Rubio hedges on support for Trump amid 'chaos' and 'anarchy'

[flowers]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rubio-hedges-on-support-for-trump-amid-chaos-and-anarchy/ar-AAgH6Gj?li=BBnb7Kz&ocid=HPCDHP

It’s called chaos, anarchy and that’s what we’re careening toward,” Rubio said of the atmosphere surrounding Trump. “We are being ripped apart at the seams now, and it’s disturbing. I am sad for this country. This country is supposed to be an example to the world.”

Asked if he would still support Trump if he were the party’s nominee, the senator responded: “I don’t know. I intend to support the Republican nominee, but [it’s] getting harder every day.”

Rubio’s comments reflected the first cracks in a pledge taken by all Republican candidates to support the eventual nominee.

[GAJohnnie]

Rubio, doubling down on stupid again.

Really really NOT a smart move. Even Cruz's tepid "Yes But" weasling is better then this foot in the mouth by Rubio.

[Fishrrman]

After next Tuesday, no-show Marco Rubio's political future will be....

.... history.

[Bill Cipher]

Rubio is merely expressing the increasing unease many Americans feel about Trump.  Many of us are still willing to vote the party nominee no matter whom, but Trump is making that a harder and harder proposition to maintain.

[EC]

Rubio is merely expressing the increasing unease many Americans feel about Trump.  Many of us are still willing to vote the party nominee no matter whom, but Trump is making that a harder and harder proposition to maintain.

True. I still dislike it though.

You give your word, you keep your word, simple as that. Something Rubio seems to have a small problem doing.

[sinkspur]

True. I still dislike it though.

You give your word, you keep your word, simple as that. Something Rubio seems to have a small problem doing.

You don't give your word to support a raving demagogue whose increasing belligerence is creating a climate of division in the party and the country.

All bets are off now.  Once Rubio bows out, why in hell should he support this lunatic?

You're dreaming if you think Trump would support Rubio if Rubio were the nominee.

[Bill Cipher]

True. I still dislike it though.

You give your word, you keep your word, simple as that. Something Rubio seems to have a small problem doing.

Indeed.  And Rubio certainly has some warts.  His needless comparison of Obama to Trump is another one.

But it is a sign of just how bad Trump is that this pledge is being put under so much stress.  At what point should a rational politician decide that the likely loss of unaffiliated voters because of Trump is too great a cost to maintain that pledge?  The more Trump talks about who he does not like, about who he wants to get rid of, the fewer unaffiliated voters are likely to vote republican if Trump remains in contention.  At a certain point disavowing Trump may be as much a no-brainer as disavowing David Duke should have been for Trump.

[EC]

All bets are off now.  Once Rubio bows out, why in hell should he support this lunatic?

You're dreaming if you think Trump would support Rubio if Rubio were the nominee.

Because he gave his word to. Something which may mean nothing to you, but it does to me.

And who Trump supports is a complete irrelevance. I expect between little and nothing from him in the first place.

[Chosen Daughter]

You don't give your word to support a raving demagogue whose increasing belligerence is creating a climate of division in the party and the country.

All bets are off now.  Once Rubio bows out, why in hell should he support this lunatic?

You're dreaming if you think Trump would support Rubio if Rubio were the nominee.

Its a good thing!  They shouldn't have made the pledge. 

[Bill Cipher]

Because he gave his word to. Something which may mean nothing to you, but it does to me.

And who Trump supports is a complete irrelevance. I expect between little and nothing from him in the first place.

And sometimes giving one's word becomes, in retrospect, a great mistake.  Nothing is absolute; the question is the appropriate level beyond which it should not be kept, or at least the point at which it becomes a matter of individual conscience whether it should be kept.  Should individuals who have sworn fealty to a leader who turns out to be a monster continue to maintain that fealty?  Should the German soldiers who swore fealty to Hitler and who were then posted to Dachau or Treblinka have maintained that fealty, or broken it?  I ask that not because I think Trump is Hitler - Trump's ideological commitment is no greater than himself, which separates him from Hitler, whose ideological commitments were much greater than himself - but because it pushes the question to its extreme.

[Bill Cipher]

Its a good thing!  They shouldn't have made the pledge. 

I have to disagree.  Even if the pledge was ill-advised, that fact alone doesn't mean it should be done away with.  A person's word should count for something; the question is, is that something absolute, or not.

[Chosen Daughter]

I have to disagree.  Even if the pledge was ill-advised, that fact alone doesn't mean it should be done away with.  A person's word should count for something; the question is, is that something absolute, or not.

True, but ill advised I believe it was.  Nobody wants to see the party fractured beyond repair.  But they should have been uniting against Trump.  I would have any of them over Trump.

[EC]

It is complex, I agree. Why I rarely give my word on anything, because it does count and it does get kept, despite everything.

In the case of the extreme of giving your word to a leader who eventually becomes a monster - who have you given your word to and why? Have you pledged to the person or the ideal for which they stand? A word goes both ways, remember. If they break it, you can, with much less stress on your conscience, be considered free to act as you will.

[sinkspur]

Because he gave his word to. Something which may mean nothing to you, but it does to me.

And who Trump supports is a complete irrelevance. I expect between little and nothing from him in the first place.

You don't give your word to support someone who later turns out to be a total flake.

I suspect Cruz won't support him either.

[Bill Cipher]

It is complex, I agree. Why I rarely give my word on anything, because it does count and it does get kept, despite everything.

In the case of the extreme of giving your word to a leader who eventually becomes a monster - who have you given your word to and why? Have you pledged to the person or the ideal for which they stand? A word goes both ways, remember. If they break it, you can, with much less stress on your conscience, be considered free to act as you will.

Try another take on it:  you're a member of a special ops crew, and you discover that one of your buddies intends to commit acts that are clearly war crimes - he's told you what he plans to do - are you still bound by your oath to him, to the crew?  Or can you - must you - break that word?

[EC]

That one is a no brainer. He dies. Team comes first, always.

[Bill Cipher]

That one is a no brainer. He dies. Team comes first, always.

Ok.  That's the easy part.  Now, as we add shades of grey, at what point does the rule fall over?

[aligncare]

After next Tuesday, no-show Marco Rubio's political future will be....

.... history.

Taken out by a carnival barker and circus clown, I hear.

Politicians ain't what they used to be...

[EC]

Ok.  That's the easy part.  Now, as we add shades of grey, at what point does the rule fall over?

It never does. Team comes first. That is a fixed point and immutable.

[Bill Cipher]

It never does. Team comes first. That is a fixed point and immutable.

I'm talking about taking it from that particular circumstance, abstracting the general question - when should/may one go against one's word - from that particular circumstance and seeing how far it can be pushed until it tips over to the position that one should not go against one's word.  In other words, where is the line between permissible and impermissible going back on your word drawn?  Sometimes it easier to start from the plainly obvious and slowly abstract things away and mix in the grays to try and find the tipping point.

[Carling]

Rubio is merely expressing the increasing unease many Americans feel about Trump.  Many of us are still willing to vote the party nominee no matter whom, but Trump is making that a harder and harder proposition to maintain.

You read exactly like a liberal who says you shouldn't call Islam a hate cult because it will make them turn into terrorists.  Ass backwards "logic" at its worst.

Disgusting

[Bill Cipher]

You read exactly like a liberal who says you shouldn't call Islam a hate cult because it will make them turn into terrorists.  Ass backwards "logic" at its worst.

Disgusting

look what the cat dragged in.

[DCPatriot]

You don't give your word to support a raving demagogue whose increasing belligerence is creating a climate of division in the party and the country.

All bets are off now.  Once Rubio bows out, why in hell should he support this lunatic?

You're dreaming if you think Trump would support Rubio if Rubio were the nominee.

"raving demagogue"..."lunatic"......??

I simply don't 'see' it that way, Sink.

To me, it's another "You're either with us or against us!"

There's a war being waged between those who want to adhere to Constitutional law, and those intent on mob rule.

Whose side are you on?   

[Bill Cipher]

"raving demagogue"..."lunatic"......??

I simply don't 'see' it that way, Sink.

To me, it's another "You're either with us or against us!"

There's a war being waged between those who want to adhere to Constitutional law, and those intent on mob rule.

Whose side are you on?   

You certainly don't have the Constitution on your side.

[DCPatriot]

look what the cat dragged in.

There you go again...instead of responding to the post, you pull an ad hominem. 

And then you weep when you're charged with being a troublemaker