Debate Now The 2016 Campaign, Election and Aftermath

[320 Years of History]

I don't mean to pick on Bernie Sanders here specifically--I actually like Sanders though IMO he would be a disastrous President--but here is one of the things we're dealing with. The doublespeak and hypocrisy is so overwhelming sometimes that it boggles the mind. Here Bernie says Trump must take responsibility for violence at his rallies and stand up and denounce violence, but when it comes to the violent actions of his own supporters, he isn't responsible?

Red:
??? What bellicose statements and/or ideas have you hear Bernie express that are legitimately seen as minor or major instigations of and/or acquiescences to violent behavior? What was their context?

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't mean to pick on Bernie Sanders here specifically--I actually like Sanders though IMO he would be a disastrous President--but here is one of the things we're dealing with. The doublespeak and hypocrisy is so overwhelming sometimes that it boggles the mind. Here Bernie says Trump must take responsibility for violence at his rallies and stand up and denounce violence, but when it comes to the violent actions of his own supporters, he isn't responsible?

Red:
??? What bellicose statements and/or ideas have you hear Bernie express that are legitimately seen as minor or major instigations of and/or acquiescences to violent behavior? What was their context?

Try again. I think the point I was making went sailing right over your head.

 

[Foxfyre]

I am not going to respond to every point in your post, but as for your chart of who has committed terrorism in the United States, what time period does that cover? Who was committing terrorism 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago is irrelevent. What is relevent is what we are dealing with here and now.

Red:
The data for that pie charge pertain to 1980 to 2005. It's very relevant when making or evaluating the statement, "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades." While "last several decades" is an indeterminate span of time it's certainly more than "a couple decades," which would be two of them, and from 1986 to 2016 is a span of three decades.

No. What was promoting terrorism in the USA was very different iin the 1980's than it is now.

The Heritage Organization has done a pretty comprehensive job here documenting and illustrating most of the terrorist plots against the United States since 9/11 Terrorism in this sense is different than the stupid mass shootings etc. for which no motive is identified. The link:
60 Terrorist Plots Since 9/11: Continued Lessons in Domestic Counterterrorism

...And that stopped it from nonetheless being terrorism in what way?

Are you intimating that mass shootings, the Olympic Park bombing, the Unabomber's deeds, the Murrah Building's demolishing, etc. are not terrorism? I realize you can claim that and, strictly speaking, be as right as be those who claim those events are acts of terrorism because there is no formal or universally accepted definition of what terrorism is. That's one thing terrorism has in common with pornography.

I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within [by the term pornography]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.

-- SCOTUS Justice, Hon. Potter Stewart, Jacobellis v. Ohio​

I am intimating that one or two low lifes going nuts and shooting up a place or an environmental extremist who goes way over the line or any other RANDOM acts of violence, however unconscionable or tragic, cannot begin to compare with an organized and committed radicalized, militant ISLAM determined to kill, maim, and destroy as many as it takes and for long as it takes until all of America is destroyed or brought under the authority of Allah. And I sure as heck want leaders who understand that.

We did not have that concern back in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's, or even the 90's. We do now.

Okay. I agree that the origin, nature, and extent of the acts carried out by the various types of terrorists is different, and those differences necessarily call for varying approaches to curtailing them. Recognizing the need to design and implement various, and at times greatly differing, tactics and resources to overcome a problem, in this case terrorism, is among the things I expect be understood by elected and appointed leaders.

With regard to current and would-be Presidents, I think everyone of them recognizes that there is no "one size fits all" solution to terrorism. I seriously doubt any of them does not. Something I'd expect to learn about the candidates' approaches to, and ideas concerning, terrorism is given that there are surely different approaches necessary for dealing with the varied types and perpetrators of terrorism, what are the strategies they see as being best suited to dealing with each of them and why.

I agree further that the nature, extent and impetuses of terrorism and terrorists have changed over time. I'd expect a Presidential candidate to recognize that too, and again, I think they all do. With regard to the changes' origin(s) and extancy, I expect the candidates, in evaluating it, to apply good sense and first determine at a high level what has not changed and whether those things that held steady have or have had a causal and time affected impact on the nature and extent of the changes in terrorism and terrorists. In other words, I expect leaders to have the objectivity to consider both internal and external causes of change and design and implement programs/solutions to deal with both, either concurrently or in succession, as befits what their analysis shows.

Be those things as valid and sensible they are, none of them make the statement that gave rise to this line of discussion -- "most domestic terrorism in the last several decades has been committed by militant Islam" -- any less inaccurate.

I believe it is accurate. And that is why anybody who is elected President should understand that and be prepared to acknowledge and deal with it.

 

[320 Years of History]

I don't mean to pick on Bernie Sanders here specifically--I actually like Sanders though IMO he would be a disastrous President--but here is one of the things we're dealing with. The doublespeak and hypocrisy is so overwhelming sometimes that it boggles the mind. Here Bernie says Trump must take responsibility for violence at his rallies and stand up and denounce violence, but when it comes to the violent actions of his own supporters, he isn't responsible?

Red:
??? What bellicose statements and/or ideas have you hear Bernie express that are legitimately seen as minor or major instigations of and/or acquiescences to violent behavior? What was their context?

Try again. I think the point I was making went sailing right over your head.

In general, I see no reason to hold any candidate accountable for the deeds of their supporters unless and until the candidate sends a message that they endorse a given form of behavior, in this case, violent behavior. Trump has expressly told some of his supporters to "knock the crap" out of people and stated he'd personally like to punch someone in the face! Really?

• February, Iowa -- "So if you see somebody getting ready to throw a tomato, knock the crap out of them. I will pay for the legal fees. I promise. They won’t be so much because the courts agree with us too."
  
  
  
  
• February, Nevada -- "I love the old days. You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this? They'd be carried out on a stretcher, folks. It's true. … I'd like to punch him in the face, I'll tell you."
• March, Michigan -- "Get out of here. Get out. Out! … This is amazing. So much fun. I love it. I love it. We having a good time? USA, USA, USA! … All right, get him out. Try not to hurt him. If you do, I'll defend you in court. Don't worry about it. … We had four guys, they jumped on him, they were swinging and swinging. The next day, we got killed in the press — that we were too rough. Give me a break. You know? Right? We don't want to be too politically correct anymore. Right, folks?"

Have you heard any other candidate say anything like that? Anything even close. Regardless of whether anyone else said things like that, Trump did say them.

Had Mr. Sanders said things of that nature, sure, he should bear some of the responsibility for how his supporters who, acting in response to what at least has to be called his indifference about violence, behave violently. But he hasn't said anything like that, so there's no burden of that sort for him to bear.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ted Cruz....his formal training first as a master in the debate competitions and then as a lawyer superbly equipped to argue technical and intellectual matters is often apparent.....That doesn't bother me but it is a turn off for some.

....And that is a source of discomfiture for them???....Doesn't that say more about them and their inadequacy for the office of President than it does about Mr. Cruz's aptness for it?

Marco Rubio can't seem to shake the impression that his message is poll tested, scripted, memorized and recited instead of coming from his heart and conviction. That has seriously hurt him. And once it was made obvious that he was the preferred poster boy for the establishment, I think that was the fatal blow for him. He can thank Mitt Romney for that I think.

Bold:
Emphasis on "boy." I know Mr. Rubio is not a boy, but his body language, facial expressions, vocal intonations, his overall oratory and rhetoric time and time again strike me as being akin to that of a naive "deer in the headlights." When I read his ideas, they didn't have that timbre, but each time I watched him in person, I couldn't help but think, "This guy needs to get some spine." At times he seemed more like he was begging us to follow him rather than asserting his worth as the one who should lead us. He came across very much as Nixon did on TV during the Kennedy/Nixon debate.

Donald doesn't talk down to his audience, doesn't try to impress his audience with fancy words and phrases, doesn't bring up a bunch of stuff they aren't all that interested in so far as their daily lives are concerned--the fact that he talks TO them in THEIR language regardless of their occupations or how educated they are--is why he is the the front runner and scares the crap out of those who oppose him.

What you see as his not derogating his audience, I see as pandering to his potential audience resulting in his core supporters being those for whom the basest appeals hit paydirt. What you see as not talking down to his audience, I see as the most subtly surly demonstration of disregard for his supporters one can possibly display. How can I not?

When the man is asked simple direct questions, rather than giving one the respect of equally simply and directly answering it, he and his key spokespersons -- except his policy strategist, Stephen Miller...that guy is outstanding even when I don't concur with his conclusions...to be honest, I'd sooner vote for him than Trump -- deflect and/or evade the darn question. What else is that but vilipensive guille?

Video of Stephen Miller interview in which one sees he articulates policy and makes a case for Trump's policy more clearly than Trump himself does. IMO, the wrong person on the Trump team is running for President.

​

That is not at all what I find scary about Trump, his candidacy, nor is it what I fear about a Trump Presidency. What alarms me is the man and his assembled base of support quite simply don't give a tinker's damn about the truth. What frightens me is that Trump will fill the air with his voice, but say nothing of substance and rather than simply admitting he doesn't know "such and such," glibly and insultingly dismisses someone who clearly is more knowledgeable than he on a given matter. Where is the integrity in that tack?

​

Trump....the more his opponents attack him, the better he looks to those who don't trust the people who are attacking him.

That folks respond to Trump positively merely because of what others say of him is just ridiculous. What makes Trump or his ideas any more meritorious simply because someone (or many) disagrees with them or dislikes him?

I don't know if you are correct or not, but I'm sure you see just how utterly irrational that approach is.

What makes Trump or his ideas any less meritorious because someone (or many) agree with them or like him? Or disagree with him or dislike him for that matter?

At any rate, I think we have exhausted the pros and cons of Donald Trump's persona and the arguments are becoming repetitious and boring (to me anyway.)

I would like to move on to the actual issues and dynamics at work and what the driving forces that will most motivate the voters from this point on.

 

[Foxfyre]

One issue that hasn't exactly gone viral yet but is picking up momentum is whether the Senate should confirm President Obama's SCOTUS nomination or whether the Senate should follow precedent and let the President elect do that. The reasoning in the past is that an election year is just too chaotic to even be fair to a nominee in the confirmation process among other things.

And the hypocrisy re that is already glaring. To wit:

Now in fairness to Harry, he is by far not the only one who has switched positions on this.

 

[Foxfyre]

Joe Biden as Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1992:

. . ."Mr. President, where the nation should be treated to a consideration of constitutional philosophy, all it will get in such circumstances is a partisan bickering and political posturing from both parties and from both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. As a result, it is my view that if a Supreme Court Justice resigns tomorrow, or within the next several weeks, or resigns at the end of the summer, President Bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors and not — and not — name a nominee until after the November election is completed."

Biden said if Bush were to nominate someone anyway, "the Senate Judiciary Committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over."

Based on Biden's words, it appears he would not have objected to Bush nominating someone the day after election day. It would have given the Senate more than two and a half months to vote on confirmation.

Biden contended this was not an attempt to play politics with the selection.

"Some will criticize such a decision and say it was nothing more than an attempt to save a seat on the court in the hopes that a Democrat will be permitted to fill it. But that would not be our intention, Mr. President, if that were the course we were to choose in the Senate — to not consider holding hearings until after the election. Instead, it would be our pragmatic conclusion that once the political season is under way, and it is, action on a Supreme Court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over."

In the case of Obama's nomination of Garland, Democrats have argued that the Supreme Court seat should be filled immediately because the court needs a deciding vote.

Biden in his 1992 speech addressed that issue, saying that some people "may fret that this approach would leave the Court with only eight members for some time. But as I see it, Mr. President, the cost of such a result, the need to reargue three or four cases that will divide the justices four to four are quite minor compared to the cost that a nominee, the president, the senate, and the nation would have to pay for what would assuredly be a bitter fight, no matter how good a person is nominated by the President, if that nomination were to take place in the next several weeks."
In Context: The 'Biden Rule' on Supreme Court nominations in an election year​

 

[Foxfyre]

The issue of Supreme Court nominations in this highly charged and hyper political election cycle is important: 1) giving the people a choice via who they elect President and 2) concern of GOP Senators who are up for election this year and weighing the implications of being branded 'obstructionists' et al.

 

[Militants]

Thinking one of Cruz / Trump or Sanders / Clinton even I not pray to nobody of gods how never exist even we Lutherans exist nobody of our gods exist. How it's possibly for us Lutherans ?? I never will Christ in my life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thinking one of Cruz / Trump or Sanders / Clinton even I not pray to nobody of gods how never exist even we Lutherans exist nobody of our gods exist. How it's possibly for us Lutherans ?? I never will Christ in my life.

Where are you Militants? I'm not sure what religious affiliation has to do with this. It has not thus far been much of a campaign issue.

So far as I know:
Donald Trump is Presbyterian
Ted Cruz was raised Roman Catholic and converted to Southern Baptist
John Kasich was raised Roman Catholic and moderately converted to the conservative American Anglican Church.

All three say their religious faith is important to them and all three champion religious freedom.​

Hillary Clinton was raised Methodist - became Baptist during the first Clinton administration - not sure where she is now.
Bernie Sanders was raised Jewish but says now he is not religious. No idea whether he believes in God.

 

[320 Years of History]

Ted Cruz....his formal training first as a master in the debate competitions and then as a lawyer superbly equipped to argue technical and intellectual matters is often apparent.....That doesn't bother me but it is a turn off for some.

....And that is a source of discomfiture for them???....Doesn't that say more about them and their inadequacy for the office of President than it does about Mr. Cruz's aptness for it?

Marco Rubio can't seem to shake the impression that his message is poll tested, scripted, memorized and recited instead of coming from his heart and conviction. That has seriously hurt him. And once it was made obvious that he was the preferred poster boy for the establishment, I think that was the fatal blow for him. He can thank Mitt Romney for that I think.

Bold:
Emphasis on "boy." I know Mr. Rubio is not a boy, but his body language, facial expressions, vocal intonations, his overall oratory and rhetoric time and time again strike me as being akin to that of a naive "deer in the headlights." When I read his ideas, they didn't have that timbre, but each time I watched him in person, I couldn't help but think, "This guy needs to get some spine." At times he seemed more like he was begging us to follow him rather than asserting his worth as the one who should lead us. He came across very much as Nixon did on TV during the Kennedy/Nixon debate.

Donald doesn't talk down to his audience, doesn't try to impress his audience with fancy words and phrases, doesn't bring up a bunch of stuff they aren't all that interested in so far as their daily lives are concerned--the fact that he talks TO them in THEIR language regardless of their occupations or how educated they are--is why he is the the front runner and scares the crap out of those who oppose him.

What you see as his not derogating his audience, I see as pandering to his potential audience resulting in his core supporters being those for whom the basest appeals hit paydirt. What you see as not talking down to his audience, I see as the most subtly surly demonstration of disregard for his supporters one can possibly display. How can I not?

When the man is asked simple direct questions, rather than giving one the respect of equally simply and directly answering it, he and his key spokespersons -- except his policy strategist, Stephen Miller...that guy is outstanding even when I don't concur with his conclusions...to be honest, I'd sooner vote for him than Trump -- deflect and/or evade the darn question. What else is that but vilipensive guille?

Video of Stephen Miller interview in which one sees he articulates policy and makes a case for Trump's policy more clearly than Trump himself does. IMO, the wrong person on the Trump team is running for President.

​

That is not at all what I find scary about Trump, his candidacy, nor is it what I fear about a Trump Presidency. What alarms me is the man and his assembled base of support quite simply don't give a tinker's damn about the truth. What frightens me is that Trump will fill the air with his voice, but say nothing of substance and rather than simply admitting he doesn't know "such and such," glibly and insultingly dismisses someone who clearly is more knowledgeable than he on a given matter. Where is the integrity in that tack?

​

Trump....the more his opponents attack him, the better he looks to those who don't trust the people who are attacking him.

That folks respond to Trump positively merely because of what others say of him is just ridiculous. What makes Trump or his ideas any more meritorious simply because someone (or many) disagrees with them or dislikes him?

I don't know if you are correct or not, but I'm sure you see just how utterly irrational that approach is.

What makes Trump or his ideas any less meritorious because someone (or many) agree with them or like him? Or disagree with him or dislike him for that matter?

At any rate, I think we have exhausted the pros and cons of Donald Trump's persona and the arguments are becoming repetitious and boring (to me anyway.)

I would like to move on to the actual issues and dynamics at work and what the driving forces that will most motivate the voters from this point on.

Red:
Nothing. Ideas neither gain nor lose objective merit in proportion to the quantity of folks who agree with it. Unfortunately, as a prey species, we humans are given to following the herd, so when a lot of folks agree or disagree with someone/something, others think it might (or must) be a good idea for them to do so as well.

Blue:
Okay.

Truly, my post that specifically addressed the "aftermath" component of the thread title was my initial attempt to do discuss exactly that, that is, beyond just who wins or loses the election(s).

 

[longknife]

Just an off-the-wall thought.

I personally feel that those who are attending the various GOP rallies will vote in November whether or not their candidate makes the nomination.

However, what is happening now is NOT going to have any big impact on the vote in November. That will be influenced by what goes on in the weeks just before the election.

People have a generally short attention span. They won't remember what the candidates are saying NOW, only what they will say THEN.

 

[Foxfyre]

Just an off-the-wall thought.

I personally feel that those who are attending the various GOP rallies will vote in November whether or not their candidate makes the nomination.

However, what is happening now is NOT going to have any big impact on the vote in November. That will be influenced by what goes on in the weeks just before the election.

People have a generally short attention span. They won't remember what the candidates are saying NOW, only what they will say THEN.

History supports your impression here. And ultimately it won't be so much what the candidate SAYS or doesn't say during the campaign, but rather how the candidate makes the people FEEL and how much the candidate seems trustworthy to be the kind of leader the people hope for. Of all of the GOP hopefuls to date, I honestly believe Trump is the only one of all 17 who got that and gets that.

But there is nevertheless an undercurrent of feelings of frustration and betrayal that also is fueling the phenomenon of Donald Trump. The politicians wooed us with al those 'right sounding' words in election after election and every one pledged to make a difference. But once they were elected, nothing changed.

IMO THAT is what is driving the GOP and Democratic opposition against Donald Trump. Because he is able to portray that persona of trustworthiness and strong leader he has a huge following. Each passing primary makes him more and more electable. But nobody owns him. He obeys the dictates of no group or demographic or political party. He is his own man. And that makes him dangerous to the permanent political class in both major parties who really don't give a damn who gets elected so long as they elect one of their own who will ensure that they can retain their own turf and unrestricted access to personal benefits.

 

[longknife]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

 

[Foxfyre]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Interesting observation. For sure because he is not the establishment and therefore is beholden to nobody. Because he can't be controlled by the establishment on either side, he is unacceptable as a candidate. I was listening to a historian this past week--I wish I could remember his name but I can't recall it at the moment--who said for some decades now, both Democratic and Republican parties and the elected pols and appointed bureaucrats in government have existed to advantage themselves. There is almost no incentive or commitment to doing anything that would interfere with their lifestyle, perks, and self serving advantages so no matter who gets elected, nothing much changes for them.

A Donald Trump is a huge danger to all that. He is somebody who they can't tell what to do, when to do it, how to do it, how to say it. He uses all the wrong words, illustrations, analogies, etc. but the more they try to hang the labels of homophobic, racist, mysogynistic etc. on him, the more determined the people who are mad at hell at being lied to all this time are determined to give him a chance.

Those on both sides of the aisle want their own hand picked person to be elected because they then have the power of the committee chairmanships, etc., but otherwise they really don't care all that much whether a Democrat or Republican wins. The status quo won't be upset all that much for them personally and they'll continue as they have.

 

[320 Years of History]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

 

[Foxfyre]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

Does it matter to make the point he was making?

 

[320 Years of History]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

Does it matter to make the point he was making?

To the extent that the hugeness of that industry has something to do with why "people" oppose Trump, yes, especially considering that over half of what Rush says is mostly false or worse.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who have a track record of being mostly accurate a good share of the time (65% or better). Rush hasn't earned that from me; neither has Trump. The only difference is that Trump is inaccurate less often than is Rush.

 

[Foxfyre]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

Does it matter to make the point he was making?

To the extent that the hugeness of that industry has something to do with why "people" oppose Trump, yes, especially considering that over half of what Rush says is mostly false or worse.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who have a track record of being mostly accurate a good share of the time (65% or better). Rush hasn't earned that from me; neither has Trump. The only difference is that Trump is inaccurate less often than is Rush.

Thatis absolutely your prerogative. It is also everybody else's prerogative to have their own opinions about that.

I never require links for my threads in the SDZ and do ask that those who use them to give us a brief synopsis of what the link will tell us. That is because I get bored really quickly with a battle of the links where people don't express their thoughts and opinions but just post link after link as is somebody else's opinion carries more weight. And of course we all think the people we admire and support are more right than people we don't admire or support.

 

[320 Years of History]

As Rush has just pointed out, there is a huge industry in this country tied to elections. Those who raise funds. Those who run campaigns and act as paid consultants to the candidates. Those who produce the advertisements that appear everywhere day and night. Those who charter transportation for their candidates. And provide security. And so on and on and on.

Trump does not need or use any of that and he threatens their important little niche in our society. That is exactly why they oppose him.

Well, just how huge is that industry? Can we have some quantification of it that allows us to understand its size in comparison to other industries? Did Mr. Limbaugh quantify just how much money advertisers spend on political advertising in comparison to non-political advertising, for example?

Does it matter to make the point he was making?

To the extent that the hugeness of that industry has something to do with why "people" oppose Trump, yes, especially considering that over half of what Rush says is mostly false or worse.

I'm willing to give the benefit of the doubt to folks who have a track record of being mostly accurate a good share of the time (65% or better). Rush hasn't earned that from me; neither has Trump. The only difference is that Trump is inaccurate less often than is Rush.

Thatis absolutely your prerogative. It is also everybody else's prerogative to have their own opinions about that.

I never require links for my threads in the SDZ and do ask that those who use them to give us a brief synopsis of what the link will tell us. That is because I get bored really quickly with a battle of the links where people don't express their thoughts and opinions but just post link after link as is somebody else's opinion carries more weight. And of course we all think the people we admire and support are more right than people we don't admire or support.

I express my own views. The links I provide are most often to show that I haven't pulled facts outta my ass (the POMA method of making assertions).

If I'm to agree/believe that anyone opposes Trump because he has no reliance upon the huge industry "tied to elections," I'd like to at the very least know beyond question that (1) such an industry exists, and (2) that it is indeed huge. Once that's been established, assuming it is, then I'll worry about the qualitative aspects of their opposition.

I really don't care who says what, but I do care whether what they say is accurate, literally as stated and contextually. People who aren't routinely either don't get the benefit of my doubt about any given topic. Trump and Rush are two people who've shown they will say damn near anything, for whatever reason(s) they have to do so, and whether it's true isn't often among those reasons. Thus, at this point, if they say anything at all, I'd be the fool were I hear what either of them says and rely upon it being true in the course of making any decision. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm unwilling to be made a fool because I was too damn lazy to confirm the statements of someone whom I know has a poor record of uttering truthful remarks.

Do you not do the same when on multiple matters of importance -- either a policy matter, a historical fact, a simple fact that takes no effort to get right, their own actions or words, or in citing something about another individual -- someone you know has been totally wrong, totally mistaken, or just outright made up whatever they said? Just how often are you willing to ignore that sort of thing? Once, three times, ten times, more?

Whatever your answer, now go look at how often Trump has been found grossly wrong/lying. I don't know about you, but for me, 21 times is too many times for me to trust someone enough to give them the benefit of the doubt. When that 21 times comes from someone who deigns to be U.S. President it's just unacceptable. Truly, for me, at 21 times in public is enough times that I no longer even care what they were lying about. (I'm willing to make a small concession when someone lies and common sense tells me that they were going to lie even before the question was posed or topic raised.) When, upon being found to have lied, the person won't even recant/retract the statement just as publicly and vociferously as they made it, they fall even farther from grace in my eyes, the higher one is "one the food chain," the more rigorous I become in gauging the severity of the lie, and the more rigid become the standard of truth-telling to which I hold them.

For example, to this day, I have not forgiven Bill Clinton for "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." I would have let it go had he soon after (a week or two at the most) saying that retracted, but he didn't. He drug the whole nation through a bunch of BS that only came to an end when the Senate wouldn't convict him. That to me is inexcusable. I didn't and don't care that Mrs. Clinton didn't divorce him because of his infidelity; that's between her and him and is not my business. He can lie to his wife, and she can accept his lies as truth 'til the cows come home. However, he cannot, AFAIC, lie to literally 300M+ people and directly as a result cause the waste of their tax dollars and expect me to "get over it."

That she didn't divorce him for "irreconcilable differences" accruing from his willingness to lie to the whole worlds and the U.S. citizens for months on end to the point of impeachment over his efforts to defend his lie is what I hold against her. How in the hell she can go home to someone who lied and perpetuated his lie as Mr. Clinton did, is beyond my ability to comprehend. Bill Clinton can be my neighbor (he almost is; their D.C. home is the next neighborhood west of my neighborhood), but he cannot be my friend because I don't trust him. It's for that sole reason that he should not, IMO, campaign/stump on her behalf because the more he says on her behalf and at her behest, the less I like her.

So, yes, it's my prerogative to deem 21 times as too many times for that to have happened. I can't say how many times is not too many times for me to have decided a person as lied to me or been perfunctory in their recounting of details and facts, but I know it's a less than ten times, even for toddlers who are just learning the potential benefits of lying, but most certainly for adults, and especially for those adults who want me to vote them into high elected office and represent me and my nation to the world, and who rightly so or not serve as a role model to literally millions of Americans.

I'm sorry for not wanting an inveterate liar in the Oval Office, but I don't, and that's not ever going to change.