Nonsense. Batshit conspiracy predictions MUST be brought up regularly after they fail to come true to remind people just how batshit these conspiracy theories are.
One thing I've noticed about conspiracy followers is that they have ZERO fucking memory. Like doomsday cult members whose leaders keep getting the end date wrong, they keep following people who have an exactly ZERO batting average with predictions.
No they have memory, they just selectively use it (meaning if they know they'll be called out for it, they won't mention it, but they will if they think they can get away with it). Lots of them, even after they'll even admit it was obviously not real when pushed to, will still believe it deep down, which just shows how fractured the logic portion of their brains are. They literally are incapable of changing their mind on topics except out of extraordinary circumstances. Its why they can't not vote for Republicans, so generally the best you can get is them to not vote. Turmp might be an extraordinary enough situation for them to, and for some Obama was (I knew Republicans that voted for him, partially because they saw McCain was going to just continue Bush Jr's failed policies, but some because of race - they really did want to believe that race wasn't an issue any more - which was why it was hard to get them to accept it was with all the various situations of it over the past decade).
There's a bunch of personal experience that I've had with persons like this. Where I can prove something to them and they'll agree and accept it, but they will go back to pushing it again later or with other people. I've seen this same behavior with conspiracy people where even after they've admitted one was wrong, I'll catch them bringing it back up or mentioning it as though its valid in other situations. Its the exact behavior that I saw in Turmp before he was even the nomination. If pushed (as in you refuse to let him bring up anything else until he admits it), he will just to get the heat off, but he'll go back to claiming it. Granted, he has a whole other level where he does it so he can try to claim it was actually valid before (see the shit he pulled about the hurricane last year, with the sharpie and everything, and how even later he brought it back up to try and validate himself).
But it just shows, they have plenty of memory of it, in fact they seem less able and willing to forget about it than other people even. But its also wonky (meaning they can completely forget they ever did that and so they might approach the same topic from a different angle based on whatever their newest rationale of the time is, only for it to be at complete odds with what they thought before). But that's why I think one of the ways you deal with people like that is show them how they act, and have it ready for when they try to pull it again. If the media could just whip out an iPad and show Turmp literally saying things he says he didn't say, it'd take care of the issue a lot quicker (by that I mean he'd probably immediately blow his top and storm out). I think that's true of everyone, but I think its about the only way you can hold people that act the way I'm talking about at all responsible for how they act because they really have zero real self awareness and their minds have built up this manner of excusing themselves to protect itself from its own broken logic.
Oh and if there's anything that provides the smallest shred of validation (i.e. completely unrelated thing that has no connection whatsoever even), they'll immediately go back to full believer. Its why they can trot out a single "scientist" that doesn't agree (no matter if they're expertise is in that field, or they have clear misunderstanding, or other things that should lead one to question if they're worth giving credence to), and that's all the justification they need to dismiss the validity of climate change or evolution, etc. And they're like that on most topics.
www.reuters.com
Facebook
Twitter