Rush Limbaugh STILL is a big, fat idiot

After watching Michael J. Fox's comercial promoting stem cell research, for which he deliberately did not take his Parkinson's meds so as to show the effects of the disease, Rush came to the conclusion that Michael was "faking it".
Maybe they should ask Rush's ex-wives to see how good he is at recognizing when someone is "faking it".

Rush is such an ass. He needs to go back on the Oxycontin, then OD on it.

Rush Limbaugh may still be a big, fat idiot, but Al Franken's radio network is in Chapter 11. :-)

Sheldonrs wrote:

I have scraped smarting things than Paris Hilton off my shoes.

Mocking Paris Hilton's intelligence would be funnier with proper diction.

Lol!!! Sorry Maggie, typo. Fixed. :-)
And yup. Air America is in Chapter 11. Sad isn't it? I like most of the programming on there but sometimes they get just as rabid and one-sided as the right-wingers.

MaggieL wrote:

Rush Limbaugh may still be a big, fat idiot, but Al Franken's radio network is in Chapter 11. :-)

The network was doomed from the start. You see, there really isn't a paying audience for angry people complaining about Bush on the radio. There may have been an audience willing to donate to keep the network going, ripping Bush, but the fact is that the market is saturated.

You don't need that type of network. You already have 4 or 5 TV networks that do that. It's old.

Pick up a newspaper...read a magazine....go see a movie, they are all ripping Bush.

The reason that I, El Rushbo, continue to kick ass and take names is that I explain (with references) all the BS of what's going on in the drive by media.

Whether there is a Clinton or not, I'm making money hand over fist.

Rush Limballs wrote:

The network was doomed from the start. You see, there really isn't a paying audience for angry people complaining about Bush on the radio. There may have been an audience willing to donate to keep the network going, ripping Bush, but the fact is that the market is saturated.

You don't need that type of network. You already have 4 or 5 TV networks that do that. It's old.

Pick up a newspaper...read a magazine....go see a movie, they are all ripping Bush.

The reason that I, El Rushbo, continue to kick ass and take names is that I explain (with references) all the BS of what's going on in the drive by media.

Whether there is a Clinton or not, I'm making money hand over fist.

I'm still holding out hope the Air America can get it together. If we can't get one place to give equal time to both sides then at least both sides can get air time.

As for the 4-5 TV networks bashing Bush, the networks bash anyone in office.
They don't care who it is.

MaggieL wrote:

Rush Limbaugh may still be a big, fat idiot, but Al Franken's radio network is in Chapter 11. :-)

So would be The Washington Times, the New York Post, and even the early years of Fox News without continuing cash infusions from their owners.

Sheldonrs wrote:

They don't care who it is.

We know better than that. I'd like to thank them 100 million times a year. ;)

Rush Limballs wrote:

We know better than that.

Do "we" ???

We surely do. :)

MaggieL wrote:

Rush Limbaugh may still be a big, fat idiot, but Al Franken's radio network is in Chapter 11. :-)
...

Just goes to show you why Liberals are better than conservatives.

UT's quick and dirty and unfair media political bias guide:
[php]
LEFT<<-------------------------center------------------------>>RIGHT
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^CNN ^Fox ^Right talk
| `NPR | | | ` ABC NYPost radio
`AirAm | `NBC `AP
LATimes `CBS WaPost
NYTimes
[/php]

Pew Research says the people sway this way:



And now you know why Fox gets the ratings that it does, and why AirAm can't survive.

Geez that chart tells me there are those who wish to do something (Moderates and Conservatives) and those who just want to complain - liberals. Hmmm

Interesting, with that spread, in 2000, Bush lost the popular vote.

"That spread" is from 2006 not 2000.

I mean the 2000 spread (not the 2006 spread) when I refer to the 2000 spread.

yesman065 wrote:

Geez that chart tells me there are those who wish to do something (Moderates and Conservatives) and those who just want to complain - liberals. Hmmm

Jeez, that chart tells me that when forced to choose, moderates side with Liberals, not those nasty selfish conservatives.

The rest of the data



The source

"And now you know why Fox gets the ratings that it does, and why AirAm can't survive."

Didn't Fox lose over 1/2 BILLION dollars in it's first few years?

ha ha ha

The biggest shift is the drop in "conservative-identified" Democrats, and the almost perfectly-corresponding rise in "liberal-identified" Democrats... You can almost see the boogey-man-ification of the words "liberal" and "conservative" right there in the data . . .

Anyone with half a semester of college prob & stats know you can skew data in clever enough ways as to go unnoticed and say what you want.

Data schmata. Rush is still an idiot, blowhard, pompous, self-serving...etc and so on.

The boogey-man-ification of "liberal" had already happened, that chart shows the de-boogey-man-ification as the conservatives displayed their incompetance.

Sheldonrs wrote:

Didn't Fox lose over 1/2 BILLION dollars in it's first few years?

I would assume that is always the case in cable networking; you would lose money until you get enough carriage and potential audience to become profitable.

Happy Monkey wrote:

The boogey-man-ification of "liberal" had already happened, that chart shows the de-boogey-man-ification as the conservatives displayed their incompetance.

Technically, wouldn't the perceived [SIZE="1"](I'm not debating this either way)[/SIZE] incompetence be attahced to the actual ruling party, not so much an ideology?

Happy Monkey wrote:

So would be The Washington Times, the New York Post, and even the early years of Fox News without continuing cash infusions from their owners.

Well, apparently the founders of Air America have taken their cash infusions to a new shell.

Flint wrote:

ha ha ha

The biggest shift is the drop in "conservative-identified" Democrats, and the almost perfectly-corresponding rise in "liberal-identified" Democrats... You can almost see the boogey-man-ification of the words "liberal" and "conservative" right there in the data . . .

Can't be much boogyman factor to "liberal" amongst the "progressives" then.

Spexxvet wrote:

Jeez, that chart tells me that when forced to choose, moderates side with Liberals, not those nasty selfish conservatives.

Where in the chart are you seeing "moderates"?

MaggieL wrote:

Can't be much boogyman factor to "liberal" amongst the "progressives" then.

I don't know, do you have another chart for progressives?

MaggieL wrote:

Where in the chart are you seeing "moderates"?

Moderates are the [COLOR="SeaGreen"]green line[/COLOR].

MaggieL wrote:

Where in the chart are you seeing "moderates"?

The green line that's just about the same level as the conservatives. Duh.

Sheldonrs wrote:

Maybe they should ask Rush's ex-wives to see how good he is at recognizing when someone is "faking it".

Maybe he should just follow Howard Stern's example. 8th letter down

MaggieL wrote:

Rush Limbaugh may still be a big, fat idiot, but Al Franken's radio network is in Chapter 11. :-)

My take on the failure of Air America is that liberals tend to be a pretty diverse group, and they don't tune in to the "mother ship" to get their "marching orders" the way conservatives do. I'm a liberal and I never once tuned in to Air America. I'm sure there are many more like me. That's why it failed.

Rush Limbaugh listeners pride themselves on being ditto heads. They make the perfect audience.

Flint wrote:

Technically, wouldn't the perceived [SIZE=1](I'm not debating this either way)[/SIZE] incompetence be attahced to the actual ruling party, not so much an ideology?

Well, we're talking public opinion here, and the ruling party at least claims to be implementing "conservative" policy. I suppose it's like religion, and some would say that they aren't "real" conservatives.

glatt wrote:

My take on the failure of Air America is that liberals tend to be a pretty diverse group, and they don't tune in to the "mother ship" to get their "marching orders" the way conservatives do. I'm a liberal and I never once tuned in to Air America. I'm sure there are many more like me. That's why it failed.

Rush Limbaugh listeners pride themselves on being ditto heads. They make the perfect audience.

And being nice doesn't have the same "draw" for nice people as being nasty has for nasty people.

Spexxvet wrote:

And being nice doesn't have the same "draw" for nice people as being nasty has for nasty people.

Um...you're not really describing Air America as "nice", are you? You must be one of those liberals who never listened to it, like glatt.

Sheldonrs wrote:

After watching Michael J. Fox's comercial promoting stem cell research, for which he deliberately did not take his Parkinson's meds so as to show the effects of the disease,

If he did that for the purpose of a commerical, that's pretty foolish, IMHO. The meds don't give gains to the patient, but they can slow down the inevitable progress of the disease. Going off the meds can cause irreversible damage.

Great way to prove a point.

What little I have heard about stem cell research indicate that fetal stem cell research hasn't shown any success, but that adult stem cell research has.

wolf wrote:

If he did that for the purpose of a commerical, that's pretty foolish, IMHO. The meds don't give gains to the patient, but they can slow down the inevitable progress of the disease. Going off the meds can cause irreversible damage.

Great way to prove a point.

What little I have heard about stem cell research indicate that fetal stem cell research hasn't shown any success, but that adult stem cell research has.

Maybe he thought it was worth the risk to make his point.
And maybe there has been fewer gains with stem cells because they haven't had as much freedom to use them yet.
IMO, if you can get 1 inch of gain from cells that nobody is going to use anyway, do it. Don't say it's ok to send grown men and women to die for nothing when it's not ok to use some throw-away cells.

wolf wrote:

Great way to prove a point.

Damn those point-making liberals and their degenerative neurological diseases.

wolf wrote:

Great way to prove a point.

Yes, it sure is. If he went off his meds to make the point, then he is making a real sacrifice in hopes of helping people in the future.

What little I have heard about stem cell research indicate that fetal stem cell research hasn't shown any success, but that adult stem cell research has.

So if it will never work, you don't have to worry about blastocysts being made for the purpose of medical treatment. But if it will work, then that argument is meaningless. Either way, the argument is worthless.

Spexxvet wrote:

And being nice doesn't have the same "draw" for nice people as being nasty has for nasty people.

There is no nice on Air America. None. I enjoy Bush bashing and I still recognize that.

Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot is such a "nice" book title, after all...

Poverty is not the root cause of crime.

Ronald Reagan was the greatest president of the twentieth century.
Rush Limbaugh

The last thing they want is a revitalized economy now. I'm not saying the Democrats don't want a strong economy. Don't misunderstand. They just don't want it now.

“The most beautiful thing about a tree is what you do with it after you cut it down”

“Bigot-A person who wins an argument with a liberal”

“Women were doing quite well in this country before feminism came along”

"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get
a liquor store and practice robberies"
(radio; reported in the Flush Rush Quarterly, January 1993).

“When a gay person turns his back on you, it is anything but an insult; it's an invitation”

“They vote with their vaginas”

“If we are going to start rewarding no skills and stupid people - I'm serious, let the unskilled jobs, let the kinds of jobs that take absolutely no knowledge whatsoever to do - let stupid and unskilled Mexicans do that work”

“The culture war is between the winners and those who think they're losers who want to become winners. The losers think the only way they can become winners is by banding together all the losers and then empowering a leader of the losers to make things right for them.”

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1895

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1159


AIDS
"And one of the things that -- that the -- the
AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh,
this is only a matter of time before it spreads to
the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.

And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try
to get people like Reagan to start talking about it
from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't.
It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa,
and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by
-- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that
spreads this, if you want to know the truth.
It's promiscuity.

But it -- it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual
community."
Rush Limbaugh
June 9, 2004 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show

Blacks
"Why should Blacks be heard? They're 12% of the population.
Who the hell cares." -Rush Limbaugh

‘take that bone out of your nose and call me back.’
Rush Limbaugh
Source:Notable Quotables, mrc.org

Choice or Orgasms
"I think this reason why girls don't do well on multiple choice
tests goes all the way back to the Bible, all the way back to Genesis,
Adam and Eve. God said, 'All right, Eve, multiple choice or
multiple orgasms, what's it going to be?'
We all know what was chosen" (TV, Feb. 23, 1994).

Citizen Service
Citizen service is a repudiation of the principles upon which
our country was based. We are all here for ourselves." -

Condoms
"Condoms only work during the school year."

Drug Abuse
"And we have laws against selling drugs, pushing drugs,
using drugs, importing drugs. And the laws are good
because we know what happens to people in societies and
neighborhoods which become consumed by them. And so if
people are violating the law by doing drugs, they ought
to be accused and they ought to be convicted and
they ought to be sent up."

"When you strip it all away, Jerry Garcia
(former Grateful Dead guitarist) destroyed his life on
drugs. And yet he's being honored, like some godlike
figure. Our priorities are out of whack, folks."

(well ditto heads? I bet you still love this drug
addicted, law-breaking drug freek. Ever hear of 'just
say no' or how by buying drugs you are supporting
Osama?)

Earth
"The Earth's eco-system is not fragile."

Feminism
"Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive
women easier access to the mainstream of society."

Homeless
"One of the things I want to do before I die is conduct the
homeless olympics...the 10-metre shopping cart relay,
the dumpster dig, and the hop, skip, and trip."

Indians and VD
"I don't give a hoot that [Columbus] gave some Indians a
disease that they didn't have immunity against" (Ought to Be, p. 45).

Iraqi Prison Abuse
Exactly. Exactly my point! This is no different than what
happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going
to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper
our military effort, and then we are going to really
hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these
people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about
people having a good time, these people, you ever heard
of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some
steam off?
Rush's Radio Show 5-4-4

Jesse Jackson
‘have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted
criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?
Rush Limbaugh
Source:Notable Quotables, mrc.org

Michael J. Fox (Parkinson's disease)
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's
moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
act. . . . This is really shameless of
Michael J. Fox. Either he didn't take his medication
or he's acting. This is the only time I've ever seen
Michael J. Fox portray any of the symptoms of the
disease he has. He can barely control himself."
Rush Limbaugh
Source: Rush's Radio Show 10-24-06


Donovan McNabb
"I think what we've had here is a little social concern in the NFL.
The media has been very desirous that a black quarterback do well.
There is a little hope invested in McNabb, and he got a lot of credit
for the performance of this team that he didn't deserve."

Nuclear Arms Reduction
"The only way to reduce the number of nuclear weapons is to use them."

Owls
"If the owl can't adapt to the superiority of humans, screw it"
(Ought to Be, p. 162).

Sierra Club
"The Sierra Club wants to limit the number of kids you can have
to two. They are into power and controlling peoples lives."

Sexual Harassement
Sexual harassment at this work station will not be reported.
However...it will be graded!!!

Stuck
"Being stuck is a position few of us like. We want
something new but cannot let go of the old - old ideas,
beliefs, habits, even thoughts. We are out of
contact with our own genius. Sometimes we know
we are stuck; sometimes we don't. In both cases
we have to DO something."

"We have more trees in this country today than when
the Declaration of Independence was written. The wackos
will tell you that's impossible."

"There are more acres of forestland in America today
than when Columbus discovered the continent in 1492"


Rush Lies
1) Limbaugh: "Don't let the liberals deceive you into
believing that a decade of sustained growth without inflation
in America (in the '80s) resulted in a bigger gap between the
have and the have-nots. Figures compiled by the
Congressional Budget Office dispel that myth"
(Limbaugh, The Way Things Ought to Be, p. 70).
Reality: CBO numbers for after-tax incomes show that in
1980 the richest fifth of our country had eight times the
income of the poorest fifth. By 1989, the ratio was more
than 20-to-1.

2)Limbaugh: "The poorest people in America are better off
than the mainstream families of Europe" (radio, 1993).
Reality: The poorest 20 percent of Americans can purchase
an average of $5,433 worth of goods with their income.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the average person can purchase
$20,610 worth of goods; in France, $19,200;
in Britain, $16,730 (World Development Report 1994,
published by the World Bank).

Nice compared to that?

Undertoad wrote:

UT's quick and dirty and unfair media political bias guide:
[php]
LEFT<<-------------------------center------------------------>>RIGHT
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^CNN ^Fox ^Right talk
| `NPR | | | ` ABC NYPost radio
`AirAm | `NBC `AP
LATimes `CBS WaPost
NYTimes
[/php]

I'd knock ABC a few ticks to the right.

Happy Monkey wrote:

I'd knock ABC a few ticks to the right.

Damn that Liberal Media! :::shakes fists at unspecified mid-air location:::

Happy Monkey wrote:

Yes, it sure is. If he went off his meds to make the point, then he is making a real sacrifice in hopes of helping people in the future.

Or to leverage his condition for maximum propiganda effect. Even during sworn testimony before Congress...

Michael J. Fox, in his book “Lucky Man”, 2002. wrote:

I had made a deliberate choice to appear before the subcommittee without medication. It seemed to me that this occasion demanded that my testimony about the effects of the disease and the urgency we as a community were feeling be seen as well as heard. For people who had never observed me in this kind of shape, the transformation must have been startling.

MaggieL wrote:

Or to leverage his condition for maximum propiganda effect. Even during sworn testimony before Congress...

Amazing how MaggieL will argue to completely miss the fact. Rush Limbaugh lied. Rush Limbaugh knows about lying. He created a lie about Michael Fox knowing full well that it was only invented. Rush Limbaugh used speculation as a fact - as only political extremist would do.

MaggieL would have us argue over MaggieL speculations so that we ignore a bottom line fact: Rush Limbaugh stated - as fact - what was only speculation - personal bias.

What kind of speculation was it? It was based in a political agenda. A feeling is spun into fact. Classic 'big dic' thinking. And MaggieL endorses it. That goes to credibility, MaggieL.

Bottom line fact: Rush Limbaugh stated as fact what was only classic 'big dic' speculation. He felt something big in his pants; therefore it must be a fact. MaggieL hopes you forget the reality. Rush lied. Rush lied intentionally for a political agenda.

MaggieL wrote:

Or to leverage his condition for maximum propiganda effect. Even during sworn testimony before Congress...

What possible point could you be trying to make there? He went off the meds to make his point. He is wealthy enough to get the meds without problem. Not everybody is. There is no deceit there. The meds delay the inevitable. He will, even with the meds, eventually be that bad, and die. He sacrificed the benefit of the drugs, and probably some of his life, to make a serious point because his fame gives him a forum that is not available to most people in his situation.

I was listening that day. And you're all full of shit. Now, back to the nipple thread.

His point was how liberals trot out sick people to parrot their talking points, hoping that the sick person will be held infallible because they have a disease. The idea is that if you are against making cloning a constitutional right, you must be against cures for disease. Conservatives want sick people to die.

Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. All sides have done their share, but for pure evil, nothing beats em. Jesse Jackson doesn't want to empower blacks -- his paycheck comes from their misery. And around here, at least, blacks are sick of being told that they are second class humans who can't possibly succeed without the government to break their chains (to the tune of Amazing Grace of course).

Yeah. basically the idea is, they send out a sick person who says something. If you disagree with what is said, you are against life, health, and Michael J Fox. Fuck democrats and their sleaze.

mrnoodle wrote:

I was listening that day. And you're all full of shit. Now, back to the nipple thread.

His point was how liberals trot out sick people to parrot their talking points, hoping that the sick person will be held infallible because they have a disease. The idea is that if you are against making cloning a constitutional right, you must be against cures for disease. Conservatives want sick people to die.

Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. All sides have done their share, but for pure evil, nothing beats em. Jesse Jackson doesn't want to empower blacks -- his paycheck comes from their misery. And around here, at least, blacks are sick of being told that they are second class humans who can't possibly succeed without the government to break their chains (to the tune of Amazing Grace of course).

Yeah. basically the idea is, they send out a sick person who says something. If you disagree with what is said, you are against life, health, and Michael J Fox. Fuck democrats and their sleaze.

Are you actually saying anyone on the left is worse than the hate spewing Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, savage, and the rest of that nasty crew? You are waaaay out of touch with reality.

mrnoodle wrote:

His point was how liberals trot out sick people to parrot their talking points, hoping that the sick person will be held infallible because they have a disease.

And to make this point he claimed that Michael J. Fox wasn't really that sick.

Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. All sides have done their share, but for pure evil, nothing beats em.

The quotes that rkzenrage posted do, and those are just from Limbaugh.

The nastiness on both sides can be demonstrated. To believe that the "good guys" will save us from the "bad guys" while another group believes the same, but reversed, is a pointless ping-pong game. Wake up and reject them both. Vote independent. Vote third party. Vote "none of the above" when it comes to Democrats and Republicans: either of the two equals "more of the same" . . . there are no "good guys" in the two-party system.

Flint wrote:

Vote independent. Vote third party. Vote "none of the above" when it comes to Democrats and Republicans: either of the two equals "more of the same" . . . there are no "good guys" in the two-party system.

It's too late. A vote for a third party is a vote for the incumbents. The only way there will be any change right now is if you vote for the Democrats, and then only if they gain enough seats that they take congress. Then there will be gridlock, and it will put the brakes on the mess Bush & Co. has made of things recently.

A vote for a third party is a vote for more of the same. There are no viable third parties in this election. It's too late.

If you want a third party to get anywhere, you need to start looking toward an election in the future.

What you said applies to every election in the rigged system we have.
"You're throwing your vote away" is the voice of the two-party duopoly.

Voting in the "good guys" and then the "bad guys" get back in, and then you get the "good guys" back in, and then the "bad guys" muck it all up -
is that not throwing your vote away?! What do you ever get out of it? Nothing. More of the same. It's a false hope. It's a perpetual farce... . . .

I'm looking at the big picture, and it tells me: we have to start somewhere. If not now, then never.
There will never be a convenient time to reject a system which none of us, honestly, are happy with.

I think an independent or 3rd party really needs to get in on the local level. Once they have a local presence throughout the country, they will be able to take the step up to the big leagues. Vote independent locally all you like. I do.

Don't vote for an independent on the national level unless they have a shot to win. Otherwise you are throwing your vote away. Lieberman can pull it off, I'm not sure anyone else can.

Voting Democrat or Republican, successfully, can only result in something that pleases nobody, anyway, so... since your vote is "thrown away" no matter what you do, I propose that we actually vote our conscience, rather than submitting to the 2 horrible choices that are shoved in our face.

I have to say I agree with glatt. I wish it were possible to overthrow the two party stranglehold with my vote nationally, but it is not. So, if my choice is to vote for the lesser of the two evils on the national level or risk 4 MORE YEARS of pure hell, I'm going to have to go with the lesser evil.

Not saying it doesn't suck, but this country can't endure much more.

Shawnee123 wrote:

...my choice is to vote for the lesser of the two evils on the national level or risk 4 MORE YEARS of pure hell...

Don't you see, this is what everybody is saying! Nobody actually wants the choices they give us, but we vote for them out of fear. Fear is not a good basis for decision making. We are being played against each other, and the net result is that there is no real choice for the voters. I know it would be like taking a leap of faith to opt out of the fixed system, and you will not see any instant results (other than the peace of mind that you voted your conscience) but the alternative is pre-determined, and a pre-determined election result is nothing to be proud of.

If you don't know who the third party choice is, chances are you're not voting for something you would actually want to choose.

If the party itself is not very sturdy, it may be taken over or cult-ized by exactly the people you don't want to have in any level of power. (see Reform Party, Pat Robertson nominee)

I know exactly what I'm voting for: "none of the above" . . .

I'm not foolish enough to believe that a switcheroo between two fixed positions is going to magically make everything all better.

But then you are foolish to be so idealistic. No one is claiming magic.

Vote D and vote for checks and balance.

Vote D, vote for science.

warch wrote:

But then you are foolish to be so idealistic.

No, I'm being pragmatic.
An action is observed to produce a known result.
Options: repeat ad nauseum... . . . ???

warch wrote:

No one is claiming magic.
Vote D and vote for checks and balance.

Yes, a nice symbolic counter-balance on those contrived wedge issues.

warch wrote:

Vote D, vote for science.

Tempting, Waxman and all that.
But I don't think politics is going to restore common sense to a willfully ignorant populace.

Flint wrote:

But I don't think politics is going to restore common sense to a willfully ignorant populace.

We do need to remove the politicians who support the willfully ignorant lobby.

Happy Monkey wrote:

We do need to remove the politicians who support the willfully ignorant lobby.

I think our society suffers from a lack of critical thinking that won't be solved by a battle between [SIZE="3"]R[/SIZE] and [SIZE="3"]D[/SIZE].

It won't be solved by electing the Natural Law (replace the Air Force with yogic flyers) Party either.

The pickings aren't good in the third parties.

Happy Monkey wrote:

The pickings aren't good in the third parties.

Of course they aren't.
There's no market for third parties because all the voters are stuck in boogey-man mode.

I'm just saying that you can't rail against "the lesser of two evils" style thinking if you end up picking someone worse.

And you can't honestly expect to get a different outcome by continuing to pick the same two evils. Can you...???

Different isn't always better.

If "the same" is guaranteed to be shit, then "different" (as in: eroding the duopoly) is guaranteed to be better (as in: a long-term strategy).

First, no it isn't. There are no such guarantees. Second, the aspects in which D&R are "the same" are only a small part of the shit, the aspects in which they are different can have a massive impact, as the past six years have shown.

In Bush v Gore, I felt much as you do, and even voted Libertarian. But Bush proved that the issues that separate D from R are much more important than those that separate D&R from L.

Idealist. We can't collapse so you can rebuild your utopian society. I dont have time for that shit. We have to work with what we have. Now.

We're at war. The current leadership pre-emptively struck, mucked the plan, (if there really was one), have racked up huge debt. Soldiers are dying and our military is stretched. We've lost habeas corpus. The Internet is about to be put under corporate control. I think there is a lesser evil. Vote D.

Flint wrote:

There's no market for third parties because all the voters are stuck in boogey-man mode.

Boogey-man mode exists because some politicians are flagrantly lying - sound byte logic and being politically correct. And they have troops to promote flagrant and obvious lies - extremist talk radio. Worse are the so many who endorse this lying. They listen to Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson. Outright lying starting with lies about a silly spy plane conflict in China, destruction of the Oslo Accords, destruction of the anti-ballistic missile treaty, imposing religion in laws and upon all people, and axis of evil. Early examples of making America confrontational. It is necessary if one is a drug addict and needs $100million incomes.

Topic of this thread is Rush Limbaugh - that he is a liar. To stop confrontation, we only need to talk honestly - used facts and not Limbaugh hype. A fact that can only be disputed by using confrontation: Rush Limbaugh is a liar. He even got rich by promoting lies to 'Brown Shirts'. From the Washington Post of 25 Oct 2006:

Rush Limbaugh On the Offensive Against Ad With Michael J. Fox
After his apology, Limbaugh shifted his ground and renewed his attack on Fox.

"Now people are telling me they have seen Michael J. Fox in interviews and he does appear the same way in the interviews as he does in this commercial," Limbaugh said, according to a transcript on his Web site. "All right then, I stand corrected. . . . So I will bigly, hugely admit that I was wrong, and I will apologize to Michael J. Fox, if I am wrong in characterizing his behavior on this commercial as an act."

Was Limbaugh being honest? You have his promise. Did he tell the truth? If Rush does not do as he said, then he has again created confrontation ... which is how wacko extremists came to power and want from their politicians. Lies and intentionally creating confrontation is how Hitler came to power.

You have his statement. Did he only lie again?

THIRD PARTY

Rush Limbaugh is interesting to listen to...
He definately represents the small portion of extremely stupid extreme right. Although he is widely listened too, even staunch Republicans. ie my father and ex-UIL teacher, don't agree with many of his opinions but they listen mainly for the shock factor and his anti-leftism commentary.

warch wrote:

Idealist.

Wrong. I'm a realist. I am well versed in the conventional wisdom you advocate, I just take a longer view.

I haven't been following politics and these issues closely enough lately to comment with many facts or knowledge, but I do know one thing - I do know for sure that at least a couple of Rush Limbaugh's comments are taken out of context, which completely changes them implication or meaning of what is being said. So that is probably true of others, too.....like I said, i haven't followed close enough lately...

Brett's Honey wrote:

I do know for sure that at least a couple of Rush Limbaugh's comments are taken out of context, which completely changes them implication or meaning of what is being said.

This is the engineer in me. If you 'know' and then summarize what you 'know', then why did you not post what you 'know'? Statements without underlying facts and numbers are how liars lie. You just posted using classic Rush Limbaugh logic. You did not provide the underlying examples - the reasons why - or why you 'know'. Therefore the entire post tells us nothing.

Rush 'knew' Michael J Fox was faking. Do I now assume you 'know' using the same logic – using same reasoning?

Brett's Honey - a post with your name on it logically does exactly what Rush Limbaugh does to promote lies. Did you do that to be intentionally facetious? Were you mocking Rush Limbaugh’s logic techniques? Or do you not understand why his diatribes were no different when he was doing drugs?

I don't mean to sound like I'm right and you guys are wrong. I hear what you are saying, I understand it, and I even agree with it. And then, over and above that, I have a higher priority that I can't ignore: I know that we can never become disentangled from the entrenched two-party system if we simply choose not to. And I know that there will never be a convenient time for it. Not now, not next time around, not ever.

Will it hurt, in the short-term? Oh God, yes. I cringe at the thought of us continuing in the direction we are headed. And, there are just as many people who feel great about the direction we are headed, and cringe at the thought of the other guys getting in charge. In a few years, the positions will reverse. Back and forth, back and forth, we teeter-totter down an inevitable pre-determined path, with no real alternative ever being considered. Because we vote from fear.

Sounds like you vote from fear too.

Rush is often sarcastic in his show. So yes many quotes are prolly out of context and therefore not the actually meaning of what he said.

Flint wrote:

Wake up and reject them both. Vote independent. Vote third party. Vote "none of the above" when it comes to Democrats and Republicans:

Just vote Third Party!

Undertoad wrote:

Sounds like you vote from fear too.

Ironic, isn't it? I just subscribe to a fear I prefer over the pre-packaged variety. :tinfoil:

morethanpretty wrote:

Just vote Third Party!

[COLOR="Blue"]Godwin's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.[/COLOR]

Just an example of one of those third parties we should vote for simply b/c they aren't mainstream.

So, since Democrats and Republicans are all we've seen in our short lifetimes, it will always be that way, and we should just accept it, because it always has been that way... . . . oh wait - I just scrolled a little further down the page you linked to, and, Gosh, it looks like there has been a whole bunch of political parties in the brief history of this country. Oh, forget it. I'll just vote against the boogey-man that scares me the most.

Flint wrote:

I'll just vote against the boogey-man that scares me the most.

Good. :) I knew you would come around.

I vote for the individual not the party.

George Washington wrote:

All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.

mrnoodle wrote:

His point was how liberals trot out sick people to parrot their talking points

ROFL! That wasn't nice, you made milk shoot out of my nose. Of course we all vividly remember how the TERRIBLE LIBERALS used Terry Shciavo trotted out Terry Schiavo for their own twisted purposes. :greenface

mrnoodle wrote:

I was listening that day. And you're all full of shit. Now, back to the nipple thread.

His point was how liberals trot out sick people to parrot their talking points, hoping that the sick person will be held infallible because they have a disease. The idea is that if you are against making cloning a constitutional right, you must be against cures for disease. Conservatives want sick people to die.

Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. All sides have done their share, but for pure evil, nothing beats em. Jesse Jackson doesn't want to empower blacks -- his paycheck comes from their misery. And around here, at least, blacks are sick of being told that they are second class humans who can't possibly succeed without the government to break their chains (to the tune of Amazing Grace of course).

Yeah. basically the idea is, they send out a sick person who says something. If you disagree with what is said, you are against life, health, and Michael J Fox. Fuck democrats and their sleaze.

You might be interested to know that a Republican used Micheal J.Fox during his 2004 campaign.

[COLOR="DarkOrange"]Do I see some egg on faces?[/COLOR]

Why did I capitalize gosh?

You are idealistic because you dream that the unknown other must be better than the two party representatives we have. And for that you advocate scraping the system we have and starting over. Its fashionable to be disgruntled and to cynically dismiss. You see it on the idealistic far left and far right. What are the governmental horrors you currently endure? (Can you get a little global perspective on that?) How will this action of yours solve these? (and you better be positive they will because if you take that road, its took.) How will that ensure the quality and honesty and truth you seek? While this is good change is occuring in the legislative branch, how are the executive and judicial branches transformed? How long is this view?

It strikes me as similar to the bold neo-con dream, not dissimilar to Ledeen's call for cleansing destruction and nation building in Iraq. Idealistic. Or Pol pot (what axiom of online discussion calls up that reference? : ) ) reworking his society to erase the evils of Western Influence. He too, thought that the immediate discomfort would eventually, in the long run, birth a new superior civic organization. Not only idealistic, really really tragically so. But those who were inconvienced by this reorganization missed the big picture- it would all be better, some day.

I am not against your idea of direct democracy and multiple candidates. I am voting here for "instant runoff" for city offices, to enable a viable third candidate. I too, am taking the long view. But I am working it realistically, from within what we've got. What we've got is not ALL BAD and change can be worked strategically.

If I am lucky, I have about 30-40 more years before I die. I would like to live them as peacefully and justly as possible. The system is not perfect but the realistic approach is to work within it, shape it slowly, find ways to promote change that do not cut off your nose to spite your face.

The plan needs to be short-term/long-term. Even though the Ds anf rs are similar, the D's are less harmful, in the short run. We have to let the government know that we've had enough shit. When Bush got in with 50.00001% of the popular vote, he could have acknowledged that almost half the country would not be happy with his policies, and lead more as a centrist, as Clinton did. Instead, he fucked us in the ass. Perhaps a Democratic congress will have learned by this election (assuming Ds are voted in), and make the changes in the areas that have gotten the repubicans ousted. Hopefully.

In the meantime, we need to commit to third party options. My "what would a viable third party look like?" didn't get much attention, but it's the first step in developing a party platform that will draw enough voters to win an election.

Spexxvet wrote:

Perhaps a Democratic congress will have learned by this election (assuming Ds are voted in), and make the changes in the areas that have gotten the repubicans ousted. Hopefully.

Assuming the Dems gain control over both the House and Senate, they still don't have much power. Bush will veto anything he doesn't like unless it's so wildly popular with the public he has no choice but to sign it. That means the Dems will only have the power to pass legislation that the public enthusiastically supports. In reality, that may be one or two laws. Mostly all the Dems can do is be place holders, keeping the Republicans from having control of the legislative process. The Dems will act as a brake. That's about it.

warch wrote:

You are idealistic because you dream that the unknown other must be better than the two party representatives we have.

No, I don't.

warch wrote:

And for that you advocate scraping the system we have and starting over.

No, I don't.

warch wrote:

What are the governmental horrors you currently endure?

A dysfunctional two-party system.

warch wrote:

How will this action of yours solve these?

This action of mine is called "voting" - the action available to me.

warch wrote:

How will that ensure the quality and honesty and truth you seek?

Nothing is sure.
The current parties have no motivation to serve the population, as long as they know that one of them is guaranteed to be elected.

warch wrote:

How long is this view?

Longer than four years.

warch wrote:

I am not against your idea of direct democracy and multiple candidates.

Unfortunately your thoughts don't influence elections, only your vote does that.

warch wrote:

What we've got is not ALL BAD and change can be worked strategically.

No amount of voting for two parties will produce a result of more than two parties.

warch wrote:

The system is not perfect but the realistic approach is to work within it, shape it slowly, find ways to promote change that do not cut off your nose to spite your face.

I agree. I am not working outside of our system.

Fine. If your burning voting issue is quantitative- to establish more parties with the hope of increasing, eventually, "quality", --go for it.

I see more pressing issues. I can find democratic candidates that reflect more of my views and concerns than republicans, and will choose a different voting strategy.

Good. Do whatever you want. That's how it works.

And you will continue to rant and rave but not do a goddamn thing.
If you were more than hot air you'd be actually doing something beside throwing away your vote.

If you really wanted better choices you'd be involved with a party, third or otherwise. You'd be on committees, looking for viable candidates and putting your money where your mouth is. I'm betting you don't and never will.
You'll just rant and rave a bunch of hot air on the net, because you don't have the balls to actually get off your ass and work for something better.

You don't hold a candle to the solid citizens that actually support their party. Even if I think they are thinking wrong, I have more respect for them because the actually DO something besides make hot air about a bullshit utopia to avoid doing their share of the work it takes to get the utopia they want. :eyebrow:

Okay, that's cool.

I acknowledge the validity of your opinions; you have yours, I have mine. If you feel that being a dick about it is a good direction for you, then blast away! I accept this as something you feel justified in doing. And, at the end of the day, you still have your same opinions, and I still have mine.

And it's you being the dick, not me. :eyebrow:

Okay, I'm sure you feel that way. I accept that.

mrnoodle wrote:

...Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. ..

Can you cite any instances of this? Typically, caonservatives call liberals "bleeding hearts". Is that because Liberals are nasty? No, it's because conservatives think that they're too nice, giving dead-beats welfare, old folks social security and medicare, minorities the means to compete fairly, and what-not. Where do you get this idea of foul users and liars?

mrnoodle wrote:

...Liberal media are the foulest batch of users and liars in the history of politics. All sides have done their share, but for pure evil, nothing beats em. Jesse Jackson doesn't want to empower blacks -- his paycheck comes from their misery. And around here, at least, blacks are sick of being told that they are second class humans who can't possibly succeed without the government to break their chains (to the tune of Amazing Grace of course).

Yeah. basically the idea is, they send out a sick person who says something. If you disagree with what is said, you are against life, health, and Michael J Fox. Fuck democrats and their sleaze.

Noodle, this is out of character for you. Can you explain why you feel this way?

Wahhh. :right:
Republicans prefer to trot out and use a brain-dead woman who cannot say her "something".

If you disagree with what is said [by Dr. Frist:3eye: ], you are against life, health, and [Motherhood]. Fuck the [religious right/Republicans] and their sleaze.

Comparing Fox's scientific advocacy to Schiavo's privacy intrusion....hmmm... Quien es mas sleazo?!

Wasn't MJ Fox backing the republicans two years ago?:confused:

Arlen Specter.

Here. This thread isn't long enough. I like to watch it grow.
I think this is a great topic.

The Democrats are really getting dirty now. They mailed literature saying Curt Weldon (R PA 7th), was worse than a :worried: .....Dallas Cowboys Fan.

In this thread, 10 years ago, I argued that the only way to bring meaningful change to American politics was to vote third party, and over time, to send a message of non-participation to the two-party system. I believed, and still do believe that this was the only moral, logical choice we had at that time. Because partisan politics were leading us nowhere, and the fundamental issues of corruption within both parties was never going to be solved by swinging a superficially ideological pendulum back and forth.

Since then, partisan politics have become even more polarized, record numbers of Americans are identifying as independent, and both major parties have been hijacked from within, by anti-establishment candidates.

The narrative I see&#8212;and please correct me if you disagree&#8212;is that enough people have become disillusioned with the status quo, that we&#8217;ve reached a breaking point. The groundswell of &#8220;&#402;uck the system&#8221; has finally crystallized. And those who have been &#8220;throwing our votes away&#8221; have finally added up to something that counts. Is that accurate? Are we really moving in a direction to change things? Or am I still a fool.

Still very premature. The people see the dysfunction, but don't see the extent of the entanglement of the two parties with the levers of political power.

I agree in theory, but to accomplish it takes educated, as well as concerned, voters participating from the ground up.

Americans don't want to be educated, at best maybe slightly concerned. They don't want to be involved, they don't want to be distracted from their full time dedication to avoiding reality and hating "the others".

Americans may get pissed off enough about some issue to actually carry a sign and mug for the TV cameras, if they can schedule it between Jr's baseball practice and Sis's dance lessons, but they want someone else to educate themselves on the complicated problem of running the government, and do it. They also want someone else to keep tabs on the ones doing it, 'cause ain't nobody got time for that.

When it comes time to vote, if they can squeeze it in without missing supper or missing Pat and Vanna time, they'll do it for bragging rights, feeling all proud to have contributed their two cents to truth, justice, and the American way. Knowing in their heart, the guy that contributed $10,000 has the real say in the outcome.

Like I said, I agree in theory, but I don't see it happening. :headshake

Not a fool, but foolish to think that any more than about 10% are willing to break away from the only thing they've ever known.

Rush goes past idiot a fair bit here.

RUSH LIMBAUGH wrote:

You know what the magic word, the only thing that matters in American sexual mores today is? One thing. You can do anything, the left will promote and understand and tolerate anything, as long as there is one element. Do you know what it is? Consent. If there is consent on both or all three or all four, however many are involved in the sex act, it’s perfectly fine. Whatever it is. But if the left ever senses and smells that there’s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police. But consent is the magic key to the left.

I think he's right. I also think it's a good thing.

Indeed, except, speaking of "right", note the "left"s.

But if the left ever senses and smells that there&#8217;s no consent in part of the equation then here come the rape police.

He is literally complaining that, with "the left" in charge, sex without consent is a crime.

No matter who's in charge sex without consent is RAPE.

Happy Monkey;971130 wrote:

Indeed, except, speaking of "right", note the "left"s.

He is literally complaining that, with "the left" in charge, sex without consent is a crime.

I know that, but what he's saying is [strike]right[/strike] correct. I'm saying that's the way it should be.

No argument here.

Except I wonder how many people who aren't in "the left" want to cede that moral position to "the left".

'cause boys will be boys, she was dressed like a slut, he was drunk/stoned, everyone knows she puts out, etc, etc, ad infinitum.:rolleyes:

Do we declare the GOP officially broken now or do we wait for election day?

The funny thing is the Democratic win is going to double down on a Party that represents banks and bombs not people so their realignment will be tortuously slow. Whatever the new right becomes it's going to happen faster than the new left, unless Hillary gets her nuclear exchange with Russia, then politics get local.

Griff;971171 wrote:

Do we declare the GOP officially broken now or do we wait for election day?

An underlying theory states that the nominee still changes his party whether he wins or suffers a major defeat. This happened with Goldwater, Nixon, Dole, and others. So how will Trump change this party?

I'll tell you one thing, if the Republican Party survives at all, you can bet they'll have super delegates next time around.

Maybe.

But the rules committee could have written Trump out at any time. My take on this is actually quite close to what we've heard from President Obama this week. This is the candidate you reap when you sow what you've sown. Seriously. Anti intellectualism, fearmongering, etc. They've got their gerrymandering game *down*, but Trump bypassed all that and used his talents with TV and spoke directly to the people. Sold himself to the people. The republicans were swindled. Trump is no republican, he's a Trumpist.

How could the rules committee have written him out? I'm not sure what you mean.

Trump is no republican, he's a Trumpist.

He's actually a Democrat.

No, he's a Trumpist. He was a Democrat when it was convenient, now he's a Republican, but he doesn't know what their policies are, let alone subscribe to them.

to clarify: "their" = either party.

Trump knows exactly what you need, 76 trombones lead the big parade....

Wouldn't it be amazing to find out that Hillary's team had stuffed the ballot box from the very beginning for Trump, ensuring that she'd have a complete dildo to run against in the general? Swing a few early primaries and momentum does the rest.

Well Wikileaks does say she was pimping the media to cover him more to make him the top dog... Ever wonder why Saturday Night Live handed their stage over to him the last time you watched that show?

Clodfobble;971391 wrote:

How could the rules committee have written him out? I'm not sure what you mean.

Here's a link to just one of the stories in the run up to the nomination.

The upshot is this, that when it became clear that Trump would garner enough delegates via the primary season to become the Republican nominee (under normal circumstances), the urgency to resort to other measures to deny him the nomination increased. One of those attempts/plots was to use one of the rules of the convention that basically said if a certain number of states asked for a voice vote. The RNC leadership was not fully down with this effort led by some non-Trump firebrands among the delegates and discounted the number of states that had signed the petition and thus sidestepped the issue of a floor vote.

Even earlier in the season, the rules committee had meetings where they discussed the rules (duh). And there was discussion as to whether or not change the rules to make things harder for Trump, and they didn't.
That's the one about rule 39 that I remember, but... I couldn't easily find a citation.

Flint;960312 wrote:

In this thread, 10 years ago, I argued that the only way to bring meaningful change to American politics was to vote third party, and over time, to send a message of non-participation to the two-party system.
...
Since then, partisan politics have become even more polarized, record numbers of Americans are identifying as independent, and both major parties have been hijacked from within, by anti-establishment candidates.
...
05-16-2016, 06:00 PM

Since then: the "populist message" Republican hijacker succeeded in winning the White House, but not much else, due to lack of experience. The "populist message" Democrat hijacker was squashed by the Democrats, who used brute force politics to prolong their positions of power.

Since then: both parties are still quite fractured between reasonable members (called "moderates" on the right, "progressives" on the left) who want to get elected/re-elected by actually serving the public, and ideologues who cater to consumers of opinion-based "news" sources (conservative-flavored on the right, identity-flavored on the left).

This is where we're at: the great enemy of the political change that people are literally taking to the streets to demand, is party loyalty driven by customized news feeds, driven by "big data" analytics.

The great enemy is that facts don't exist anymore. There's no common ground on which to debate, as everyone is in a different flavor of reality.

And if the oligarchs get control of the free internet, the fight is over.

I don't think the moderates stand a chance without campaign finance reform. Lock out the oligarchs and PACS, maybe even public financing. Big money has been working at the state level getting governors and state politicians elected, primarily knocking out moderates in the primaries where nobody bothers to vote.

Robert Reich had a good article, somewhere, about how nothing else can be fixed--nothing--without first addressing money in politics. A lot of people listened to Bernie Sanders this time around, maybe we'll get some traction. Of course, the Democrats will try to squash their own progressives by continuing to take big money, and trying to win elections by appearing 'diverse' (while not really addressing the common problems that we all face).

Represent.us is bringing an executive order to the White House on Wednesday that would end lobbyist money. In case you were thinking Trump might sign something worthwhile for once...

I'll believe it when I see it. But even if it happened wouldn't that just drive it underground and give the lobbyists more leverage to blackmail? :eyebrow:

Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 and it did nothing. In a communication age they are going to have to work out different ways to teach the public how they are supposed to vote

But Bruce's point about the state level and the redistricting is a good one. Money makes a difference there because the press doesn't report on that level as much as the nonstop Trump/Clinton coverage for a year at the national level.

It's not about who gets elected, it's about who they're beholden to once they get into office.

What do congress critters do in DC? Write and read proposed bills? Hammer out the nuances of legislation? Hell no, they have a huge staff smarties and flunkies to do that, and boil it down to one paragraph explanations. No, the elected elite spend the bulk of their time on the phone lining up money for their reelection. Selling futures as it were.

Way more money goes to incumbents who are guaranteed re-election... that's how you know it's not really about swaying votes...

Incumbents who spent their term selling their soul. What do they do with that "way more money"? they spend it getting reelected.

In modern days, most incumbent candidates don't need to spend anything to get reelected - so where is the money going?



source

If so many people are unhappy with the government, congressional approval rating is so low, how do these clowns keep getting reelected if not money?
Somebody else's clown must be the problem, it's not my clown?

Exactly.

I think a lot of it is considered to be name recognition.

The name that got elected, people have heard of that name; but the challenger, not so much.

Undertoad;985346 wrote:

In modern days, most incumbent candidates don't need to spend anything to get reelected - so where is the money going?



source

What does your chart have to do with the money that is received by incumbents? Are you saying they don't get any money?

Despite almost always winning their elections, incumbents by and far raise more money than challengers. Incumbents raise more than candidates for open seats.

https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/incumbs.php

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Granted, but except the few who are indicted for misappropriation, don't they use these war chests to get reelected? Money = votes.

Undertoad;985371 wrote:

... question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Yes, when spent purchasing support from a Russian President.

Undertoad;985371 wrote:

And if you click on "breakdown by party" you see that Democrats raised over twice as much money per candidate for their Challenger and Open Seat opponents.

It didn't work; question remains; is money effective in getting votes?

Money is effective. Gerrymandering is more effective.

If anyone thinks that money is effective at getting more votes please post evidence, and not just guesses or suspicions.

I've posted my evidence that it doesn't. Over time we can figure this out.

No, you haven't posted evidence that it doesn't, only that incumbents are more successful, not why.

Undertoad;985346 wrote:

In modern days, most incumbent candidates don't need to spend anything to get reelected - so where is the money going?

I guess they declare it as income, pay all the taxes due, then use the balance to help charities and sponsor parks, libraries, and playgrounds. :rolleyes:

My evidence is that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome, and Democratic challengers and open seat candidates outspent Republicans by more than 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome.

Could just be a 2016 thing, I welcome more evidence.

Oops, my bad. Sorry.
Yes, 2016 had a lot of things going on we didn't, or at least hadn't noticed, before. One was the intense social media and email campaigns against Obama and anyone connected to him, more than just usual damning the Democrats in general.

Another thing I noticed was the push by the Koch & company at governorships and state legislatures. It could be that I'm just more informed than in the past.:confused:

Undertoad;985473 wrote:

My evidence is that Hillary outspent Trump 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome, and Democratic challengers and open seat candidates outspent Republicans by more than 2 to 1 with no measurable effect on the outcome.

Could just be a 2016 thing, I welcome more evidence.

We have no real way of saying what the outcome of that election would have been had those amounts of money not been spent. To what extent massive spending by one side may have served to ameliorate a drop in support

All we have are statistical curves and election on election polling and voting data and if there's anything we all should have learned by now it's that polling and voting patterns are not nearly good enough predictors of major political shifts.

It wasn't as if Trump won by a landslide, sweeping up both the electoral college vote and the popular vote. Maybe the Democrats should take from this that they could have spent that bit more and maybe tipped the election in their favour.

Maybe the Republicans can consider what a close shave they had by not spending as much.

I don't think that's the message they should take but it's as rationale as next message.

Undertoad;985470 wrote:

If anyone thinks that money is effective at getting more votes please post evidence, and not just guesses or suspicions.

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

tw;985502 wrote:

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

[strike]amen[/strike]
[strike]awomen[/strike]
this.

tw;985502 wrote:

Money is a tool - like a hammer. The world's most expensive hammer is useless if used to beat the wood - and not the nail.

monster;985505 wrote:

[strike]amen[/strike]
[strike]awomen[/strike]
this.

Oh my yes, I agree with monster, that's a good one tw. :thumb:
It doesn't solve the puzzle of money and this election, but it's certainly a powerful metaphor.

Beat wood is a metaphor for what?

Money, or what money buys, is the motivator.

It can be 'here's twenty, vote for me'.

It can be 'vote for me and I'll cut your taxes'.

It can be 'investment in your community comes with a vote for me'.

It can be 'you'll have more if you vote for me'.

Money (as representation of [finite] resource) is what drives the bus.

Look behind every 'ideal', every 'principle', every 'philosophy', every 'altruism', every 'anything' and you'll find moola (placeholder for 'resource' which when controlled, is just plain old nekkid POWER).

Stirner said sumthin' along the lines of 'you get along further with a handful of might than a handful of right'...you can substitute 'cash' for 'might' and it still holds true.

His political ambitions, are always fraught,
with those damn people, who can’t be bought. ;)

I can be bought.

Leave me be and you can do whatever you like...to the other guy.

:)

henry quirk;985537 wrote:

Money, or what money buys, is the motivator.

You have assumed money can buy solutions; money created innovation; money changes all people's minds. Apparently you have ignored everything I have posted here even 20 years ago.

Money is a tool. Any tool can be misused. GM spent massively on new products. They spent more on robots in one factory than the entire budget of any state (and I believe a country called Luxembourg). What happened? It was the most unproductive factory in that corporation. Why? Because they also assumed money buys solutions.

Eventually they had to remove one-third of the robusts (replace them with humans) and completely rebuild another third. Where did money solve anything?

Same applies to manipulating people's minds. Yes, spending massively on Fox News does manipulate the same type of people that Hitler called his brown shirts. Propaganda tells one how to think - and not to think. And so Fox News has a large (and mostly uneducated) following. They can buy the naive.

But money does not fool the majority of Americans. Money did not determine who won or lost. In this case, lying and insulting (not money) proved to be a best tool.

Never for one minute assume money buys solutions or influence. It can manipulate the least intelligent among us. We literally dumped $3 trillion in Iraq. What did we do? We made enemies of the intelligent people in Iraq. Why? We created Coalition Provisional Authority Order Numbers 1 and 2. Even $3 trillion could not under damage created by dumb, anti-American leaders in Washington. That money would have been better spend educating Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith, the Project for a New American Century and other extremists.

We did not use that tool in a useful manner. Ironically, same people who did so much harm to the American soldier also destroyed the American economy by throwing more money at wood - and not by pounding nails.

Stop with a brainwashed belief that money solves all problems. If true, then GM is growing massively. Instead GM spent so much money (using MBA philosophies) that MBA are now selling more GM capital assets to claim profits. Only the naive would be so dumb as to believe that profit myth. Only the naive see solutions in money. That lie is even why GM's spread sheets claim a profit - that does not exist.

Money only buys the least intelligent among us. The same people who need to be told how to think. And never bother to demand the underlying reasons why - with numbers. Those same people brought Hitler, Milosevic, Pol Pot, and Richard Nixon to power. Those same people even knew Saddam had WMDs where even numbers made it obvious he did not.

Emotions (adults who are still children) can be bought. (And find this post, that also says why, too long.) Intelligence (adults who use a prefrontal cortex) are not. (And demand answers this much longer because it also says why.)

Why did so many adults (who were still children) know that smoking cigarettes increases health? Why do so many adult children still take up smoking today? Adults who are still children can be bought.

That was a gross oversimplification. Apparently you just didn't think it was worth your time to elaborate. You shortchanged us.

Money is a medium of exchange.

sexobon;985567 wrote:

That was a gross oversimplification.

The oversimplification is your soundbyte response. And the usual inability to comprehend anything that is longer than a sound byte. As a typical extremist, you always reply to my every post with a soundbyte - with nothing to say.

Why? Apparently you saw much of yourself in that post. And did not like it. An emotional response.

I posted the proper definition of money. Properly defining and using words is something your developmentally impaired mind has trouble doing which is why you make up your own definitions for them. Your tirade was a repeat of previous childish attention whoring. You're pathetically needy. I state just the facts.

sexobon;985574 wrote:

I posted the proper definition of money. Properly defining and using words is something your developmentally impaired mind has trouble doing

Are your sexobon? Or Donald Trump? Insulting others with an egotistical need to prove superiority is a Trump attribute. Or maybe you are a Russian hacker just doing his job?

Look out. Recently numerous strange deaths have occurred among many who use personal attacks and other emotions to promote a political agenda.

You clearly demonstrate that you're just a tool of political losers like Hillary Clinton with your prolific fear mongering about extremists, anti-Americans, and Russians all in a vain attempt to persuade others that they need you to show them the way. Psychological projection has you calling all sorts of people and all sorts of things tools; but, your developmental impairment keeps you from being cognizant of this fact about yourself. Being beyond your formative years, that places you below the level of children. It means that even adults who act like children are still your superiors. That's why everyone else is making the decisions for you. Your niche is forum jester.

"You have assumed money can buy solutions"

No. I stated, quite clearly, money (resources) buy people.

#

"money changes all people's minds"

Yep, that's pretty much what I said.

#

"Apparently you have ignored everything I have posted here..."

Man, I haven't paid attention to you in any kind of meaningful, thoughtful, consistent way from Day One.

sexobon;985583 wrote:

You clearly demonstrate that you're just a tool of political losers like Hillary Clinton with your prolific fear mongering about extremists, anti-Americans, and Russians all in a vain attempt to persuade others that they need you to show them the way.

Damn. Do you always talk out of your penis?

henry quirk;985647 wrote:

Man, I haven't paid attention to you in any kind of meaningful, thoughtful, consistent way from Day One.

Apparently you do that with everyone.

Clodfobble;985324 wrote:

It's not about who gets elected, it's about who they're beholden to once they get into office.

Amen, sister.

xoxoxoBruce;985355 wrote:

If so many people are unhappy with the government, congressional approval rating is so low, how do these clowns keep getting reelected if not money?
Somebody else's clown must be the problem, it's not my clown?

My clown is definitely part of the problem.

"Apparently you do that with everyone."

No, only the long-winded folks who insist on telling me what's goin' on in my head.

That's tw, a lot of mouth; but, not one brain in his poor old head. All we get out of him these days are temper tantrums. He's regressed back to his terrible twos.

Griff;985661 wrote:

My clown is definitely part of the problem.

Three things are necessary to create corruption. Gerrymandering guarantees extremists will replace moderates. That is a first requirement for corruption. Since corruption thrives with extremists.

Pay to play. A major law implemented in Philadelphia that bans "pay to play" has resulted in major corruption exposure and reduction. But state governments are so insulated as to never want 'pay to play' eliminated. After all, too many voters blindly vote their biases rather than learn what really happens. A rare exception was when virtually every major Pennsylvania newspaper exposed a massive pay raise for the most highly paid state congress in America.

Unrestricted Campaign contributions. With that Citizens United decision to intentionally quash ethics, one can directly purchase any politician. Unrestricted contributions have made reelections extremely difficult for moderates - the intelligent members of government (neither liberal nor conservative) who actually make government work.

xoxoxoBruce;985355 wrote:

If so many people are unhappy with the government, congressional approval rating is so low, how do these clowns keep getting reelected if not money? ...

Unwitting help?

[ATTACH]59931[/ATTACH]

*shudder*

Still un-electable.