Trump Calls on Rubio to Drop Out, Supports Waterboarding and Torture

Donald Trump is giving a press conference from Palm Beach, following his wins today in Louisiana and Kentucky. He congratulated Ted Cruz on his two wins (Maine and Kansas) and says it's time to make it a 2 person contest, between him and Cruz.

Trump calls on Rubio to drop out. He says Rubio has to get out of the race, it's time. He hasn't won anything. He says he is saying this respectfully.

Trump says he will beat Cruz. (He says it's no surprise he didn't win Kansas and Maine since he only spent 2 hours in each state. He was in Kansas this morning.) Cruz cannot take New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania or California.[More...]

Trump says he was in Orlando today for a rally and 20k people showed up. He says they turned 10k people away. He says he's a movement. (He sounds like Bernie.)

He says Hillary shouldn't be allowed to run because of her emails. He trashes her slogan "Make America Whole." He says she probably means America is in a hole. He says his slogan, "Make America Great Again," is much better.

Trump praises the late Justice Scalia and says he's a good friend of his sister who is a federal judge. He will appoint a very conservative judge to replace Scalia.

If Republicans run a third party candidate against him, Hillary will win. It will be impossible for either the Republican or third party candidate to win. That means a Democrat will appoint 3, 4 or 5 Supreme Court judges.

Trump bashes the press and then says he'll take a few questions from the dishonest media.

Trump hyperbole: He says he's taken more questions from reporters than any human who's ever lived.

Another (Paraphrase:) I will be the most presidential candidate in history. I will be Abe Lincoln.

He doesn't mention John Kasich. So far no reporter has asked him about Kasich.

In response to a question about Ted Cruz, he calls Cruz "Lyin' Ted." "What he did to Ben Carson was a disgrace...Ben Carson is a great, great guy."

He says "Politicians lie and do bad things." He thought Republicans had a great debate this week and he did very well.

He will help Republicans fund-raise. Not for him, since he's self-funding his campaign, but for others.

Waterboarding: "[I said before]I am totally in favor of waterboarding and if I could, I would do more than that. But We have laws and regulations. ISIS has nothing. They chop off heads. They drop a cage in the water and bring it up and there are 30 dead people. And we're concerned about waterboarding? "

But even though he supports torture, he will obey the laws we have. "I will try to get the laws broadened and extended." Why? It's hard to beat someone "when your rules are soft" and they have no rules.

"We're going to knock out ISIS so violently and so fast." ISIS is a "vicious group of animals."

According to Fox News, the current Republican delegate count:

  • Trump 347
  • Cruz: 267
  • Rubio: 116
  • Kasich: 28

Do any Republicans have a strategy for preventing Trump from being their nominee? Nothing but wishful thinking, as far as I can tell. For example, according to Kasich, there will be more than 1,000 delegates up for grabs, even after Ohio and Florida. He thinks he fits the profile of Republicans in Indiana, WI, Utah, AZ, California. Cruz and Rubio totally lacks a strategy, as far as I can tell. With Cruz and Kasich competing in Ohio against Trump, and Rubio and Cruz fighting Trump in Florida, how do they do anything but split the vote, which won't defeat Trump?

Republican rules say a candidate has to win 8 state to have their names put in play at the convention. Cruz has won 6 states. He only needs 2 more. But how do Rubio and Kasich get the nomination? Also, Cruz has been winning mostly in caucus states, while Trump does better in primary states. More primary than caucus battles are coming up.

I'm convinced Trump will be the nominee. I could care less what Romney and McCain think. Cruz and Rubio are going to be footnotes. And Cruz is too evangelical to get the party behind him, let alone have a chance of winning in November. Hillary will walk, rather than run, into the Oval Office if Cruz is the nominee. And Trump has cleverly made Florida into his second home, which detracts from Rubio "favorite son" status.

I think it's time for the media to switch gears. I want to know who Trump is likely to pick for his top advisers. Since Trump has no political experience, that's who will be running the country if Trump wins.

Does anyone remember there are Democrats in this race? Today, Kansas caucus goers preferred Bernie Sanders. Nebraska Dems also went for Bernie, Hillary won big in Louisiana and Kentucky. The Washington Post says:

Clinton’s forceful projected win in delegate-rich Louisiana keeps her vast delegate lead for the Democratic party’s nomination intact.

Hillary and Bernie will have a town hall meeting Monday night. Why? I don't see how this helps Hillary, it just keeps Bernie in the spotlight when it's apparent to almost everyone he can't win the nomination.

< Another Primary Day | Trump's Big Orlando Rally >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What happened to MSNBC? (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 01:35:48 PM EST
    That's rhetorical.   Tweety et al waited breathlessly for Trump's victory speech.  Tweety dismissed the idea that Trump is the product of yeara in the making.  No, Tweety says, Trump is saying what is on the mind of a lot of voters as if that was a feather in his ball cap.  The one with the sub rosa message, make America White Again. And, no problem in cutting away from Mrs. Clinton's speech, to be replaced with criticisms of her.  MSNBC is getting the nickname, the Trump Channel, guess the History Channel's nickname has been taken.

    I have to ask..... (none / 0) (#20)
    by NYShooter on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:59:55 PM EST
    How can anybody watch Chris Matthews on TV? I haven't watched him in years and years, but, for some reason I tuned him in the other day. I don't often get too upset by what's on television these days, small expectations lead to fewer disappointments. But, this character, Matthews, is so obnoxious, so overbearing, so disrespectful, and asks questions that he never, ever, ever, ever, allows his guests to answer.

    My only question, after watching about ten minutes of his show...., has any guest, after being interrupted for the zillionth time, ever got up, and punched him in the mouth? (rhetorically speaking, of course)  

    Are his guests so afraid of not being invited back on his program that they put up with this abusive, unprofessional, and, embarrassing spectacle? Certainly, a guest, at some point in time, must have responded (after being interrupted for the N'th time) with something like, "Hey, why do you even have guests on your show when its obvious your voice is the only one you're interested in hearing?"

    I've heard all you guys complaining about "Tweety" for a long time here. I never dreamed that your complaints, regardless of how strong they were, could so under-emphasize his extremely aggravating "bed-side" manner.



    Lol (none / 0) (#23)
    by TrevorBolder on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 05:44:25 PM EST
    My sentiments exactly,

    Although Joe Scarborough is rapidly approaching his penchant for not allowing his guests to reply.


    MSNBC (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 05:44:04 PM EST
    Has been really bad for a long tine.

    Trump lost today's vote in LA.... (none / 0) (#3)
    by magster on Sat Mar 05, 2016 at 11:01:42 PM EST
    ... and only won the primary because of the state's early voting where he was substantially ahead. I think the last debate and the defense of the size of wiener might have actually offended GOP voters when nothing before did.

    Rubio is done.

    also (none / 0) (#6)
    by linea on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 12:07:38 AM EST
    trumps more colorful language was actually offending many christians especiallly conservative christian women. thats why he started toning it down.

    I can't find a source for Trump (none / 0) (#4)
    by Redbrow on Sat Mar 05, 2016 at 11:30:30 PM EST
    Ever saying he would "kill terrorists' families. Do you have one?

    I can find reports of Trump saying he would "go after" terrorists families. Kind of like the US going after Khadaffi's son and putting him on trial which resulted in a death sentence.

    Or how the US went after Saddam Husseins son and grandson rsulting in them being killed for firing at US soldiers.

    I also saw Trump said "they need to be taken out". Maybe he meant like the 2009 drone strike that took out Bin Laden's son in Pakistan under Clinton's and Obama's watch. Or maybe the hundreds of other drone strikes in countries the US is not at war with that resulted in many more deaths of terrorists and their families and even innocent children. Mant people claim these were violations of the very international laws Trump mentioned.

    And of course the Bush adminstration lawyers went back and forth on the legality of waterboarding several times before supposedly banning it.

    Obama calims he banned it bit shorlty afterword the DOD refused to state whether ior not it was still in use. Just last year China claimed it was still in use by the US.

    Trump is just being hypothetical. Clinton defended the drone strikes in her memoir.

    Which is worse? Where is the media holding Clinton, Obama or abush accountable?

    great post!! (none / 0) (#5)
    by linea on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 12:02:10 AM EST
    all the repubs are bombastic.  that's their audience for the primaries.  cruz said he would carpet bomb the middle east. he obviosly doesnt know what that actually means.  its what the nazis did to cities in the netherlands and it's a war crime.

    Actually... (none / 0) (#21)
    by ScottW714 on Mon Mar 07, 2016 at 04:35:41 PM EST
    ... the Nazis mistakenly bombed civilian targets in London, which lead the Allies to do the same in Germany, which was on purpose.  Then both engaged bombing meant to influence emotion rather than taking out strategic targets.

    Bombing of Dresden

    Not sure what is worse, Cruz wanting to carpet bomb the ME or him pretending to not know what carpet bombing is after calling for it.  


    The comment Redbrow is replying to (none / 0) (#7)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 04:09:37 AM EST
    was deleted. Commenters don't speak for TalkLeft but their can't post potentially libelous factual misstatements. I have never said Trump threatened to kill the families of terrorists and the commenter who wrote that didn't source the accusation. I'm assuming it's not true. If I'm wrong, the commenter is free to repost the comment with sourcing.

    He said it (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:33:08 AM EST

    "I would be very, very firm with families," he added. "Frankly, that will make people think, because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives


    The question in the last debate about what he would do if soldiers refused to follow illegal orders was about this.


    Debate (none / 0) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:39:09 AM EST
    Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists' families.



    BTW (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 08:45:25 AM EST
    Probably should be mentioned that in last nights news conference he did backtrack on this a bit, because there was a lot of blowback, by saying he was aware there are laws against doing this but he would change those laws so he COULD do that or whatever else he wanted to do.

    Hard to believe I know.  But that's where we are.


    Yep (none / 0) (#11)
    by smott on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 09:56:42 AM EST
    We've got our American brownshirts.
    And I hope the GOP deals with this now and forces them to their own party.
    Anything else just kicks the can down the road.

    "brownshirts?" No. (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:43:06 AM EST
    Trump will come up a bigger brighter color.

    Orange (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:56:08 AM EST
    Rat a Tat Tat! (none / 0) (#14)
    by Mr Natural on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 10:59:24 AM EST
    The SNL skit (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 01:15:00 PM EST
    Yes - it certainly was clear to anyone watching (none / 0) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:12:42 AM EST
    that he was not referring to bringing them here for trial.

    From (none / 0) (#16)
    by FlJoe on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    Think Progress
    in an interview with Fox and Friends, the Republican front runner said he would "knock the hell out" of ISIS with an aggressive military strategy if elected president. That strategy, he said, would include using deadly force on people who are related to ISIS members.
    "We're fighting a very politically correct war," he said in response to a question about avoiding civilian causalities. "And the other thing is with the terrorists, you have to take out their families. They, they care about their lives. Don't kid yourself. But they say they don't care about their lives. You have to take out their families."
     Pretty explicit (unless you think he means taking them out to Chuck-e-Cheese), repeated twice to make sure we ge the message.

    When asked to defend that statement at the CNN debate in December

    TRUMP: We have to be much tougher. We have to be much stronger than we've been. We have people that know what is going on. You take a look at just the attack in California the other day. There were numerous people, including the mother, that knew what was going on.

    They saw a pipe bomb sitting all over the floor. They saw ammunition all over the place. They knew exactly what was going on.

    When you had the World Trade Center go, people were put into planes that were friends, family, girlfriends, and they were put into planes and they were sent back, for the most part, to Saudi Arabia.

    They knew what was going on. They went home and they wanted to watch their boyfriends on television. I would be very, very firm with families. Frankly, that will make people think because they may not care much about their lives, but they do care, believe it or not, about their families' lives.

    he merely substitutes milder, vaguer euphemism while expanding the threat to the families of home grown terrorists.  

    Thanks (none / 0) (#17)
    by smott on Sun Mar 06, 2016 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    For the info.
    I never took it as anything other that he intended to kill families of terrorists - which does appear to be a war crime.

    But I hadn't looked for an actual quote.

    If he does become President, he may make some military types quite uncomfortable.

    Having said that, I basically thought the CIA does all the dirty stuff now that's in the war crimes gray area. So perhaps Donald won't meet so much resistance after all.
    He should do lunch with John Yoo.