bring this up and it works pretty much every time. It's not that they don't want us to know, it's that we don't usually care enough to know, and they know it.

<snip>
Click to expand...


I'm surprised that it works at all, in view of the fact that pointing out all the multitudinous coverage there is of whatever they are whining about being covered up never seems to matter to them.
 
quadraginta said:
I'm surprised that it works at all, in view of the fact that pointing out all the multitudinous coverage there is of whatever they are whining about being covered up never seems to matter to them.
Click to expand...

It helps that the people I talk to about it aren't true believers invested in the conspiracy narrative; I don't even bother with them. The ones I'll engage are the ones whom the true believers tell some thing they hadn't heard plastered all over the news and believe the TB's follow up that "they just don't want people to know this stuff". A lack of critical thinking usually leads them to think, "Huh, maybe that's true".
 
eeyore1954 said:
The nomination of Trump, the strength of both Cruz and Saunders are all signs that a lot of people were looking for something other than the norm.
Click to expand...

A billionaire and 2 senators - yeah, very anti-establishment. I'm not sure the phrase means anything.

ETA: I really don't mean to sound so dismissive, but it seems we could apply "anti-Establishment" to any number of presidential elections, based on shifting metrics. Probably most noticeable after someone else has served a full 2 terms. Hillary can't claim to be anti-establishment, but the other 3 might.

I'm not sure why Cruz would be considered anti-establishment, unless it's in the context of Jeb Bush being the "establishment" candidate.

Really I wonder if Trump is even actually a billionaire.
 
Last edited:
Minoosh said:
He seriously denigrated Indian casinos - probably a bigger deal than "Pocohantas."
Click to expand...
Not really, since any shots he takes at "Indian" casinos are obviously borne of pure self-interest since they take money away from Atlantic City casinos owned (or formerly owned) by Trump. Trump Taj Mahal, for example, is closing in the next few weeks...one more failed venture with the name "Trump" plastered on it.
 
2DrlI4p.jpg


www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/poli...7999c0-5b33-11e6-9aee-8075993d73a2_story.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom