Trump Derangement Syndrome Reaches Fever Pitch

Rush Limbaugh.com ^ | November 24, 2015 | Rush Limbaugh

[editor-surveyor]

.
So then you believe that anyone should be able to run in the primary of a party, even if their ideology differs substantially from that of the party?

[Finny]

Idiots, you say?

Voting "against" is for idiots, FRiend.

[editor-surveyor]

.
That is exactly how I would characterize most of your responses to me lately.

But I once believed you to be much more aware.

[Lazamataz]

So then you believe that anyone should be able to run in the primary of a party, even if their ideology differs substantially from that of the party?

Absolutely! It's how parties change. Either that, or collapse them and start fresh.

Trump is a populist, as is Cruz. The rest are elitists. All the Democrats are elitists (as well as communists). Trump and Cruz are the last-gasp chance for the GOP.

[Finny]

So I assume that you think because I voted for a plurality, I "voted to reelect that arrogant POS." And you'd be wrong -- I voted for a plurality.

If you voted for Romney, you voted for turning the Republican party hard left and making it the functional equivalent of the Democrat party.

Of course, when we were into year four of Republican-led nationalized health care, environmentalist regulatory tyranny, forced accommodation of open homosexuality, and on-demand tax-funded abortion, and saw dramatic Democrat gains during the mid-terms and the Republican party move even further left, you be right here aghast that anyone would blame you for it because you didn't vote for any of that -- you voted against Obama!

Who is the idiot, again?

[BigEdLB]

He mentioned her and another individual on the show

[LS]

As I'm sure you know, that's a ridiculously impossible thing to address.

"I thought you were (smarter/more beautiful/taller)."

[PhilDragoo]

WHO reporting Trump 25%, Cruz 23%, within the statistical error of the survey.

A concept of Trump as a booster rocket for an otherwise principled but unsuccessful conservative--

--or, in the alternative, a unique alliance of a patriotic entrepreneur and a world-class debater cum regime-buster.

Caught Rush today and the caller who impressed me was a doofus claiming Trump sat at the dinner table with Hillary and Bill and promised to do a Perot.

So much wrong with the premise(s):

Perot was excellent after GHWB's "read my lips" betrayal;

Perot said he pulled out because of Bush, Inc., threats--plausible.

Would Trump rise to the summit and survey the power, then pass the cup to Medusa?

No, and, again, Hell no.

Is there not a potentiation, complementary strength to a Trump-Cruz alliance?

Trump's power comes from expressing the "Mad as Hell" sentiment--no bait and switch does anything to profit him.

Cruz is an enormous tree growing from a modest seed.

They could play Battling Robots and beat each other to spare parts thus giving the Wicked Witch of Chappaqua the title--

--or they could get what destiny has in store:

The complete confounding and humiliation of smug Rovian Patricians and shrieking fairy medioids.

January 20, 2017 is coming.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Trump is no populist, he shares political ideology with Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, and George Soros.

They already have a party catering to them.
.

[editor-surveyor]

Nevertheless, impressions come from observations, regardless of how limited such may be.

[Wright Wing]

That’s Dave Grohl!

[Lazamataz]

We disagree fundamentally and in detail.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I think we can be sure that the picture is not Dave Grohl.

[editor-surveyor]

.
I suspect that the flow of events will continue to develop, such that Cruz surpassing Trump in the earlies will remove the issue.
.

[LS]

Fine. I will admit I’m not as incredible a genius as you once thought. Man, that was hard.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Is sarcasm all you have these days?

[LS]

I have done a little research on Perot. He claimed, in the summer when he dropped out, that he did so (and I have the quote someplace on my computer but don’t want to look right ow) because “the Democrats were doing better than expected.” In other words, he wasn’t needed to take out Bush.

[LS]

Oh come on. That was funny right there!

[PhilDragoo]

The animus arose over MIAs says U.S. News & World Report: Exclusive Clip: Perot Driven by 'Personal Dislike,’ Bush 41 Says

L.A. Times gives standard explanation for '92 pullout: Perot Charges Plot Forced Him Out

Daniel Pipes reviews Ken Follett: On Wings of Eagles, 1983

That year we built a home in Santa Fe for Perot partner Mort Myerson. Developments required sending security from Dallas. The stuff of airport novels.

How the wrath of Bush, Inc., must grow and glow like Chernobyl as Jeb Who goes down, down, down.

[LS]

I don’t trust Follett, a novelist. My info came from the campaign bio written by Perot’s own campaign manager.