Summary
Secretary of State Marco Rubio grew visibly frustrated during an ABC News interview when questioned about the Trump administration’s approach to Russia.
Defending Trump’s push for peace talks with Putin, Rubio insisted negotiations were necessary but admitted the administration didn’t know Russia’s demands.
He clashed with host George Stephanopoulos over Trump’s refusal to call Putin a dictator and the U.S. siding with Russia in a recent UN vote.
Rubio also compared Trump’s handling of Ukraine to Biden’s approach to Israel, further escalating tensions.
Rubio also compared Trump’s handling of Ukraine to Biden’s approach to Israel, further escalating tensions.
Well… that’s not too far off
So Trump’s going to give Ukraine all the weapons that they want?
His handling of Ukraine is like his handling of Gaza, so he’ll be giving Russia all the weapons they want.
Listening to this guy reminded me of Thank You for Smoking, which is a dark comedy of a tobacco industry spokes person trying to make smoking cool and acceptable again. So much bullshit, so little substance. Marco, we’ve all seen your face during the meeting, bullshitting like this won’t save it.
The U.S. isn’t placating Putin. The Republican party is. Because they’re traitors.
I guess if you don’t want the world to think trump isn’t sucking putins dick every chance he gets then i guess he should just stop sucking putins dick every chance he gets.
This guy sucking putin’s asshole says what?
Compare the way he talks about Putin with the way he talks about Zelenskyy.
With Putin, we have to see what he wants, we have to try to work with him and understand his position, we can’t do anything that might make him uncomfortable so he doesn’t decide he doesn’t want to talk to us, and his broken agreements are in the past while we need to be moving forward.
On the other hand, he repeatedly states that they’ve “explained this” to Ukraine, that we can’t discuss what they want or what their concerns are, we need to focus on getting peace first, and Zelenskyy is at fault because was disrespectful which apparently we can’t ignore for the sake of peace the way we can ignore a history of Putin violating peace deals.
If they actually meant what they are saying and this was all about diplomacy and achieving peace, they wouldn’t be picking a fight with Ukraine, they wouldn’t be publicly undermining them and trying to coerce them, and they wouldn’t be refusing to acknowledge any of their concerns. These motherfuckers think that it’s a good look for them to be throwing a tantrum about the way Zelenskyy dresses and getting pissy about him not being thankful enough for the way they are so generously pursuing a peace that carves up Ukraine and comes without security of any kind. That’s the way they want to spin this. Because apparently they think acting like thrid grade bullies who try to pick on the smaller kids is admirable, that people will see it and think they look smart and tough.
The only thing I even find remotely believable in this interview is Rubio’s mantra of “I don’t understand.” Just in general I think it’s pretty clear that there’s a hell of a lot he doesn’t understand. Things like human decency, geopolitics, basic negotiation tactics, parables about riding tigers and giving rides to scorpions, But I think he probably does understand that his position is pure bullshit and that his only job here is to try and tow the line while defending the indefensible. That’s why he got so panicked when a tweet from a fellow republican came up, because his strategy was to avoid details and try to frame the backlash as partisan politics, so he can’t really respond to Republican criticism.
The Republicans are making a real effort to convince themselves that we’re now at war with Eastasia. But it doesn’t seem to work too good: however much they’re trying to integrate the newthink, their brains are working against decades of anti-Soviet and anti-Russian indoctrination.
It’s really painful and embarassing to watch them try to reprogram their own brains to please their cult leader…
No, TRUmp is placating Putin. He’s got to be a Russian asset.
Stopping any cyber offense/defense towards russia is just straight up treasonous at this point.
Obviously, the US should hack the Kremlin, but if Russia hacks the Pentagon, I will be very mad!!
I am very smart.
Russia has been a constant cybersecurity threat against the other superpowers since the internet has been a thing…
Stop projecting…
And hacking them back solves that? No.
Wow, you’re a genius of counter intelligence it seems.
Please educate us with your vast knowledge!
I did say I was very smart.
Placating? More like deep throating. The US is gluckglucking Russia and liking it.
Why can’t we have a woman president? They’re too emotional for politics?
Also: the emotional melt down is a tactic. This is populism trump style, none of this is unintentional
Just to be fair: Only women can be elected president for the next 47 presidents.
Can we write s sanity test into the Constitution?
Or maybe we don’t vest so much power into a single psychotic ape. Maybe we have three presidents and they all have to agree before something happens, like the computers on the space shuttle
A triumvirate?
Just a speed bump on the way to a dictatorship.
Okay how about everyone votes on everything? That actually sounds awesome.
It sounds awesome until you remember that we can barely get half our population to vote for president most of the time and that the average voter is uninformed and poorly educated.
And it would be neigh impossible to manage in a very large nation with a large populace.
I’m fine with that, as long as a sanity test gets written into the Constitution. I believe it should apply to all reps. But then if they change the definition of sanity… I don’t know what the best way forward is, but it’s surely not regression.
Counterpoint: Fetterman.
Dude had a stroke and stuck his tongue up Trump’s asshole. Even if they pass the sanity test they could have some kind of traumatic brain injury that makes them jerks.
Plus I consider all humans to be psychotic apes who I wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw them. Including myself.
Fetterman was a plant. Someone posted an article about how he actually governed before he was a national level leader.
Plus I consider all humans to be psychotic apes who I wouldn’t trust as far as I can throw them. Including myself.
Fair point, and thanks for reminding me! The people who don’t want it are probably the people most capable and worthy. I look forward to your filing as a candidate! 😀
Don’t hurt me please. I’m only half serious, but it’s exactly people with this attitude who should probably be on the ballot.
The people who don’t want it are probably the people most capable and worthy. I look forward to your filing as a candidate! 😀
This comment made me realize I have a religious obligation to run for office. And then if I win to not do the job at all.
The major problem, one of the major problems, for there are several, with governing people is that of who you get to do it. Or, rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them. To summarize: It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made president should on no account be allowed to do the job.
To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem.
- Douglas Adams
We currently have a woman president. Trump signed an EO saying that all Americans are female so he’s the first woman president.
Did you watch the video? He never had a melt down. He was frustrated but overall kept his cool and spouted the lies he was supposed to say.
I saw a lot of hemming and hawing, stalling, spewing bullshit, and talking over Stephanopoulos.
Not the behavior of someone “keeping his cool.”
As a European, only the complete collapse of the Russian federation in an acceptable outcome.
What would be the best way for that to happen? More specifically, how can we pull this off safely?
We have very little historical precedent to go on. The USSR collapsed in 1991. There was some nervousness around what was going to happen with all their nukes. Ultimately, we ended up with Russia, led by Putin.
How would we stop Putin from triggering nuclear retaliation?
If we stop that, how do we make sure some other oligarch doesn’t immediately take his place?
If Russia were to completely collapse, what would happen to Russia? Would we be willing to let China take over? If not would we be willing to maintain an indefinite occupation of Russia?There may be good answers to all of these questions. It seems the more practical solution is to contain Russia. Do you think the EU would be ready to adopt a constitution if it came up again?
Russian federal subjects would semi-autonomously be their own countries. Falling under supervision of the UN and neighbouring countries
But that is on the US and China agreeing to it when currently both are against that
It does give China potentially direct control over some resources they would want but they already can get those without weakening their position
I can see why this would be a good outcome for Europe.
It essentially turns Russia into a puppet state. If we were to eliminate China and the US, that would make Russia Europe’s puppet state. While it has some obvious advantages to Europe, it’s clearly not in the interest of either Putin or Russia (the most pessimistic estimates put his approval rating at over 60% among Russians).
Since it’s obviously not to their advantage they won’t agree to it. That means someone would have to force them to accept that new status quo. The US just dropped all support and China has made it pretty clear that they’re not going to participate in any operation like that either.
So that leaves the EU. I’ll circle back to my earlier question. Do you think the EU is ready to adopt and ratify a constitution if it came up again? Absent that, do you think the EU can put together a military coalition that’s big enough and permanent enough to induce an immediate surrender by Russia? If not, do you think that the EU is willing and able to wage a protracted direct war against Russia?
Suppose there’s a cockroach colony in a residential building. Separating it into few parts is not going to do much good. If you mean that by collapse - same elites retaining power - then it’s just not good enough.
And if you mean removing them, rich natural resources have proven to be good for those who have them and bad for those who don’t, so no.
Turning it into a real federation or even confederation - yes. Like Germany.
I mean the russian people doing to Putin and the oligarchs what the Libyans did to Gaddafi.
Rubio also compared Trump’s handling of Ukraine to Biden’s approach to Israel, further escalating tensions.
Distracting from Trump’s servile position towards the fascists in control of present day Russia by using the favorite logical fallacy of the USSR, whataboutism, is either highly ironic or very on the nose depending on which axis of the political compass you choose to focus on…
the administration didn’t know Russia’s demands.
Liar
“What is wrong with being a peacemaker?” When the bully punches you dont ask him what he wants just punch him back you pussy.
The problem is that most people handling this current situation through the lens of classic geopolitics
This is not classic geopolitics. This is the ultra wealthy enacting their plan to create a global plutocracy. A ruling class of only the most wealthy in the world.
They believe that their plans are more easily achieved with a Russian empire than with a free Ukraine.
Ask people like Rubio questions using that as the basis, not classic geopolitics.
Yes, yes, a billion times yes.
To me, the fundamental problem - the primary reason that it seems so difficult to deal with Trump - is that so many politicians and analysts and commentators are still spproaching issues as if the old rules are still in place, and they quite simply aren’t.
Every time that another analysis or editorial appears that discusses the “failures” of the Trump administration, since their policies will undermine the original goals of the agency/programs in question, it’s ultimately just meaningless noise, since it starts with the patently false presumption that the original goals still count. They don’t.
The Trump administration isn’t failing to achieve traditional goals - it’s succeeding in achieving an entirely new and different set of goals. And there isn’t going to be any meaningful commentary until it focuses on those new goals.
Just because Trump has different motivations doesn’t mean that’s the correct framing for questions. Questions and accusations are more for the audience than trying to get Trump to reconsider why he’s doing something, and at least currently that bias toward “how things were supposed to work” still exists in the general public.
Questions and accusations are more for the audience than trying to get Trump to reconsider why he’s doing something
I’m fully aware of that (and the notion tgat Trump would ever reconsider anything is foolish on its face). And it’s for the audience that the politicians and analysts and commentators need to change the context of their analyses.
and at least currently that bias toward “how things were supposed to work” still exists in the general public.
And that’s a lot of the problem. The people need to be smacked upside the head with the two-by-four of truth.
Putin wrote the book on this and it’s playing out page by page.
Putin is one of the most wealthy people on the planet
And yet when he was recalled to Moscow after the fall of the Berlin Wall he brought back a washing machine because he couldn’t get one back home.
Dude started at the bottom and now he’s here. Game recognize game.
Is there an estimate of liquid net worth? I’m curious.
It’s difficult to estimate because of how much of it is hidden through shell corporations, offshore accounts, or simply under other people’s names.
Putin also has incredibly expensive homes, yachts, etc, they’re just under a different entities’ name
