Yet more projection! These people do nothing but lie. fecking hell. They live in an alternate reality.
The Trump Presidency - Part 2
- Thread starter The Boy
- Start date
Yet more projection! These people do nothing but lie. fecking hell. They live in an alternate reality.
Which is a pointless metric because he's a sell out whose just having to parrot the MAGA line.
Anyone who works for Trump has to adopt his narrative, even if they disagree with it. Based on his long record of earlier statements (which are a pretty good indicator of how he truly feels across the board), its fairly clear Rubio is only towing the line to sustain his job. I wouldn't be surprised that behind the scenes, he is quietly working to mitigate some of Trump's policies such as on Ukraine, NATO, Canada, Mexico, Panama and elsewhere. Same can be said of Mike Waltz. Neither of these guys were viewed as maga surrogates before Trump took office.
Last edited:
So just another worthless career politician.
That would be more concise, yes.
Sellout, bending his own beliefs to be Secretary of State. But not incompetent.
He was Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Intelligence Commitee, Foreign Affairs Commitee, as well as multiple Military appropriations committees.
You having that opinion from working there doesn’t make it true though.
Competence is not enough to be a good politician.
What bizarre thing to say, it's a judgement call, or an opinion, that seems to infer that is a logic fallacy:
A) Being a successful politician (whatever this means, it's very subjective - and cannot be easily proven logically but I will refute it). Therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that "successful politician" > competence and cite examples that prove and provide examples when of "successful in politics" was more important than competence. Also, "successful in politics" implies that the value is a constant. E.G. the premise you provide, and I must now refute , is that I contend that "success in politics" is solely and largely based on perception and opinion at a point in time - and therefore not reliable as perceptions and opinions shift over time as more information is gathered. My proof and examples given: "Was Abraham Lincoln considered successful at politics when he chose to liberate the slaves and risk civil war, or did perceptions change?", "Was Neville Chamberlain considered a successful politician at the time he conceded Poland to Germany, or did perceptions change?" or a more relevant one, "Was Marco Rubio considered successful politician when he insinuated Donald Trump had a small penis, or will he be considered a more successful politician in the future as a castrated puppet acting in subservience to a madman and desperately trying to curb his worst instincts?" History will tell.
B) Being competent in your role (this is fairly straightforward logically, it means someone has the mental capacity to do their job.). Competence doesn't always mean doing what is right, or making the right decision. It just means you were equipped mentally and with the experience "at the time". Much harder to disprove.
C) Yet your conclusion is A > C. Which is logical fallacy - unless you can disprove it.
Is this a caf meme I missed?
Someone contacted me on linkedin for an interview which I accepted but I'm now seeing his replies to a bunch of political stuff. Some of his response are even racially motivated. He's obviously a trump lover. How do I cancel the interview nicely. I was thinking to reply to him and say feck you trumptard you can take your job and shove it. Too intense or acceptable?
Hegseth Closes Pentagon Office Focused on Future Wars
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/us/politics/pete-hegseth-closes-pentagon-office.html
Eh...
Competent diplomat at work there.
Go for it! Or string him along and waste his time? Don’t turn up to the interview but make up some stupid convoluted story, try and get him to rearrange as many times as possible, etc.
A case that Rubio proudly said he personally got involved with. He's a pos, no reason to pretend he's a good person or politician.
I didn't read all that, but what did you mean?
by definition someone is competent at a profession they can be good at it
Can we stop pretending these things are real? How much more bs about 'oh he/she will change once in power' or the famous 'pivot will happen'. Trump is ruthless, doesn't take criticism he picks people that share his vision to work with him, Rubio is just another MAGA clown.
Yeah I'm sure he knows what he's doing (I never mentioned competency), doesn't mean he's good at it though . Just makes it all the worse that he's doubling down on all the rubbish Trump has been spouting, whether he believes in it, or whether he's pretending, doesn't change they are both are pretty bad positions to take.
Rubio has never been MAGA. See all his policy positions and criticisms of Trump from 2015 to 2024(ish). They are all "normal" Republican positions that were popular before Trump arrived. He only started parroting Trump's narrative when the Secretary of State job came into play.
Yeah 'never been' are the key words here. Current evidence clearly shows he's fully on board the MAGA train at this moment.
He's on board with Trump's narrative because its a prerequisite of keeping his job. If he actually believed in MAGA positions like tariffs, being anti-Ukraine, disassembling the "administrative state", etc., he would've been consistently talking about and promoting them throughout the preceding decade. The fact that he hasn't suggests he's only doing it out of necessity to retain his employment.
I keep reading about how TSLA stocks have plunged but when I look it up on google, it looks like the stock is doing better now than 6 months ago. So long term investors are not taking a hit and it’s not “plunging”. What am I missing?
Are you aware that the reason US are even still in NATO, that the Defense Budget still needs to go through congressional approval, that military deployments cannot be unilaterally terminated by the "Commander in Chief", is practically because Rubio spent most of 2024 bulletproofing USA's geopolitical positions in anticipation for a Trump presidency and did his absolute best to provide a bulletproof baseline that even the President cannot overcome?
National Defense authorization Act amendments were all Rubio. He even added legislation that it would take an overwhelming supermajority in both houses to revoke the legislation.
Trump cannot abandon Europe entirely (atleast without creating a constitutional crisis) or NATO because of Rubios' work in 2023-2024.
Screams of MAGA doesn't it?
The stock is down 35% since the beginning of the year, and if you checked two days ago, it would've been down below where it was six months ago, as well as lower than where it was on election day in November. Its always behaved irrationally based more off of Musk's public comments than the actual fundamentals of Tesla's value. Now that Musk has become deeply unpopular, his promises of big things to come have largely fallen on deaf ears by the market. This suggests more downside than up in the long term.
With the possible exception of RFK, he's about the most un-MAGA department head Trump has appointed. A neocon who casts himself as a Reagan Republican, which in GOP parlance is about as far from maga as one can get.
Yep.
He's also perceived incredibly positively in Ukraine, as he was the main point of contact for the first few months of the war between USA/Ukraine when it came to aid and intelligence.
Obviously recent matters has dented his reputation somewhat, but prior to Trump's election win he was regarded almost as a hero.
Hardly matters what Rubio sees himself as, or what his history is, if he is just going to do whatever Trump tells him to.
This is also true. But my cope right now is that he is able to stem the madness somewhat. The resumption of Intelligence and Military aid to Ukraine a few days ago is a big win for him in this regard.
Hope your cope is right. Afraid I doubt it at the moment.
Will say, Rubio posting Russian Troop movements on Twitter a few hours before their invasion and then posting real-time Russian attack locations and statuses before any OSINT or official communications from either Russia/Ukraine when the war began was a mental few hours.
Unfortunately there is no time machine we can back in. As I said to Raoul above it doesn't matter about his past, he's adopted MAGA now, where it truly matters.
Edit: wanted to know more about your assertions about Rubio as honestly I want to understand more about it, so spoke to my good friend chatgpt,
Your assertion that Senator Marco Rubio played a pivotal role in strengthening the United States' commitments to NATO is accurate. In 2023, Rubio co-sponsored a bipartisan amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) alongside Senator Tim Kaine. This amendment mandates that any decision by a U.S. president to withdraw from NATO requires the approval of two-thirds of the Senate or an act of Congress, thereby preventing unilateral presidential action in this regard.
However, the claim that Rubio was solely responsible for amendments to the NDAA requiring an overwhelming supermajority in both houses to revoke legislation is not substantiated by available information. While the NATO withdrawal provision does necessitate a two-thirds Senate majority, there is no clear evidence that Rubio independently introduced amendments imposing such stringent requirements across all defense policies. Legislative processes typically involve collaboration among multiple lawmakers, and attributing comprehensive defense policy amendments to a single individual would not accurately reflect the collective nature of congressional actions.
Additionally, the assertion that military deployments cannot be unilaterally terminated by the President is not entirely accurate. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, possesses significant authority over military operations, including the deployment and withdrawal of troops. While Congress holds the power to declare war and control defense funding, the President retains considerable discretion in operational military decisions.
In summary, while Senator Rubio has significantly influenced specific aspects of U.S. defense policy, particularly concerning NATO, the broader claims about his unilateral imposition of supermajority requirements for revoking defense legislation and limitations on presidential authority over military deployments are not fully supported by available evidence.
However, the claim that Rubio was solely responsible for amendments to the NDAA requiring an overwhelming supermajority in both houses to revoke legislation is not substantiated by available information. While the NATO withdrawal provision does necessitate a two-thirds Senate majority, there is no clear evidence that Rubio independently introduced amendments imposing such stringent requirements across all defense policies. Legislative processes typically involve collaboration among multiple lawmakers, and attributing comprehensive defense policy amendments to a single individual would not accurately reflect the collective nature of congressional actions.
Additionally, the assertion that military deployments cannot be unilaterally terminated by the President is not entirely accurate. The President, as Commander-in-Chief, possesses significant authority over military operations, including the deployment and withdrawal of troops. While Congress holds the power to declare war and control defense funding, the President retains considerable discretion in operational military decisions.
In summary, while Senator Rubio has significantly influenced specific aspects of U.S. defense policy, particularly concerning NATO, the broader claims about his unilateral imposition of supermajority requirements for revoking defense legislation and limitations on presidential authority over military deployments are not fully supported by available evidence.
Last edited:
It was a topic of discussion in the Ukraine invasion thread at the time. Clearly, he was doing it for a reason.
https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/02/marco-rubio-tweeting-russia-ukraine-war-00012951
I mean a good politician, in my view, needs to be more than competent. They need to have ideas, decent morals, care about the people who gave them power and respect the promises they made to those people. If they don't do these things but are very good at fundraising and behind the curtain moves, they can be very competent and successful in their profession, but I wouldn't call them good politicians.
Look, Rubio is the 3rd or 4th prominent official in the "MAGA" government but that does NOT mean he is MAGA. He's just a normal republican who wants to do regime change in Venezuela, start a war with Iran, destroy the social safety net, ban abortion and make gay marriage illegal. That's NOT MAGA. He's only doing all these MAGA things (that he agrees with) because he wants to advance his own career and power. Also I worked for him and he's a smart cool guy and we are actually friends.
You've literally just described the holistic policies that Neo-cons and Tea Party guys have all agreed with since before Obama was elected...
What differentiates MAGA is their mental geopolitical positions, nonsensical 1840's trade policies and nonsensical domestic economic policies.
Great and you worked for him!
No, I was involved on a fact-finding/consulting project with the DoD and his office was taking point on it.