Solar --

You have, indeed, puzzled me, at least enough to tempt me into wandering off the reservation.  For bona fides:  I listen to Rush's show most days, sometimes when I'm working in my shop, or I download it and listen to it during my dinner.  I have been listening to his show since 1988, soon after he went national, and have developed a good sense of what he is saying and what he is not saying.

re:  "This is like trying to figure out Rush's adoration of the lib." -- Is Trump "the lib" in this statement?  If so, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.

re:  "re:  "Granted it's always about money, but for Rush to gamble his career the way he is makes no sense.  . . .  Trump is not that likable, there is no way anyone with half a brain would ever throw themselves on the pyre for this guy, . . .." --  Again, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.  I don't think you actually listen to his show, and are basing your comments on secondary, or even tertiary, inputs.

Rush has described Trump's technique, but has stopped far short of even admiration, much less "adoration."  He has spent more time and used far more complimentary terms in describing Ted Cruz.  Did you not hear that?  Paraphrasing, he described Cruz as "the closest thing we have to Reagan in our time."  He has said, on more than one occasion, that Cruz was the (approx) "only true conservative in the race."  (I'm a Cruz guy, so loved hearing stuff like that.)

re:  "Now it's Levin on podcast."  -- As I said, I don't think you actually listen to his show.

Regards,
Russ Walden

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 04:46:30 PM
Solar --

You have, indeed, puzzled me, at least enough to tempt me into wandering off the reservation.  For bona fides:  I listen to Rush's show most days, sometimes when I'm working in my shop, or I download it and listen to it during my dinner.  I have been listening to his show since 1988, soon after he went national, and have developed a good sense of what he is saying and what he is not saying.

re:  "This is like trying to figure out Rush's adoration of the lib." -- Is Trump "the lib" in this statement?  If so, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.

re:  "re:  "Granted it's always about money, but for Rush to gamble his career the way he is makes no sense.  . . .  Trump is not that likable, there is no way anyone with half a brain would ever throw themselves on the pyre for this guy, . . .." --  Again, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.  I don't think you actually listen to his show, and are basing your comments on secondary, or even tertiary, inputs.

Rush has described Trump's technique, but has stopped far short of even admiration, much less "adoration."  He has spent more time and used far more complimentary terms in describing Ted Cruz.  Did you not hear that?  Paraphrasing, he described Cruz as "the closest thing we have to Reagan in our time."  He has said, on more than one occasion, that Cruz was the (approx) "only true conservative in the race."  (I'm a Cruz guy, so loved hearing stuff like that.)

re:  "Now it's Levin on podcast."  -- As I said, I don't think you actually listen to his show.

Regards,
Russ Walden

I write this as I listen to Mark Levin too, but I digress........

While Rush may not be supporting trump, he is going WAAAY out of his way not to criticize him in any substantial way.
Has he said nice things about Ted, sure.  But lets be frank, at this point if you call yourself a leading conservative pundit you need to grab a rifle and get on the front line and start speaking up or your dead to me.

Hell, at this point I have more respect for Michael Medved than I do for Rush, Hannity, Gallahger and Ingrahm (and Im really sad to say that about Laura, I thought she was the thinking conservatives Coulter).

Sauce --

re:  "While Rush may not be supporting trump, he is going WAAAY out of his way not to criticize him in any substantial way."

That is what he does during Primary season; he is not directly critical of candidates who are still in the race.  Nothing new about that.

I suggest that you not listen to his show, but try to refrain from citing what he said.

Regards,
Russ Walden

Quote from: Dubinsky on April 25, 2016, 04:39:47 AM
It's a recurring pattern with her.  First she has a love-fest.  Then a period of doubt followed by a nasty divorce of the person which results in a new book being written.

That's true. She was married to Christie for a while.

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 04:46:30 PM
Solar --

You have, indeed, puzzled me, at least enough to tempt me into wandering off the reservation.  For bona fides:  I listen to Rush's show most days, sometimes when I'm working in my shop, or I download it and listen to it during my dinner.  I have been listening to his show since 1988, soon after he went national, and have developed a good sense of what he is saying and what he is not saying.

re:  "This is like trying to figure out Rush's adoration of the lib." -- Is Trump "the lib" in this statement?  If so, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.

re:  "re:  "Granted it's always about money, but for Rush to gamble his career the way he is makes no sense.  . . .  Trump is not that likable, there is no way anyone with half a brain would ever throw themselves on the pyre for this guy, . . .." --  Again, you are badly misunderstanding what Rush has said and done.  I don't think you actually listen to his show, and are basing your comments on secondary, or even tertiary, inputs.

Rush has described Trump's technique, but has stopped far short of even admiration, much less "adoration."  He has spent more time and used far more complimentary terms in describing Ted Cruz.  Did you not hear that?  Paraphrasing, he described Cruz as "the closest thing we have to Reagan in our time."  He has said, on more than one occasion, that Cruz was the (approx) "only true conservative in the race."  (I'm a Cruz guy, so loved hearing stuff like that.)

re:  "Now it's Levin on podcast."  -- As I said, I don't think you actually listen to his show.

Regards,
Russ Walden

I have actually been listening to Rush since his first airing in Sacto, long before he went National.
I many times credited Rush for developing my critical thinking, which is why, when Rush began running block for Trump, my bull shit detector went off, for it was the first time in his history he ever defended a lib.
Yes, Trump is an admitted lib, and worse yet, has flipped on every issue since he started as a Pub, just for the sole purpose of running for POTUS.

Now ask yourself, in all the years you've been listening, when have you ever heard Rush continually make excuses for a lib?

Had someone else said what Rush said this morning, he'd have called them out for inciting a riot, but instead, Rush goes on to explain away and run block for Trump.
You may listen everyday, but sadly Russ, you're not doing it with a skeptical, unbiased ear.

Solar --

Thanks for the reply.

re:  "  . . . the first time in his history he ever defended a lib." -- You are conveniently ignoring the fact that said "lib" is a candidate for the Republican nomination.  When did you hear him directly criticize a candidate for the Republican nomination?  If you have been listening that long, then you should know, that with one rare exception, Rush remains studiously impartial until the candidate is selected.

re:  "but sadly Russ, you're not doing it with a skeptical, unbiased ear." -- Well, gee, I hardly know what to say.  That has to rank right up there with telling me what I think -- and I am grateful that you stopped short of that.  It is unclear to me for whom I am biased with my "unbiased ear."

I intend to actively support and vote for the Republican candidate for President --  whoever that might be.  In the meantime, I avoid saying really ugly things about any of them.  As I explained to someone recently, "Making shit sandwiches for the picnic seems like a lot of fun -- until you discover that you are the only one at the picnic."

Take care,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 06:10:08 PM
Solar --

Thanks for the reply.

re:  "  . . . the first time in his history he ever defended a lib." -- You are conveniently ignoring the fact that said "lib" is a candidate for the Republican nomination.

A letter next to your name doesn't make you a conservative.

Quote
  When did you hear him directly criticize a candidate for the Republican nomination?

That's not the issue.  The issue is he's bending to defend Trump's liberal idiocy.  For me, Rush is now damaged good.  Through thick and thin, I could always count on him not going lib.  Now he's openly defending Trump.

Quote
  If you have been listening that long, then you should know, that with one rare exception, Rush remains studiously impartial until the candidate is selected.

At no point is it OK to defend idiocy.

Quote
re:  "but sadly Russ, you're not doing it with a skeptical, unbiased ear." -- Well, gee, I hardly know what to say.  That has to rank right up there with telling me what I think -- and I am grateful that you stopped short of that.  It is unclear to me for whom I am biased with my "unbiased ear."

You're defending someone who is defending a lib.  Do you defend libs?  If the answer is no, then why would you defend Rush?

Quote
I intend to actively support and vote for the Republican candidate for President --  whoever that might be.

Why?

Quote
  In the meantime, I avoid saying really ugly things about any of them.  As I explained to someone recently, "Making shit sandwiches for the picnic seems like a lot of fun -- until you discover that you are the only one at the picnic."

Take care,
Russ

Huh?

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 06:10:08 PM
Solar --

Thanks for the reply.

re:  "  . . . the first time in his history he ever defended a lib." -- You are conveniently ignoring the fact that said "lib" is a candidate for the Republican nomination.  When did you hear him directly criticize a candidate for the Republican nomination?  If you have been listening that long, then you should know, that with one rare exception, Rush remains studiously impartial until the candidate is selected.

You said criticize, I said "defended a lib."
Yes, Rush runs block and carries water for the lib, an admitted lib.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/249062-trump-i-identify-with-some-things-as-a-democrat

re:  "but sadly Russ, you're not doing it with a skeptical, unbiased ear." -- Well, gee, I hardly know what to say.  That has to rank right up there with telling me what I think -- and I am grateful that you stopped short of that.  It is unclear to me for whom I am biased with my "unbiased ear."

Oh, like you telling me "I don't think you actually listen to his show, and are basing your comments on secondary, or even tertiary, inputs."

QuoteI intend to actively support and vote for the Republican candidate for President --  whoever that might be.  In the meantime, I avoid saying really ugly things about any of them.  As I explained to someone recently, "Making shit sandwiches for the picnic seems like a lot of fun -- until you discover that you are the only one at the picnic."

Take care,
Russ

Good, considering it'll be Cruz.
But I find it interesting how you equate my stating facts about Trump, as being attacks?

Solar --

I would like to begin with a question:  If Trump is the Republican nominee, and, although I hope not, he still might be, will you vote in the Presidential election?  If so, for whom will you vote?

All the tit for tat stuff gets sorted out with the answers to those two questions.

My point about the "shit sandwich" example is that I do not intend to post a lot of ugly stuff about someone for whom I might later find myself voting -- and I will vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee.  Presidential elections are binary things:  the next President will be a Republican or a Democrat.  I have a distinct preference for the former -- whoever it might be.

Take care,

Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
Solar --

I would like to begin with a question:  If Trump is the Republican nominee, and, although I hope not, he still might be, will you vote in the Presidential election?  If so, for whom will you vote?

All the tit for tat stuff gets sorted out with the answers to those two questions.

My point about the "shit sandwich" example is that I do not intend to post a lot of ugly stuff about someone for whom I might later find myself voting -- and I will vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee.  Presidential elections are binary things:  the next President will be a Republican or a Democrat.  I have a distinct preference for the former -- whoever it might be.

Take care,

Russ

Why?

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 06:52:45 PM
Solar --

I would like to begin with a question:  If Trump is the Republican nominee, and, although I hope not, he still might be, will you vote in the Presidential election?  If so, for whom will you vote?

All the tit for tat stuff gets sorted out with the answers to those two questions.

Here's the quick answer.
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/cruz-write-in-campaign/

QuoteMy point about the "shit sandwich" example is that I do not intend to post a lot of ugly stuff about someone for whom I might later find myself voting -- and I will vote for Trump if he is the Republican nominee.  Presidential elections are binary things:  the next President will be a Republican or a Democrat.  I have a distinct preference for the former -- whoever it might be.

Take care,

Russ

I do not take lightly the responsibility of making predictions, while some consider it foolish, I take it quite seriously, especially when I know of what I speak.
So when I say Cruz will be the next POTUS, I mean it with every fiber of my being.

This article may explain what's taking place in the country.

Hillary Clinton Will Win The Nomination
http://conservativehardliner.com/hillary-clinton-will-win-nomination

Taxed --

re:  "Why?"

Because, as I said, I would prefer a Republican President instead of a Democrat -- especially is that Democrat were to be Hillary or Sanders or Biden.

It's as simple as that.

Regards,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 07:29:44 PM
Taxed --

re:  "Why?"

Because, as I said, I would prefer a Republican President instead of a Democrat -- especially is that Democrat were to be Hillary or Sanders or Biden.

It's as simple as that.

Regards,
Russ

Why?

Solar --

Thanks for the references, but I already kinda know what has been happening to our country -- I have watched it in dismay for the last 28 years.

I appreciate the sincerity of your prediction, but I think I will have alternative plans in case you're wrong.

Take care,
Russ

Quote from: Solid Right on April 25, 2016, 07:39:17 PM
Solar --

Thanks for the references, but I already kinda know what has been happening to our country -- I have watched it in dismay for the last 28 years.

I appreciate the sincerity of your prediction, but I think I will have alternative plans in case you're wrong.

Take care,
Russ

It's interesting, but all things cycle so to speak and I see politics doing exactly that, and with each cycle a bit of pain is experienced, like zapping a rat in a maze, and at some point a behavior is redirected.
I remember when San Fran was Libertarian, and looking back, a sadly failed experiment.
Zap!!!! A lesson learned.
Well, today we are seeing the result of many painful zaps inflicted on the nation's people by both party's, and the rats are rebelling against their handlers.

TEA Conservatives are a tolerant people, but we always vote, and this is the first election since Reagan that Conservatives have had a chance to turn the zapper back on the handlers, and we plan on driving them out of the party.