Rubio: I'd support anyone to stop Clinton, even Trump

[Jazzhead]

Please, jazzhead....provide a link where Donald Trump warns of violence if he doesn't get his way.

I'll wait.....   

A simple google search turned up the following, among others:    Trump Just Threatened More Violence, Only this Time it's Directed at the GOP

Donald Trump romped to victory last night in Florida (effortlessly swatting Marco Rubio out of the race), North Carolina, and Illinois, and the resulting delegate count now means that Trump has a very plausible route to winning an outright majority of the delegates, securing the nomination. However, this is far from assured, and Trump’s latest vault forward has only intensified conversations among Republicans about how to stop him at a contested convention.

But no sooner had this chatter started, then Trump dropped another bomb, by suggesting this morning on CNN that if he finishes with the most delegates, and the nomination goes to someone else, that violence could result:


Trump said Wednesday that a contested GOP convention could be a disaster if he goes to Cleveland a few delegates shy of 1,237 — and doesn’t leave as the party’s nominee.

“I think you’d have riots,” Trump said on CNN.

Noting that he’s “representing many millions of people,” he told Chris Cuomo: “If you disenfranchise those people, and you say, ‘I’m sorry, you’re 100 votes short’…I think you’d have problems like you’ve never seen before. I think bad things would happen.”

It’s hard to say whether this is intended as a threat or a prediction. But the unsettling fact of the matter is that there is no particular reason to rule out the former — that it was indeed intended as a tacit threat, as least of a certain kind. Trump has been playing a clever little game where he hints at the possibility of violence while stopping short of explicitly threatening it — yet he also doesn’t denounce such an outcome as unacceptable, so his hints effectively function as a threat. And as Philip Klein detailed the other day, this could well emerge as an aspect of his convention strategy:


Political commentators now routinely talk about the riots that would break out in Cleveland if Trump were denied the nomination, about how his supporters have guns and all hell could break loose, that they would burn everything to the ground. It works to Trump’s advantage to not try too hard to dispel these notions. He wants Republican delegates who control his political fate to have it in the back of their minds…

Now Trump has made this explicit. Three more points about this. First, it comes right after Mitch McConnell made a very public show of the fact that he privately told Trump that it might be a good idea to “condemn” and “discourage” the idea of violence at his rallies. Trump basically just gave McConnell — and other GOP leaders who surely feel the same way — a big, fat middle finger.

Second, whether or not Trump intended to threaten violence, his latest comments are very significant in another way. Trump explicitly said that if he goes into the convention just shy of a majority of delegates, it would be “disenfranchising” to his voters if the delegates award the nomination to someone else in later balloting. As I’ve reported, some Republicans already worry that if more than one alternative to Trump stays in, it could work against the plot to stop Trump. It could mean the runner-up finishes farther behind Trump in delegates — which end up getting divided between Ted Cruz and John Kasich — thus making it harder to justify giving the nomination to someone else. Trump is essentially saying that if this were to happen, then — violence or not — he will do everything in his power to cast a contested convention as illegitimate, discouraging his supporters not to back the nominee and otherwise doing as much damage to the GOP as he possibly can.

Trump employs the tacit threats of a mobster.   

[alicewonders]

Fascinating that someone who has so readily swallowed Trump's "truthful hyperbole" ie, lying, should be incapable of realizing that Trump is very likely to be just as liberal in practice as Clinton.  That there is unlikely to be any meaningful difference between who he picks for the Supreme Court and who she would pick.  That the only difference is that he would be our liberal, bought and paid for, and so we as a group would no longer have any basis for complaining about continuing liberalism.  I won't buy that bill of goods, won't put my imprimatur on liberalism.  That is why I will never vote for Trump.

You also have no clue what "authoritarianism" is.  Someone who threatens to go home if they don't get their way may be a spoiler, but they are not an authoritarian.  An authoritarian is someone who dictates on the basis of personal authority, a cult of personality, like Trump. 

If you believe the lies, I mean the "truthful hyperbole," so be it.  One can lead a horse to water, but cannot make her drink.

That is your opinion.

Opinions are not facts.

[DCPatriot]

A simple google search turned up the following, among others:    Trump Just Threatened More Violence, Only this Time it's Directed at the GOP

Content from Dell

Distraction costs American

LOL!   The Washington POST?  Gimme a break.

We all know what Trump meant by using the word "violence".   He didn't mean Watts.  He didn't mean Baltimore, or St. Louis.

He meant, they will wreck and destroy the entire Republican Party....because without Trump Supporters in the GOP, they couldn't get elected dog catcher.

[Jazzhead]

LOL!   The Washington POST?  Gimme a break.

Then do your own damn research.  So what if it was the WaPost - it included the exact quote I was thinking of when I made my original comment.   I was being respectful in responding to your "challenge", and do you reciprocate?   Don't be as clueless and classless as Trump is.   Trump hinted at RIOTS.   That means violence, for those of you in Rio Linda.     

[Resp3]

Rubio: I'd support anyone to stop Clinton, even Trump



Maybe it’s somehow obvious to Trump supporters that he would be a better President than Hillary; to me, the exact opposite is perfectly obvious.

[libertybele]

LOL!   The Washington POST?  Gimme a break.

We all know what Trump meant by using the word "violence".   He didn't mean Watts.  He didn't mean Baltimore, or St. Louis.

He meant, they will wreck and destroy the entire Republican Party....because without Trump Supporters in the GOP, they couldn't get elected dog catcher.

Ya, and we all know whatTrump meant by saying Tan-ZAY-nee-uh” instead of “Tan-zu-KNEE-uh.”   Maybe one of these days he'll actually sound intelligent.   

[DCPatriot]

Ya, and we all know whatTrump meant by saying Tan-ZAY-nee-uh” instead of “Tan-zu-KNEE-uh.”   Maybe one of these days he'll actually sound intelligent.   

Come on, LB....

We all know what Trump meant.  You're just playing dumb, IMO.

You have a hall full of Trump supporters and delegates in that Convention Hall...and Trump having over 95% of the necessary  1237...and they're gonna take it away from him?

You're GD right there would be violence.  But "riots"??

Yeah...there may be somebody getting their heads cracked in, but it's not setting the place on fire and looting in the streets.

Stop being obtuse.  You're better than that.

NOTE:  I'd have no problem voting for Cruz...but to me...that McCain and Romney all over again.

[truth_seeker]

For me it comes from personal experience. I've been down this road. Being in California I voted to remove Gray Davis from the governor's mansion and voted in 'conservative' and populist candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.  And he was so reasonable and all about doing the 'common sense' things for Californians that career politicians never got around to doing because of partisan bickering. So I've seen Trump's schtick before. There's no such thing as an honest broker.

And in the real world of possible outcomes, Arnold was better than the democrat alternative.

[truth_seeker]

Why?  Because, there is no guarantee that Trump will not appoint liberal justices as he is a liberal with a liberal record. 

There are no guarantees, beyond just two choices; namely Hillary or Trump.

[truth_seeker]

  Several psychiatrists have commented on Trump's narcissistic personality; his personality disorders go beyond that.  I have decided that I cannot and WILL not vote for Trump.  To hand one of the richest men in the world one of the most powerful positions in the world with his bombastic, narcissistic personality is absolutely nuts and I see him as dangerous.

He is a proven liberal and there is nothing conservative about him, I will NOT vote for a liberal period.  I cannot vote for someone who I fell will continue us on our current path of destruction.

#Never Trump

Then plan to enjoy the time resulting from your CHOICE to go with Hillary.

[HAPPY2BME]

Rubio sure waited long enough, didn't he?

He sees the writing on the wall, and wants to get reelected.

His dream is to be the first 'Latino President' (his words).

[AnybodyButaDem]

For me it comes from personal experience. I've been down this road. Being in California I voted to remove Gray Davis from the governor's mansion and voted in 'conservative' and populist candidate Arnold Schwarzenegger.  And he was so reasonable and all about doing the 'common sense' things for Californians that career politicians never got around to doing because of partisan bickering. So I've seen Trump's schtick before. There's no such thing as an honest broker.

So how is Jerry Brown working out for you?

[AnybodyButaDem]

  Several psychiatrists have commented on Trump's narcissistic personality.
#Never Trump

Wake me up when Trump holds a press conference to announce a VP pick after getting his ass kicked five ways on Tuesday.

Now THAT was the sign of a narcissist.  If you're going to call Trump one, Cruz's odd behavior must be addressed as well.  The sheer delusional narcissistic chutzpah of that Clown Show yesterday is going to follow him around for whatever is left of his national political career.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Rubio sure waited long enough, didn't he?

He sees the writing on the wall, and wants to get reelected.

His dream is to be the first 'Latino President' (his words).

He's not running.  He spit in the faces of those who put him in office and would have lost.  He's as GOPe as it gets these days after running as a TEA Party outsider.

Kind of like Cruz the past few months, when you think about it.   

[Jazzhead]

You're GD right there would be violence.  But "riots"??

"Riots" is what the man said.   And he's never walked back his remarks.   And there have been stories of delegates being intimidated ("we know where you're staying")   

The man comes across as a mobster.   You don't have to defend him - you choose to.   Am I supposed to respect that?   

[sinkspur]

Rubio sure waited long enough, didn't he?

He sees the writing on the wall, and wants to get reelected.

His dream is to be the first 'Latino President' (his words).

Rubio is not running for reelection.

[Jazzhead]

There are no guarantees, beyond just two choices; namely Hillary or Trump.

Yeah, the devil I know vs. the devil I don't.  Some effin' choice.

Folks like you are forcing me to make that choice.  And no, I won't cop out by staying home.   Trump and his minions think their arrogance and sense of entitlement will gain them the Presidency.  Think again - you break my party and I'll move heaven and earth to dash your dreams.     

[austingirl]

Well, Little Marco, let's hope it doesn't come to that! Cruz/Fiorina-that's the ticket.

[NavyCanDo]

I won't fault anyone even Rubio,  for holding their nose and voting for Trump if he is the nominee.   Just not me. I cannot live with that decision. I could list all the reasons, but you heard it all before.   But it boils down to Trump is big government liberal, and is unstable, and I don't want his finger next to the trigger.   

[The Jackal]

So how is Jerry Brown working out for you?

An interesting point. Since California is still here. And after seven years of Obama we are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. So, given that, why should I accept the premise of alarmists that we face an existential crisis that only Trump can solve? My 'problem' is that I'm not willing to get all crazy with hysteria about 2016 the way we did in 2008 and 2012. Hillary or not. And with that realization it affords me the ability to vote my conscience. I simply cannot be scared into voting for the lesser of two evils anymore. You can thank those who continuously predicted the end of the world for that.

[Emjay]

It probably doesn't matter for me since I am in Hawaii totally ruled by corrupt democrats who are keeping the people who live here poor.

So, in a way, I'm glad I don't have to decide.  They are both rotten to the core despicable people.  I'm sure Hillary is worse.  Trump might do some conservative things, at least at first. 

The thing is, we know that Hillary will appoint justices who will put our country into a deep hole for years and we can hope that Trump will appoint conservative ones.  It may be a faint hope, but it is a hope.

It's really sad because of the unlikely rise of Trump.  He's only in this because of his notoriety and media coverage.  In the early states with 17 candidates, he got name recognition votes.  In the northeast, he didn't get that many total votes because they are all democrats. 

If Trump wants to be president, he's been extremely lucky and we have been cursed, because we have a good candidate who would be a great president and he managed to hit the black hole that is Trump.

I think Trump wants to be president but not to do president.  He would get bored immediately.  I'm still hoping he can be stopped at the Convention.

[Fishrrman]

If all a president Trump accomplishes is getting the wall built and stopping or at least seriously slowing the influx of muslims into America, he will have earned his place in history...

[AnybodyButaDem]

Yeah, the devil I know vs. the devil I don't.  Some effin' choice.

Logically, that should be an easy choice.  A no-brainer in my life.  If you KNOW something is the worst possible outcome, but THINK another thing MAY be the worst possible outcome, you always go with the latter.   

[HonestJohn]

My eyes are wide-open, DC.   I know the damage that Clinton will do.   I know that a vote for her, if it comes to that, will be directly opposed to my self-interest, and what I believe philosophically.   But, see, I think we're in a Code Blue situation too.   Because Trump is simply too dangerous to be President - he lacks the temperament for the job and his determination to divide this nation and rule by fiat go against my basic values - not so much as a conservative but as an American.   Trump's more suited for a mobbed-up banana republic, not the greatest nation on earth,  a nation built by immigrants and its unique combination of pluralism and respect for individual liberty and the rule of law.

Trumpism's a disease,  and sometimes, as with a virulent cancer,  it simply takes the courage to endure the pain of cutting it out.