Rush Limbaugh Goes Full Nutter - The Most Illogical Pretzel Argument Ever Presented

The Conservative Treehouse ^ | 2-25-2016 | sundance

[smoothsailing]

I know from the comments section many people have discussed how bizarre the recent ravings of Rush Limbaugh have become. However, I had not spent time listening to them, until this happened.

As far as I can tell this was actually broadcast by Rush Limbaugh yesterday. To say he’s contracted a viral strain of election cycle cognitive dissonance would be a severe understatement. Listen to this logic:

I know from the comments section many people have discussed how bizarre the recent ravings of Rush Limbaugh have become. However, I had not spent time listening to them, until this happened.

As far as I can tell this was actually broadcast by Rush Limbaugh yesterday. To say he’s contracted a viral strain of election cycle cognitive dissonance would be a severe understatement. Listen to this logic:

If Ted Cruz wants to win he’s got to focus exclusively on attacking Trump. Why? Because Cruz has to realize Marco Rubio is not going to drop out. If Rubio is not going to drop out, Rubio is not the obstacle – Trump is…

See if you can follow this logic. Marco Rubio is not going to leave the race, therefore it is the better course to attack the stronger frontrunner because, well, according to the Limbaugh logic, Trump winning in all the contests must mean he is positioned to leave the race – or something.

Seriously, this is what Rush Limbaugh is presenting to his audience. This makes absolutely ZERO sense. This is completely nonsensical. This is epic level moonbattery.

What makes Limbaugh think Donald Trump, a candidate who has won three consecutive resounding victories, is less disposed to staying in the presidential race than a freshman senator who has won absolutely no primary contests?

…And if Trump is no less committed to exit, then how does it make more sense to spend time trying to eliminate the stronger of the two candidate options?

We have heard rumors there are times when ineffective “gaslighting” can lead to absolutely insane expressions of logic. It would appear this rumor is profoundly true.

People pay this guy to hear this stuff?

[jpsb]

It is very simple Rubio is Rushs’ favorite so Rush would like to see Cruz attacking Trump that helps out Rubio and hurts Trump and to a lessor extent Cruz. It is a win win win for Rush.

[HiTech RedNeck]

I worship God, not Donald, but I do see the vibes of Donald. He’s optimistic about his “naive” slogan.

Okay, the catcalls are thick and furious and might even be able to cite real reasons to doubt. But to say the vibes themselves are not there, really is to miss something.

[j.argese]

Would you say there are more lions or sheep?

[MHGinTN]

You liar, you put it in the present tense, you know you did, and now you’re trying to lie your way out of your filthy work. Must be a closet liberal.

[Las Vegas Ron]

I would say your ability to deflect sucks.

[Boogieman]

Sundance isn’t too good at stuff like logic and common sense...

[Boogieman]

If you’ve been reading the site for that long, then you have no excuse for not noticing that sundance began posting debunked and flat out false stories about Ted Cruz months ago, and won’t even retract them when they are proven false.

[Boogieman]

“I have never seen a single Cruz supporter act toward Sundance in keeping with the Golden Rule.”

What does the fact that he is a liar have to do with the “Golden Rule”? Are we not supposed to warn others about liars because the liar’s feelings might get hurt?

[smoothsailing]

Could the truth be that Rush is establishment, so would naturally support Rubio?

[j.argese]

I’ll give your comment the level of consideration it deserves. And consider yourself fortunate. Later, squirt.

[Boogieman]

I have friends that work at grocery stores too. They’re good people.

Not who I would go to for intelligent analysis of anything besides groceries, or maybe sports, though.

[Las Vegas Ron]

See ya toots!

[Boogieman]

Yes, they even go to the lengths of “blacklisting” anyone who at any time expresses a dissenting opinion.

Doesn’t matter if Rush Limbaugh, or Thomas Sowell, or Mark Levin has decades of history promoting the cause. One bad word about Trump and they are placed on the Index of Forbidden Works. If that isn’t the behavior of a cult, nobody has even offered an alternative explanation for it.

[Boogieman]

“That is one of the more inane statements I have read on this forum over the past 12 years.”

That’s often a clue that you’ve missed the sarcasm of a post.

[Hawthorn]

>> I do not know what Rush has against Trump <<

Rush has played golf with Trump. Knows the guy personally. Rush also lives in Trump’s second hometown, Palm Beach. Maybe Rush has learned certain things about Trump “behind the scenes” that he thinks should disqualify Trump for the White House.

On the other hand, maybe it’s just that Trump has bested Rush in their golf matches — something for which Rush won’t forgive Trump.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Would you have us to believe that running a pediatric clinic is equivalent to guiding the most powerful nation on Earth?

I find your arguments to be mostly without substance.

Spinning the wheel and hoping that it lands on an acceptable peg does not equate to a “bloodless coup.”
.

[jimt]

Robert Redford’s namesake makes another “contribution” to the “conservative” outhouse.

[Political Junkie Too]

That's all you took from my post?

Granted, it's not much, but it's more leadership experience than Rubio has.

-PJ

[Fantasywriter]

All Sundance is doing is pointing out the questions Johnson wasn’t asked. For example, he was never asked how he lost his bracelet at the scene of Wilson’s encounter with Brown. Johnson was never asked about the hours of unaccounted time/massive gaps in his description of what he and Brown did before and after robbing the store. Was Johnson charged with perjury for creating the hands up don’t shoot myth? No. Why not?

Sundance asked legitimate questions, and they largely boil down to why Johnson got completely off the hook. He was a party to the robbery, and was present during the assault. At a minimum, he could have been asked how his bracelet ended up on the street at the scene of the crime.

If you like the way Johnson was completely let off the hook, fine. Or if you can find even one—just one—comment Sundance made that was not absolutely supportive of Wilson (I mean directly, not in terms of the bracelet discussion, which is legitimate and a separate issue) post it. But this mountain you’re making of a molehill is a waste of time. I would personally like to have seen Johnson asked about his bracelet. That doesn’t mean I don’t support Wilson. It just means Johnson should also have been held accountable.