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

[Bill Cipher]

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   

Whatever buttercup

[Carling]

look what the cat dragged in.

Good comeback.  That's exactly how your post read to me.

Rubio is nothing more than a GOProg lackey who suckered the people of Florida into believing he was some sort of anti-establishment rebel.  Turns out he was just another bought and paid for empty suit doing the bidding of the Wall Street-DC  Uniparty.  That he is getting clobbered in his own state shows how out of touch the GOProgs have been all along.  Now Rubio and his donors are willing to elect HRC solely to keep screwing over the shrinking middle class while lining their own pockets.

[Carling]

Whatever buttercup

Haha Mr. "Will you read my long boring opinion piece pretty please" is reduced to emojis and insults.  Oh how the "mighty" have fallen.

[Bill Cipher]

Good comeback.  That's exactly how your post read to me.

Rubio is nothing more than a GOProg lackey who suckered the people of Florida into believing he was some sort of anti-establishment rebel.  Turns out he was just another bought and paid for empty suit doing the bidding of the Wall Street-DC  Uniparty.  That he is getting clobbered in his own state shows how out of touch the GOProgs have been all along.  Now Rubio and his donors are willing to elect HRC solely to keep screwing over the shrinking middle class while lining their own pockets.

Oh dearie me, whatever will I do, I've been crossed by carling

[Carling]

Oh dearie me, whatever will I do, I've been crossed by carling

Pathetic and predictable.  You lost.  Get over your temper tantrum.

[Bill Cipher]

Pathetic and predictable.  You lost.  Get over your temper tantrum.

Whatever, buttercup

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Just heard trump on CNN say that nobody has been injured at his rallies?

 

[libertybele]

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.

"Beacause he gave his word"...something known as INTEGRITY!  Integrity means everything to me as well.  As for Trump the only thing you can count on from him are insults, false accusations and a lawsuit.

[Bill Cipher]

"Beacause he gave his word"...something known as INTEGRITY!  Integrity means everything to me as well.  As for Trump the only thing you can count on from him are insults, false accusations and a lawsuit.

At what point, if any, can a person break their word?  I presume that one can break one's word past a certain point; that there are circumstances under which it is permissible to break one's word.

[EC]

In other words, where is the line between permissible and impermissible going back on your word drawn?

You are looking at it the wrong way. You are assuming that it is permissible to go back on your word and are searching for conditions which grant that permission. I approach it from the opposite end of the spectrum - it is not permissible to go back on your word, full stop, so don't give your word unless you mean it.

If Rubio can't keep his word on this, a simple pledge to support the nominee (which says in no way how much he is to support the nominee, simply not attacking is fine), then why should I trust him to uphold the oath of office? Because it is said on a bible? Not been many lightning strikes lately for breaking that, has there?

[HonestJohn]

"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?

The issue is that Trump supporters hold that view against, not just the majority of Americans, but the majority of Republicans.

[HonestJohn]

Just heard trump on CNN say that nobody has been injured at his rallies?

 

It's true... if you don't consider the people hurt to be human.  And he's done a wonderful job of dehumanizing everyone outside of his supporters.

[Bill Cipher]

You are looking at it the wrong way. You are assuming that it is permissible to go back on your word and are searching for conditions which grant that permission. I approach it from the opposite end of the spectrum - it is not permissible to go back on your word, full stop, so don't give your word unless you mean it.

If Rubio can't keep his word on this, a simple pledge to support the nominee (which says in no way how much he is to support the nominee, simply not attacking is fine), then why should I trust him to uphold the oath of office? Because it is said on a bible? Not been many lightning strikes lately for breaking that, has there?

Except that you are breaking your own word, but you've simply conditioned it on someone else breaking their word first, in the example given.  If your word is unbreakable, period, then you are duty-bound to your comrade, even if/when that comrade discloses to you that he intends to commit war crimes.  If the fact that he breaks his word means you're no longer bound to yours, then we're just discussing the same thing using different words, and the ground is the one I've laid down.

[sinkspur]

You are looking at it the wrong way. You are assuming that it is permissible to go back on your word and are searching for conditions which grant that permission. I approach it from the opposite end of the spectrum - it is not permissible to go back on your word, full stop, so don't give your word unless you mean it.

If Rubio can't keep his word on this, a simple pledge to support the nominee (which says in no way how much he is to support the nominee, simply not attacking is fine), then why should I trust him to uphold the oath of office? Because it is said on a bible? Not been many lightning strikes lately for breaking that, has there?

Baloney. When the other side of your verbal contract breaks that contract, then all bets are off.  Trump's advocating of violence should give anyone who supports him pause. 

Going back on your word is necessary when confronted with an imminent threat. If Trump's not a threat to this country, I don't know who is.

[EC]

Except that you are breaking your own word, but you've simply conditioned it on someone else breaking their word first, in the example given.  If your word is unbreakable, period, then you are duty-bound to your comrade, even if/when that comrade discloses to you that he intends to commit war crimes.  If the fact that he breaks his word means you're no longer bound to yours, then we're just discussing the same thing using different words, and the ground is the one I've laid down.

Nope. Team comes first. If someone is considering unnecessary war crimes, that is detrimental to the team and is to be stopped. It really is rather simple.

[EC]

Baloney. When the other side of your verbal contract breaks that contract, then all bets are off.  Trump's advocating of violence should give anyone who supports him pause. 

Going back on your word is necessary when confronted with an imminent threat. If Trump's not a threat to this country, I don't know who is.

YOU don't get to set my lines.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Sorry trumpites, I have sympathy for Trump after his rally was disrupted, but I cannot support anyone who flat out lies like he does.

[Bill Cipher]

Nope. Team comes first. If someone is considering unnecessary war crimes, that is detrimental to the team and is to be stopped. It really is rather simple.

And stopping that necessarily requires that you break your word to that person.  You can't have it both ways.

[Bigun]

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

I agree with that entirely! And don't believe for one second that Donald Trump is on the side of the Constitution!

[Bigun]

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?

Yes you are! And that is EXACTLY why that man would INSTANTLY no longer be a part of that team because HE would have broken HIS commitment to the team the very second he entertained doing those things!

[EC]

And stopping that necessarily requires that you break your word to that person.  You can't have it both ways.

What word to that person?

Team comes first. Above all. If you interfere with the team, I will shoot you. If you do not interfere with the team, I will set of a nuke in Times Square if that is what it takes to extract you. It's a simple deal.