![Trump Receives Boos After Calling Marco Rubio “Clown” [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/0417marcorubio_standard_600x400.jpg)
For the last week Trump has been attacking Rubio left and right, which I’m guessing is exactly where Rubio wants to be since it means he’s over the target. Today is the Values Voter Summit, and while Rubio spoke articulately with class this morning, Trump took to the stage and aimed his mindless ramblings towards none other than the Florida Senator.
Conservatives booed Donald Trump for calling Republican presidential rival Marco Rubio a “clown” at the Values Voter conference of activists on Friday.
“You have this clown, Marco Rubio,” Trump said, as the crowd erupted in boos. “I’ve been so nice to him.”
Trump has turned his rhetorical fire against Rubio in recent days as the Florida senator has risen in the polls. After the booing, Trump tried to attack Rubio for his support of a comprehensive immigration package two years ago, saying there was “nobody weaker” on immigration. The attacks received a damp reception. Trump eventually retreated back to safer ground, attacking Democrats and promoting himself.
Twitter followers could sense the undoing of Trump’s vitriolic narrative as it began slowly dying in the room. His ramblings may be cute with faceless keyboard warriors who can’t wait to retweet his latest tantrum, but they did very little for him on that stage.
Trump calls Rubio a "clown," the crowd boos loudly.
— Olivia Nuzzi (@Olivianuzzi) September 25, 2015
Trump almost got booed off stage and is now just stammering on about contracts or something.
— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) September 25, 2015
To be clear: Crowd booed Trump for referring to Rubio as 'this clown.'
— Byron York (@ByronYork) September 25, 2015
Apparently not everyone in that room is in agreement with Trump. GASP! See the video below:
As I noted above, Rubio has been Trump’s target for the last week.
Senator Marco "amnesty" Rubio, who has worst voting record in Senate, just hit me on national security-but I said don't go into Iraq. VISION
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 23, 2015
Just watched @marcorubio on television. Just another all talk, no action, politician. Truly doesn't have a clue! Worst voting record in Sen.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 25, 2015
He’s been pushing the “amnesty” narrative when it comes to Rubio, however, Rubio supports nothing of the sort. Mass deportation will not happen, and cannot happen; Rubio merely supports a logical path to citizenship. Trump and others accuse him of being weak, or in working with the wrong people, but actually he’s rather strong in the subject. We want people who can present reasonable solutions, not simply talk a big game involving impossible “solutions” that would further damage our country. In addition, can you name any other “heroes” in the GOP who tried to do anything regarding immigration? Crickets. If you’d like to read Marco’s immigration principles, click here.
I digress.
Trump is spiraling out of control with his attacks on Rubio, journalists, and entire news organizations. His Twitter timeline can be summed up with the follow:
This week, after calling Marco Rubio a “lightweight,” mocking him for being “sweaty” (“Rubio, I’ve never seen a young guy sweat that much”), and calling him a kid “with no money, zero.” Marco finally spoke out concerning the dispute.
On Thursday, Rubio barked back at Trump, calling him “a very touchy and insecure guy.” Rubio also attacked Trump at his points of pride: his stage presence and his poll numbers.
“He had a really bad debate performance last week,” Rubio told Kentucky Sports Radio. “He takes shots at everybody that gets anywhere close to him, in terms of a poll, or anytime he hits a rough spot that’s what he does.”
Rubio has been low-key concerning his opponents, but there comes a time when the attacks need to be confronted. Many say there’s a strategy to Rubio’s tactics of letting Trump attack first and then skillfully delivering a counter punch with class. Trump is attacking Rubio’s propensity to sweat, Rubio is skillfully exposing Trump’s inability to differentiate between Middle Eastern leaders and issues. In the end, the substantial lack of knowledge will be left for the public to see, and the cheap shots will fade to the background, overwhelmed by the thunderous boos of a crowd growing weary of childish theatrics.
dc says: “but actually he’s rather strong in the subject”
bah, I would like to hear Rubio answer a question he hasn’t already memorized the answer to.
If Trump doesn’t start getting it together he is toast.
Marybeth Glenn says: I respect your opinion, however, he answers every question with ease. If acing every question was simply an act of memorization, I must ask why other candidates aren’t doing it? He has the answers memorized because he knows the issues. He’s far from flawless, but if the only attack against him is that he sounds rehearsed, I’ll take it over a lot of other candidates.
Jane says: First of all, Rubio wants to increase immigration and give illegals amnesty. That will destroy our country.
His 1 Squared visa will greatly increase foreign workers. He says one thing in English (he lies) and then another in Spanish.
His parents had not taken the oath of US citizenship when Rubio was born. Therefore, Rubio does not have natural born status. He has admitted it in the past.
How do we survive as a nation if we continue to allow millions of people to pour in here every year?
Marybeth Glenn says: Hi Jane! Thank you for commenting! There are some common misconceptions when it comes to Marco Rubio’s immigration stance. I love dialogue, so here’s my friendly rebuttal to your remarks:
1. Marco does not support amnesty. He knows that mass deportation would fail, horribly, similar to how Operation Wetback was a failure, for various different reasons (which I’d be glad to elaborate on if you’d like). So since mass deportation is unrealistic (due to both resource and moral issues), we need to come up with a different solution. A logical pathway to citizenship. NOT amnesty. His position is that immigrants who have a criminal record need to be deported, and those who don’t have a criminal record need to be registered and apply for a non-immigrant visa. Which will include a fee and fine, background check, and they will be required to learn English. This will allow them to work legally and pay taxes, but they would NOT qualify for government programs, whatsoever. Period. This status would last for a decade, and after that they could apply for permanent residency. This brings income into the United States, while not granting amnesty (Amnesty is an official pardon for political offenses, this is not that). VERY far from amnesty, and the most logical plan in the race thus far.
2. Rubio supports an increase in H-1B visas for a SPECIFIC group, and that is foreigners who graduate from U.S. universities with advanced degrees in STEM disciplines. I support this as well. America is the greatest country in the world because our founders build this land to be a place of opportunity, set apart from the rest. It is what I love so much about this country, the diversity and strength in demographics. Those who will be of benefit to her growth and strength should be welcomed.
3. Re: lies in Spanish. That was a fib spread by very few news outlets, and quickly buried when it was found to be inaccurate. Marco acknowledged that you can’t just flip the light switch on and off for the DACA, that once passed it became important to those benefiting, and that repealing it would require something else to be put in place.
What he said in English:
“Absolutely, I wouldn’t. And the reason why is it would be very disruptive. People are working, they’re in school, they’re employees, and suddenly overnight they would be illegally in the country. But ultimately, there will come a point when it will have to end. Maybe not in six months, but at some point it will have to end.”
What he said in Spanish:
“I believe DACA is important. It can’t be terminated from one moment to the next, because there are already people benefiting from it.”
There’s no difference. While speaking Spanish, he simply noted that it would need a replacement before it was ended, and I agree. These are human lives, they’re not a game. We have to remember that. Here’s the 8 page official transcript of the interview: http://www.scribd.com/doc/262291316/Marco-Rubio-Jorge-Ramos-Interview-Official-Univision-transcript
Rubio was born on American soil, that makes him an American citizen. If the SCOTUS wishes to change that, it still wouldn’t be retroactive.
Rubio has said countless times that the FIRST order of business must be securing the border, and implementing a tracking system. He in no way believes that we should leave the gates wide open.
I hope that helps a little.
Marco Rubio was born in the United States; that makes him a citizen from birth, a natural born citizen, period.
I have read the arguments of those who claim that the Fourteenth Amendment doesn’t really mean what it says, that the men who wrote it would never have thought it covered the children of non-citizens, and perhaps that question never crossed their minds — after all, we had completely free immigration at the time — but the way the Amendment is written, if you are born here, you are a citizen, period.
Marybeth Glenn says: Amen, Dana!
Jane says: We will see if you publish my comment. Something tells me you won’t.
Kate says: Jane
Why wouldn’t we publish your comment? We believe in personal responsibility here at VG. You own it. 🙂
Jane says: Why wouldn’t I want to own it. It is the truth.
Kate says: Uh huh. 🙂
Tim says: I’m confused as to why – in order to defend Trump, people try to find fault with the people Trump is finding fault with. Granted, they are generally more articulate and less snarky 7th grade, but what I want to see is someone defending Trump’s approach. Defend his language. His reactions. You won’t see it! They go after Trump’s latest targets’ (mostly misinterpreted) policies as if that justifies Trump’s undignified behavior.
No matter Rubio’s ideas, for the time being (and I like them). Time to keep the main thing the main thing and vet TRUMP and not his targets.
Marybeth Glenn says: So true, Tim! Trump is running on his character, or lack thereof, it begins and ends in dirty politics.
Optimizer says: I don’t really approve of Trump’s grade-school trash talk, but I can appreciate its genius. Yeah, I know – that sounds weird to say. The thing you’re missing is that this has been used for at least four purposes: (1) to distinguish himself from politicians by using plain language, (2) to do the impossible – to make a connection between a multi-billionaire and average people, (3) to blindside the establishment by telling the people what they want to hear while establishment doesn’t even notice it, because it’s basically in a different language, and (4) to establish branding of his opponents, while they don’t even realize it. Jeb, for example, has been branded as “unenergetic”. Like I said, I don’t even think they know that he’s even doing it.
As to Rubio’s ideas, you’re completely missing the point. Over half of the voters have figured out that it DOESN’T MATTER what their IDEAS are, because they cannot be TRUSTED – AT ALL – to actually follow through on it. Trump has plenty of faults, but we’ve been waiting to get some goddamn border security since before Reagan. They SAY they WANT it, but they NEVER, EVER deliver, no matter what. Trump is the ONLY one running who isn’t beholden to the puppet-masters who are stopping it from happening, and you can be goddamn sure that he WANTS to build it, that he has the managerial skill to make it happen, and that’s he’s a “doer” – that it WILL happen if he’s elected. The whole REASON the Dems are against it is to turn TX blue – any so-called conservative fighting this (like Rubio) is a traitor, plain and simple.
Ann Coulter said something to the effect of “If Trump just manages to seal the border, I don’t care if he opens up an abortion clinic in the Rose Garden.” Such is the anger, and the desperation to see at least SOMETHING of simple, basic govt competence to FINALLY happen. Nobody believes he’s a real conservative, but we know the “real” conservatives will cave to the leftist PC Inquisition every time. They basically let Obama give Iran the Bomb, for cryin’ out loud!
Marybeth Glenn says: 1. I know that he’s targeting low info voters and succeeding, I do understand his tactics. That doesn’t mean I’m going to agree with such tactics, nor him. I don’t want to be associated with his rhetoric, I wish to be associated with candidates who retain class and realistic policy.
2. You are saying all of that, yet Rubio is the ONLY one to try and at least stop the bleeding. Their hands are tied because anything they pass will be struck down until the oval office seat has a new person parked in it. Yet I reiterate that despite that fact, Rubio still tried!
3. Ann Coulter supports failing republicans, and hopefully this is no different. She has a losing track record, and some severe issues. Do you think Donald is just going to get in the White House and make declarations without going through the House of Rep? He’s not running for a dictatorship, his ideals are not going to just be hammered in stone.
I think the problem is that there are a subset of people who have found themselves, and their beliefs, unaligned with the conservative small government movement. That is why Trump, a big government quasi-democrat, is surging with a specific people. Maybe they’re working under the wrong umbrella.
Optimizer says: Ladies, you are KILLING me!
You say Rubio ISN’T for amnesty, and THEN add “Rubio merely supports a logical path to citizenship.”? Citizenship IS amnesty, for cryin’ out loud!! Rubio is considered a traitor to conservatism, and you’ve said EXACTLY why, yourself!
You sound like Debbie Wasserman Schultz!!!
This is the most technologically advanced, wealthiest, country in the Universe. OF COURSE we can deport mass quantities of illegal aliens! Hell, you could get rid of most of them by just having people prove citizenship before dishing out benefits. If only 1/2 were expelled, it would still be a huge improvement. You sound like the fool Dems who were with Jimmy Carter, talking about the “malaise” – countries just wane after a while, they said. Reagan said otherwise, and proved them 100% wrong.
It would probably even SAVE money!
You wonder why we have Trump, yet you give a shining example of supposed Republican/Conservative who repeats the leftist mantra of “It can’t be done, so we have to give liberals what they want – it’s only practical.” It’s BS!! What has gotten ONTO you ladies, of late? YOU are exactly why we have Trump. Who ARE you people?
Marybeth Glenn says: Hi Optimizer! I sure hope we’re not killing you via opinion 🙂
We are technologically advanced, but we also still abide by the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc., and illegal immigrants would all have to go through due process. They estimate that it would take roughly 20 years if we started today, and even that would be roughly 1507 cases per day, including weekends and holidays. They also estimate that it would cost roughly 26 billion per year. Now imagine, during that time – more than likely – a Democrat President is put back in office, there would likely be a complete undoing. Now imagine the number of government personnel needed to control such a situation. Operation Wetback required double what they originally assumed, as most government operations do.
Now, add in the fact that we have a MUCH larger number than Wetback even attempted. So what would Trump do? Would he push to end Birthright Citizenship retroactively? Displacing countless innocent children? Where would they go? Would each person be given due process? If not, who are we as a country? What do we even stand for anymore? Would he create a centralized location for 11 MILLION human beings where they have no ties, or send them to their original homes in Panama, Belize, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, or Nicaragua, where they more than likely will have zero resources and ability to survive? Think of the time and resources involved in planes, buses, etc. During Operation Wetback we just dropped people and many died of heat exhaustion in the desert, or from capsized boats. If you do that in the world of social media, it will be a disaster. It was horrific and unbecoming of a nation that touts a moral code that is supposedly better than other countries. The resources, government size, etc. would make Obama’s big government look like child’s play. In addition, people that would support such actions would embrace the narrative of the left and become the monsters they accuse us of being.
No, it wouldn’t save us money. However, earning money off of tax paying immigrants who can’t receive benefits would…
Reagan helped 2.9 immigrants receive amnesty… so…
It’s not giving liberals what they want. Optimizer, we are a group of women with various beliefs and positions, individual thinkers. I am just one of them, and these are my views. I am a realist, but more than that I am a conservative, which means I support small government and fight big government. The government needed to implement Trump’s plan would be unprecedented. Who am I? A Conservative, and that is why I cannot support an endeavor such as mass deportation.
Optimizer says: You’re not listening. If you remove the reason for their being here, they will leave on their own, at least the ones that are just here to mooch. As to the other ones, I wouldn’t trust the estimates “they” make, and the answer is to streamline the process (supposedly Congress is controlled by Republicans, remember?), and find other ways to get them to leave on their own. Even if you’re only 50% effective, it would be a success. Or even 25%. When you shut yourself off to even trying, even declaring it to be impossible, you expose yourself as not really being interested in seeing it happen – just like all the establishment GOP guy who always have some excuse. All in the name of conservatism – gimme a break. You’re just like the liberals who declared that you couldn’t shoot down a missile with another missile.
Just the fact that you refer to “Countless innocent children” shows that you are not on the right side. They’re citizens of a foreign country being sent back to their own country. If that causes culture shock for them, that’s their parents’ fault for breaking the law. If you’re worried about them starving (which seems far-fetched) send them with food. It is not our responsibility to feed them for the rest of their lives, and you make it sound like there is mass starvation everywhere in the Western Hemisphere south of the Rio Grande. That’s ridiculous – it’s Democrat talk.
Marybeth Glenn says: I noted in the above comment to Jane that Rubio’s plan would remove benefits from illegal immigrants. If they deport at that time, it’s on their own cognizance. No one is against this… You do realize that the Go8 bill called for the exact same thing, right? Page 90 & 91 (out of 844) of the bill (yes, I do extensive research before drawing conclusions on such things). The bill was an attempt to stop the bleeding while a Democrat president was still in office (almost impossible), but at least they tried to do something. It’s like the pro-lifers who complain about a 20 week ban because they want all or nothing, I’m pro-life, but I’m going to take ANY measure that reduces the carnage, step by step. No one is shutting themselves off to “even trying.” It’s comical because the one man pushing mass deportation “owned” (in his words) the Democrats who have created such a mess and have blocked every idea put forth. He donated to Pelosi, Reid, Obama, Hillary, etc., and is now using their failure, that he is part owner of, to bolster himself into the hearts of so-called “true conservatives.”
Personally, I would like to keep America as the country that rejects Middle Eastern-esque policies that include deferring guilt to a person who didn’t commit the crime. Here in America, you can not be a criminal by default, it’s what makes us humane and distinct from evil countries. So yes, “countless innocent children” is the verbiage I’ll stick with. My question involved birth citizenship being tossed down, and the possibility of it being retroactive. We would be pulling English speaking children out of their American kindergarten class, and shipping them to a hellhole they’ve never experienced, a punishment for a crime they never committed. You wish to make a child a criminal upon the moment it draws its first breath, I do not, and I will not.
You can try to pull the RINO card, or tell me that I’m not a conservative. And if that’s your tactic, so be it. However, I sleep well at night knowing that I am far more conservative than Ronald Reagan, and have not hardened my heart towards the realities of pain and suffering, and the impossibilities (which you never addressed, even though I gave you data). I support things that can be done, reasonable change, and research before leaping on or off a bandwagon. Trump’s ideals are not only impossible, they’re shameful for Americans as a whole. I remember joking about Obama’s following and how they sponged up his promises and elected him, the promises were more impossible than giving out free unicorns. Now I’m watching mass deportation supporters do the same.
Also, if being a “conservative” these days includes supporting a man who favors eminent domain, socialized healthcare, progressive tax, Planned Parenthood, bullying dissenters financially, and a vast number of other liberal ideals, you’re right… I’m not one of those.
Marybeth Glenn says: Also, Amnesty would be granting citizenship without them paying for their crime or earning citizenship. Rubio’s plan charges them a fee, and also takes well over a decade for them to meet the requirements. Therefore, by definition, it is not amnesty.
Optimizer says: By your definition, if I knock off a bank and steal $2 million, it’s “not amnesty” if I pay a $1000 fine for breaking-and-entering, keeping the $2M. It’s ridiculous – they get away with their crime, and you say it’s not amnesty!
Marybeth Glenn says: No, they’re not… They’re paying a fee, paying taxes without being eligible for benefits, and spending more time on “probation” than most rapists.
The Optimizer wrote:
You say Rubio ISN’T for amnesty, and THEN add “Rubio merely supports a logical path to citizenship.”? Citizenship IS amnesty, for cryin’ out loud!! Rubio is considered a traitor to conservatism, and you’ve said EXACTLY why, yourself!
And, if there is no “path to citizenship,” just what do you propose we do? We could elect Donald Trump to be an absolute dictator, and we still wouldn’t round up 20 million illegal immigrants and deport them, so there’s no way on God’s earth it could happen with a Congress which might not pass it and a judiciary which will allow every individual prospective deportee his day in court.
Why did Ronald Reagan have an amnesty during the 1980s? Because he knew and we all knew that we weren’t going to round up what was then six million illegal immigrants and deport them. Does anyone seriously believe that we’re going to do that with at least thrice as many now?
Marybeth Glenn says: Sadly, Dana, there are those who believe we can. Just like there were those who believed they’d keep their doctor, and that Benghazi began as a revolt over some obscure YouTube video.
[…] Marybeth Glenn on The Victory Girls: Trump Receives Boos After Calling Marco Rubio “Clown” […]
Eric says: This article helps explain why Trump, in spite of his personality flaws, is still at the top of the polls. He seems to have recognized that politics today isn’t so much Democrat vs Republican as regular folks vs The Elites that run both parties and control practically everything in Washington. “Path to Citizenship” is one of the buzz phrases invented by the elites and pushed on a public that wants none of it.
Marybeth Glenn says: Or it could just mean “Path” (a way beaten, formed, or trodden by the feet of persons or animals), “to” (In a direction toward so as to reach), “Citizenship” (The status of a citizen)…
Whether you want it or not, there are two options: Path to citizenship (various different paths, some good, some bad), or mass deportation. Mass deportation isn’t possible, so the former must be looked at whether people like the words or not. Would “trail towards nationality” be better? We have to get past buzzwords and look at the issues.
Eric says: Right now I am seeing exactly ZERO support for “Path to citizenship” among the American people. The only people pushing it are the political/media elites.
Marybeth Glenn says: No, the people pushing it are those who understand the issue. There’s two answers: pathway to citizenship, or mass deportation. One is impossible, immoral, and the furthest thing from a conservative answer available. That leaves one option with various ways to achieve it. Work to achieve citizenship, or self-deport due to lack of income and benefits.
When it comes to Trump vs. other candidates, it comes down to this question: People will need to decide if they want to keep falling over themselves over a guy selling a unicorn they’ve never seen, or the candidates who offer legitimate means of transportation.
Eric says: “No, the people pushing it are those who understand the issue. ”
Meaning the Inside-The-Beltway Washington elites, who think they are smarter than the rest of us, and who can therefore ignore the rest of us.
I repeat again – there is ZERO support among the American people for these “path to citizenship” schemes. Which means it isn’t going to happen. Even the most pigheaded of Washington insiders isn’t stupid enough to think he can spit in the face of public opinion and not commit political suicide. That’s why Trump, for all his buffoonery, is at 30% in the polls, and Lindsay “Gramnesty” Graham is at less than 1%. The American people have spoken, and amnesty is a dead issue. They don’t want it and that’s that.
29 Comments