>Rubio may have had on his mind what happened just a week earlier, at U.C. Berkeley Well, probably not, given what Rubio actually said: http://www.rubio.senat

>Rubio may have had on his mind what happened just a week earlier, at U.C. Berkeley Well, probably not, given what Rubio actually said: http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-floor-speech-rubio-urges-both-parties-to-show-civility http://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2017/2/senate-f... The context of the speech was regarding the vote to prevent Elizabeth Warren from reading Coretta Scott King's letter opposing Jeff Sessions. >These are the continuing rules of the Senate that have been in existence previous to this time and have carried over into this session, is that correct? >I imagine many people were not excited about the fact that [Hillary Clinton] would be secretary of state, to my recollection, and perhaps I’m incorrect, not a single one of those horrible things that have been written said about her, some of which actually did accuse her of wrongdoing, were ever uttered on the floor of the Senate. I lose track of the ironies here. There's the irony of Rubio lamenting we are "becoming a society incapable of having debate anymore" while in the very process of shutting down debate. There's also the irony of an article with the quote "The less we know about the mind of another, the more we use our own to fill in the blanks", that filled in blanks of Rubio's speech that didn't actually exist.