Ed Is Humayun Khan Trump's Turning Point?

[SezMe]

The problem is that there is no way I'll be able to prove or disprove my proposition. If Hillary expands her lead in the polls over the next two weeks, I think it will provide evidence that I was wrong, but it won't be dispositive. The same goes for the case where her lead contracts again. Obviously, there are lots of other issues buffeting both campaigns.

Thanks for that. It's good to recognize that the question is too fuzzy to resolve with any certainty.

Ultimately, though, Hillary is in a tough position if the spotlight ever moves to her again. The entire rationale for her candidacy is a paradox. She is the quintessential establishment candidate in an anti-establishment election year. She represents a continuation of the policies of the last 8 years, even though the majority of the electorate wants to see a big change in course.

True, but the desired direction of change differs greatly depending on the party. The Reps want to see big changes back to the 1950s. The Bernie faction wants to see progressive change. To conflate the two is to make a category error (is that the right name for it?). The latter can live - maybe unhappily - with HRC but the Tea Party types really, honestly, can't live with Trump.

Her claim to have the experience to be President is undermined by the disastrous consequences of her tenure as the nation's chief diplomat. Her claim to be the safe choice for President is undermined by her incompetence in handling classified data and her corruption in covering it up. And her claim to be steadfast and resolute is undermined by her total capitulation to the left wing of her party in order to fend off Bernie's challenge.

Disastrous? What meets that definition? And don't tell me about four dead people and remain silent about the scores of people killed during Shrub's administration.

Corruption? Seems like SOP for people at that level on both sides of the aisle.

Total capitulation? Aw, c'mon, sunmaster14. She agreed to some of his positions. Isn't that what a pol is supposed to do? To not compromise is demagoguery, which you should be vehemently opposed to.

 

[SezMe]

Those people are emotionally obtuse. The Khans paid the ultimate patriotic sacrifice for this nation. Agree with their political stance or disagree, it will never be viewed as right to attack them. You can disagree, but beyond that you risk dishonoring their sacrifice.

This is certainly the received wisdom but I question it. The parents certainly suffered a horrible loss that they will never forget. But what did they sacrifice? Their son made the decision to put himself in harms way. After he was over 18 he was on his own. So the son made the ultimate sacrifice, no doubt. But, honestly, I fail to see the parents sacrificed. Remember, a loss, however horrible, is not the same as a sacrifice.

 

[SezMe]

Furthermore, I think most political pundits would probably agree that virtually every Republican candidate other than Donald Trump and perhaps Ted Cruz would mop the floor with Hillary in the general election.

Aw, c'mon. That's nonsense. You think Ben 'Sleepy Doc' Carson would wield that mop? Graham? Walker? Not a chance. Hell, I'd give Cruz a better shot at it than the rest of the clown car.

 

[SezMe]

Bernie Sanders couldn't beat Clinton. I think you're underestimating the support she actually has. She is a competent and experienced politician that's very liberal.

My bold. Huh? Whatever your opinion of HRC is, I don't think anyone would describe her as "very liberal". She's a DLC centrist, at best.

 

[Tony Stark]

My bold. Huh? Whatever your opinion of HRC is, I don't think anyone would describe her as "very liberal". She's a DLC centrist, at best.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

 

[SezMe]

Boring drips or not,you give them equal coverage. Maybe we need to bring back a version of The Fairness Doctrine.

I don't think the Fairness Doctrine is the way to go. It's too easily finessed. Rather, news media need to be removed from the need to generate a profit which, in turn, drives the need for ratings, which, in turn, drives the need for "if it bleeds, it leads" which, in turn, drives the need for sensationalism. Originally, the news arms of the major networks were not viewed as a profit center and they did, in fact, provide news. We need to revive that concept using the "freedom of the press" notion in the First Amendment as the rationale for that concept.

 

[SezMe]

Silly you, the GOP hasn't taken that tack since the nineties.

The infamous "Southern Strategy" well predates the nineties.

 

[SezMe]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/hillary-clinton-was-liberal-hillary-clinton-is-liberal/

From that link: And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal, ...”

I call foul. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, with a few brain cells to rub together would label Obama that way. I didn't read the rest of the article from that point.

 

[Tony Stark]

From that link: And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal, ...”

I call foul. Nobody, I mean NOBODY, with a few brain cells to rub together would label Obama that way. I didn't read the rest of the article from that point.

So you will just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what you believe.

 

[The Atheist]

From that link: And while Obama is also a “hard core liberal, ...”

I think the trouble is that the centre-point in USA is shifting further to the right daily.

What we see as centrist, the electorate in America would see as capital S Socialism, while the centre according to America is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

 

[JoeB]

I think the trouble is that the centre-point in USA is shifting further to the right daily.

What we see as centrist, the electorate in America would see as capital S Socialism, while the centre according to America is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan is way better on religious freedom.

 

[SezMe]

So you will just ignore evidence that doesn't fit what you believe.

Not at all. I read down to that point and the claims so far were not entirely wrong but did not fit with my experience. That's ok, so far?

Then I checked the author; he is "a senior political writer and analyst" which is just fine but it also indicates that this is an opinion piece, not an article that is expected to strictly stick to the facts. And that's ok, too, right?

Then I checked the source of the ratings. I did not find their approach and ratings credible. We skeptics can be .... well, skeptical, right?

So I quit reading. I didn't "ignore" the evidence, I weighed it against my own judgments and found it wanting, thus negating the value of your citation. That's still ok, right?

Now, let me ask you, in your own judgment, are Obama and HRC "hard core liberals"?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Maybe he's not making enough money. Could that be why he won't release his tax returns, because they would show he's not doing very well? ...

He's clearly hiding something. The three most likely things are, his income was in the toilet, his claims of charitable giving is outright false, and/or he pays little to no taxes. I'm going with all three.

... The problem is that there is no way I'll be able to prove or disprove my proposition. If Hillary expands her lead in the polls over the next two weeks, I think it will provide evidence that I was wrong, but it won't be dispositive. ....

 

[Tony Stark]

Not at all. I read down to that point and the claims so far were not entirely wrong but did not fit with my experience. That's ok, so far?

Then I checked the author; he is "a senior political writer and analyst" which is just fine but it also indicates that this is an opinion piece, not an article that is expected to strictly stick to the facts. And that's ok, too, right?

Then I checked the source of the ratings. I did not find their approach and ratings credible. We skeptics can be .... well, skeptical, right?

So I quit reading. I didn't "ignore" the evidence, I weighed it against my own judgments and found it wanting, thus negating the value of your citation. That's still ok, right?

Now, let me ask you, in your own judgment, are Obama and HRC "hard core liberals"?

I probably wouldn't call them hard core liberals but they are definitely liberals.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think the trouble is that the centre-point in USA is shifting further to the right daily.

What we see as centrist, the electorate in America would see as capital S Socialism, while the centre according to America is somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan.

I dunno, I think Sanders' movement was more cohesive than Trump's.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Yes, and only true scum would purposely omit the very next sentence in a statement that clarifies the point. My next sentence was "My dad really hates when either the RNC or the DNC make such blatant use of fallen service members in pushing their political rhetoric."

And as he was Muslim he should never have been let into the service in the first place as the great Trump has made clear. Anyone contesting this is dishonest to start with.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I think that Khan has indeed proved to be Trump's kryptonite.

Trumps inability to recognize reality will likely be his undoing.

 

[ponderingturtle]

What I do think the media was guilty of was giving Trump much more exposure and air time then the other GOP candiates because they felt that Trump meant ratings.
Jeb Bush was right when he accused a group of journalist of allowing Trump to play them like a fiddle.

Giving him loads of negative coverage about how racist and horrible he is really shouldn't have given him such a boost in popularity if those where not the traits people wanted.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Because the everyone in congress hates him.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Thanks for that. It's good to recognize that the question is too fuzzy to resolve with any certainty.


True, but the desired direction of change differs greatly depending on the party. The Reps want to see big changes back to the 1950s. The Bernie faction wants to see progressive change. To conflate the two is to make a category error (is that the right name for it?). The latter can live - maybe unhappily - with HRC but the Tea Party types really, honestly, can't live with Trump.

That would move the nation to the left in terms of ecconomic policy, I figure they want to go back to the 1920's.