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?

[To Hell With Poverty]

Uhhh, hate to break it to you but it wasn’t Rush’s argument. He was reading an article by Ben Shapiro, as is obvious in the photo you included. Hello?

[Durbin]

“People pay this guy to hear this stuff?”

His show is downloaded on YouTube every day. So no, I don’t pay to listen to him.

[Rex Anderson]

Major Fail. This wasn’t Rush’s argument.

[marktwain]

Lots of people who do not really listen to Rush claim that he says things that he really does not.

Rush is quite sophisticated in his political analysis.

[Navy Patriot]

Accuracy in listening, try it sometime.

[2001convSVT]

Rush is right, again!

[Gaffer]

I guess I could understand some question about yesterday, but I listened to the first hour and it seemed to me that Rush stood IN FAVOR of emotion and anger against the system as being as reputable, righteous and legitimate as so-called “reason of established lore” for legitimate dissent.

IOW, whether you truly fit some rigid tightass’ vision of legitimately ‘conservative’ doesn’t matter. Anger and rage and total disgust and railing and revenging at the system (yes, I include GOPe dogma as part of that ‘system’) is no more illegitimate than any other reason.

I’ve always said something to the effect “Butterflies are like little girls - they need no excuse.”

I consider rage and anger against the kind of indignities these so-called conservatives and ‘republicans’ and RINO feather bedders have visited upon us for decades. NO MORE!

[Lakeshark]

I heard a lot of his show yesterday, and didn't hear as much anti-Trump stuff as before South Carolina. He seems to have toned it down a little now that Trump is the likely nominee.

I think he is still hoping for another to win, but isn't going to damage Trump any further.

My 2 cents.

[BBB333]

Apparently you went full retard.

[bigbob]

True, but I tend to agree with the claim incorrectly attributed to Rush however, after hearing him call Rubio a “rock ribbed conservative” and all that. Having extolled the principles of conservatism for as long as he has, I can’t imagine how he’d fail to recognize Rubio for what he is, unless as others have implied, there is more to this that isn’t publicly known.

[SPRINK]

Sundance calling anyone else election year delusion is rich...the guy went bat sheet crazy.

anyway I agree it wasn’t Rush’s analysis....he did kinda call Trump supporters battered wives

[Fantasywriter]

Why did Rush read the article? What was his assessment of it?

[FourtySeven]

I for one don’t understand the “logic” of attacking your weaker opponents in the race. Common sense would tell you, if you want to win, you try to take out those who are in front of you, not those behind. So I don’t care if it was Rush or Ben Shapiro who said this, they are right.

[over3Owithabrain]

I heard it and know Rush too. It wasn’t his original argument but the way he delivered it was obvious he goes along with it. He just doesn’t have the balls to come out and take a stand he has to do it by proxy. Interesting that a guy with multiple failed marriages and a nasty drug habit is rooting for a character attack on Trump.

[House Atreides]

Listening comprehension & rudimentary analytical skills would have helped this deranged writer actually make sense instead of the inaccurate jibberish that he produced.

[traderrob6]

Sundance is so snake-fascinated with Donald Trump he’s making sh!t up.

As long as it slimes Trumps detractors whether it’s factual or not.

Rush Limbaugh has more political acumen in his little toe than “sundance” could have in his wildest dreams.

[iontheball]

This is kamikaze style advice for sure by someone who is not in the arena and has nothing to lose. If Cruz takes this birdbrained tack he will flame out for good in this campaign and his political career will be toast.

[G Larry]

FReepers need to learn to ignore Sundance.

He’s a full Trump-nutter, devoid of facts.

[Fantasywriter]

How much time have you spent reading articles on The ConservstiveTreehouse site?