'Cowardice and cruelty': Rubio slammed for 'huge mistake that will dismantle US influence - Alternet.org
By: David Badash (Alternet. org)
Rubio will be yet another person whose career will be ruined by his blind loyalty to Trump.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Sen. Marco Rubio in Las Vegas in 2016 (Gage Skidmore) David BadashMarch 10, 2025World
After enduring days of harsh headlines and relentless ridicule, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to his personal social media account at 4:55 AM on Monday to announce the official, sweeping cancellation of the vast majority of U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) contracts—igniting a firestorm of outrage and backlash.
Claiming a "6 week review" had been conducted, Secretary Rubio announced, "we are officially cancelling 83% of the programs at USAID."
"The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States," Rubio alleged, not defining what those core interests are. "In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18% of programs we are keeping (approximately 1000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department. Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform."
The Bulwark's Sam Stein noted Secretary Rubio's announcement "was news to state officials who were told LAST WEEK they'd have until this Wednesday to submit forms for the review process."
Last week had already been a bad week for Secretary Rubio. A high-profile cabinet meeting fight with Elon Musk dominated headlines for days, leading to a Saturday Night Live skit mocking him and Elon Musk. Rubio is also being hammered with his own eloquent 2016 speech, for switching support from Ukraine to Russia. And he is being mocked for ignoring his own speech on why Ukraine gave up its nuclear arsenal.
The bad news did not stop there.
After his pre-dawn tweet, CNN's KFile published a report on Rubio's acting Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, "one of Trump's most senior State Department appointees," that exposed "deleted tweets spreading unfounded rumors that Rubio attended gay foam parties and calling him 'low IQ.'"
Meanwhile, backlash is growing from Rubio's announcement that USAID is being dismantled.
"Huge mistake," declared Michael McFaul, former U.S. Ambassador to Russia, now a Stanford University professor. "We needed reform of USAID not dismantlement. China is not ending is foreign assistance programs. In an age of great power competition, the Trump administration is unilaterally destroying one of our best instruments of soft power influence."
Dr. Norman Ornstein, a highly regarded political scientist, wrote: "I cannot believe that you were once viewed as a hero in the development and diplomacy community. Little Marco is not accurate enough for your cowardice and cruelty. Selling your soul and the lives of thousands or millions to bow down to Trump and have a Cabinet post. Disgraceful."
Let month, Ambassador McFaul had written, "In 2012, when I was the US ambassador to Russia, Putin shut down USAID inside Russia. Why? Because their work supported free markets, democracy, human rights —ie causes that threatened Putins dictatorship. Shutting down USAID is exactly what autocrats all over the world want."
An Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, Fred Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School. He is now a political consultant and the host of the podcast "On Democracy."
"You are disgusting. 6 weeks. Millions will suffer because you're a coward. China will step in because you want Trump to give you power. What a small pathetic man," Wellman charged.
But he did not stop there.
He pointed to a ProPublica report from last week titled, "Internal Memos: Senior USAID Leaders Warned Trump Appointees of Hundreds of Thousands of Deaths From Closing Agency."
"One million children will go untreated for severe malnutrition," the report reads, "up to 166,000 people will die from malaria and 200,000 more children will be paralyzed by polio over the next decade, the memos estimated. The programs were cut anyway."
"This is your legacy, Little Marco," Wellman angrily declared. "Hundreds of thousands of deaths." And in strong language Wellman attacked Rubio for apparent hypocrisy over his habit of posting biblical passages to social media, while accusing him of being a "fascist."
Journalist Kevin Baron, the founding executive editor of Defense One, wrote: "In just 6 weeks they determined the worthiness of every USAID program? Ridiculous claim. When we investigated 4-years of USAID spending from 2001-2004, we had 55,000 rows of expenditures to sift through, from AIDS drugs to embassy curtains."
Joey Politano, who writes about economics at Apricitas, offered some stark facts.
"Impossible for cuts this deep to not have incredibly devastating effects on global well-being—in 2024, ~28% of 2024 USAID spending was emergency response distribution of food & medicine alone, another ~15% was HIV/AIDS prevention work, and another ~6% was TB/Malaria/Ebola control," Politano said.
"USAID's programming is so massive and so diverse that it's almost impossible to understand the immense ramifications of these cuts," observed former CIA political analyst Michael Shurkin. "But little if any negative effects are or will be visible to most Americans, who will shrug their shoulders and say, 'good job!'"
National security and civil liberties journalist Marcy Wheeler accused Secretary Rubio of "defunding support for Christian minorities overseas."
Tim Hirschel-Burns, a policy liaison for the Global Economic Governance Initiative at the Boston University Global Development Policy Center noted: "The most important thing here is how many people are suffering unnecessarily, but remember this is also an insanely clear violation of the separation of powers. If the executive can get rid of 83% of something Congress appropriated, Congress doesn't control the budget anymore."
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
While I do not wish bad for Rubio, he is bringing this on himself:
Trump does not care about you, Marco. You are a just a tool to him that he will discard without hesitation.
It will be alright after all. If the United States wants the world to accept that it can no longer lead (the burden is too much for the shoulders of the United States), then along with the position of number One goes the prestige of number One.
The United States will be properly and promptly lowered in status (and a little less 'shiny' and feeling battle-weary on the hillside) and esteem. The world will be compelled to move on - taking away its glory and favor. . . and the great wealth and interest of other nations and kingdoms will pass to another accomplished nation. Such is the fate of the 'Fallen.'
On another note, the United States will learn that its "money can not buy happiness." It's one of the oldest tropes there is.
What will happen is the United States will first have to pay off its debts, lick its 'wounds,' deal with its newly discovered enemies and frenemies, contend with the perception of "kingdom" isolationism, and ultimately comprehend that if anyone, or nation has something worthy of possessing. . . the world will ceaselessly strive to get and take it away. That is, 'perfect' wealth captures and holds its possessors in a vice grip.
You are exactly correct!!!! We can not borrow money and turn around and give it out to other people. The INTEREST on our debt is our THIRD biggest expenditure, don't you understand that. We can't tax the rich enough to make that up, we must cut spending and reduce the size of our government or we will not have a country!
There are ways to properly deal with this. If the USA wants to stop with aid it should do so gradually. Stopping aid abruptly to people who depend upon it to survive is obviously NOT the way to go. Phased withdrawal giving opportunities for others to find alternatives is at least somewhat responsible.
You get that, right?
Goose that is a great point and TiG's 1.1.2 is excellent in reply. The problem/s arrive in a president who is willing to be austere and abrupt with other people and their children (and their politics) while doting and lavish on his 'own.' The issue dealt with properly would take at the least several years of adjusting 'downward' in order to give this nation and the world time to do the same (and put other means in place for prevention and self-protection).
No one should just applause Trump for coming in and pulling the rug out from under the nation and the world. (If it was going to be that easy; it could have been done a very long time ago without much ruin as it happening and about to occur.)
Congress has the power of the purse. Let them get off their wide butts and act like officials elected to SERVE the people-the people-the people, and not just one man with a vision to rule over all things he can see. Congress has the duties and responsibilities and they should be ORDERED to live up to their 'billing.'
And oh by the way, Trump is a SERVANT too in the larger scheme of our government; not this nation's 'BOSS.'
I don't think people who actually need it will be denied IMO. The problem is we don't have time, we are approaching a point of no return with our national debt. Every President kicks the can down the road, it needs to stop, our debt has gone crazy since 2008.
The problems are being delt with immediately, we don't have several years, did you not catch that the INTEREST on the debt is our third biggest expenditure, you really need to think about that. They are eliminating the ridiculous spending that should have never taken place to begin with. They will eliminate the grift that has been taking place with our tax dollars. People will be affected but, hopefully not for long.
Trump is a SERVANT too in the larger scheme of our government; not this nation's 'BOSS.'
He was elected to fix this mess, he is the President, he has certain powers given to him by the constitution. If you elect to call him something else go for it.
Our national debt is crazy, no doubt about it. But there are two key factors to consider:
The biggest expenditures are Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. This is about 45% of the budget. Then we have interest on the debt consuming another 10.7%.
Next we have Defense consuming another 18.3%.
The balance consumes the remaining 26%.
Factor 1:
The supermajority of our expenses are in areas that we cannot realistically cut. The solution is to make the government operations more efficient and to minimize fraud and abuse. This, however, requires hard work and takes time. Musk's DOGE claims it is doing this but it is not. It is doing a hatchet job with unintended consequences (some emerging immediately, the balance emerging within months). Cutting programs like USAID will have some positive effect on spending, but its total budget of $40B is a tiny portion (0.65%) of federal spending.
To wit, the key to cutting costs is to make the federal government more efficient. Trimming unnecessary programs is correct (if they are truly unnecessary) but that is not going to make much of a difference.
Factor 2:
As soon as money is available, our irresponsible Congresses have spent it. I do not see how this Congress is any different. Money saved will almost certainly be spent (and tax cuts is very likely). So what have we accomplished with all these cuts? Well if the cuts really were done right (Factor 1) we have made government more efficient. If not (most likely) we have made government more dysfunctional.
Here is what I think we should be doing. We should have continuous improvement in the federal government. This is a managed program which continually supports initiatives which identify inefficient / obsolete processes and re-engineers them to do only what is needed and to do so with modern technology. Layoffs / hiring / training / redeployment in personnel then are a function of the re-engineered processes. This is something that takes place in phases, gradually, and in a manner that does not introduce chaos in operations.
That will do some good.
The second part now is growth. The USA need to continue to grow its GDP. That means we should be investing in areas that accomplish that. Infrastructure is a key are. AI is another. In all, the USA should be THE primary supplier of energy technology and energy to the planet. We should also be THE primary supplier of AI functionality and technology for the planet. These are strong suits for the USA and something we clearly are capable of accomplishing.
We are not going to solve our National Debt by merely cutting costs. We need to grow and that means we need wise, strategic thinking leadership. We have, instead, a buffoon.
That is like saying my appetite is not optional when one is going blind from diabetes. The entitlements need fixing. Only democrats can do it.
Trump says his plans will make America wealthy again.
Wealthy for who? Will we have universal health care? Will workers wages rise enough? (Capitalism actually doesnt allow that). Or will the rich get richer?
When Trump says we will be wealthy I dont think he's talking about the average person.
Do we cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid? Defense? Do we stop paying interest on our debt?:
Don't just make vague quips, make a clear statement. What do you recommend?
By all means, enjoy the parity in pre or anti-capitalist societies. You'll have just as much dirt to eat as your neighbor. But that's what matters to socialists. It's not what they have, its ensuring their neighbor doesn't have more than them. A socialist would rather both starve than one eat ground beef and one eat filet mignon.
Capitalism has made the poor americans richer than pre-capitalist kings. You have better possessions, better health care and easier travel than the Rockefellers did 100 years ago. The idea that capitalism oppresses people is the dumbest, most ahistorical argument anyone can make.
He might be; he has been known to lie on occasion.
Trump is a public SERVANT. It is evident that in his mind he serves no one more that his self-interests at any given point and time. It is evident that he is fulfilling a one-sided 'wish-list' for his conservative constituents and leaving the "other" or rest of his proper constituency (as president) 'wanting.'
So no, the country can't work that or 'his' way. His priorities can not be our priorities because we are not part or even partial to the development of the solution. You might state that it takes too long to get a consensus from the involved parties, groups, and even a majority of the states. . . to which I will tell you that any solution that is not favorable to the right mixture of states is doomed to fail or being reversed in some significant way through varying forms of political backlash.
And I do not agree to spending that favors conservative nepotism (like Musk's Starlink being granted control over our FAA system without proper vetting of the resource). This country interests are not any kind of property of any one man or for that matter one president/cy.
So, Democrats are responsible for going out and slapping the food assistance, SNAP and welfare out of the mouths of poor white conservatives? You know any elderly Republican is allowed to shred their social security checks if they want to, they can refuse Medicare as well, but some might think they're entitled to those benefits.
They are not optional but, that doesn't mean they can't be audited for accuracy. Musk will find the obvious savings in a short period of time and the rest as the audit progresses. As you said the system needs to be updated to reduce the amount of variables present to reduce the chance of fraud. As for USAID the whole system should be scraped and add back the necessary programs through the Secretary of State that will help the United States. In the big picture the amount of aid we provide does little to solve world problems.
Yeah, that has to stop, period end of story. Any member of congress be it Republican or Democrat has to be onboard with reducing the size of government or they should be primaried. Currently looks like the Democrats are squealing.
This I disagree with you on, it needs to be done immediately while they have the momentum, or it will never get done. I keep hearing the cuts don't amount to anything compared to the debt but, you keep adding to those cuts and they will become significant.
He is the only President to tackle this problem, support what he's doing, even if you don't like the person.
Tell me how Democrats are getting hurt by cutting USAID? Tell me how Democrats are getting hurt auditing the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid? Tell me how Democrats are getting hurt by eliminating DEI policies? Tell me how Democrats are getting hurt by banning males competing against females in sports? Tell me how Democrats are getting hurt by removing criminal illegal aliens from the United States?
Which is part of what I described in my comment.
On what do you base this?
How?
It cannot be done immediately. To do this properly takes time. And large scale changes are disruptive so they need to be done in a managed fashion. That means over time.
He is doing it wrong. While I am in great favor of cutting waste, I am against screwing things up in the process. Trump and Musk want immediate wins they can brag about. They do not care if the results are harmful ... they only care about spinning and taking credit.
The private sector needs 'fixing' too. Driving up private sector pricing to '$ash-in' on taxpayer dollars issued by government programs intended to aid and 'right' the imbalances built-in and driven by the private sector and unethical business practices such as pervasive exclusion and other schemes strives against and oftentimes 'defeat' the spirit of the government action by laying it 'low.'
BTW, anybody can understand why MAGAs want "entitlement programs" shut down. The real issue is why the same set of people won't do anything SUBSTANTIAL to 'fix' or make the private sector more of a "win-win" for all this nation's citizens. . . that way it would not fall to the state or federal systems to take up the slack. Stop "slacking" private sector spend to right the financial 'ship' and some if not all the "entitlement" programs may just fall out of need or a "client-base."
There will always be a need for a "safety-net" in this country if the playing field is skewered to benefit one group or type of people over and against another group of citizens. It just is.
He's not. Oftentimes, these days, I am reminded about something I believe it was Rachel Maddow and some others were sharing about Putin and how he keeps his hierarchical political structure in place through the use of well-placed billionaires and millionaire whom he lavishes Russia's state wealth upon for their loyalty-as only one of his favors used to control them.
The effective and dangerous issue with that kind of conduct (above) is the rule of law falls to second or third in ranking, as everybody in the country becomes a 'vassal' to their wealthy "patron." Whom they must dedicate their will to.
I kid you not: Trump knows precisely what he is up to with his "King Trump" image gaffe which was not a laughing matter then, and certainly is not funny right now.
Goose, USAID is aid which softens and influences hearts and minds. We all get hurt if we can't persuade people to trust us. Letting people 'down' and doing so dispassionately or with intentional or unintentional malice heartens hearts. Letting them down heedlessly can incite people to get even when and where they can. Just imagine the people dependent on aid that will not get it. . . and accordingly die. It will strike many as a death or deaths that did not need to occur in the manner it happens. What comes out of 'that' in each situation can be an instance of revenge or "omission" to help us where possible.
The remainder of your comment is too. . .'busy' to bother with the 'hurt' is obvious as we have been discussion those matter throughout the last several years in one discussion or another.
That is the problem: The people - there lives and their "arrangements" are in tatters or will be soon enough. The blatant dismissals by blankety lying that work is 'out there' (somewhere: Go 'fetch' it for yourself). The loss of reputation. The discounting. The demonizations. Arbitrarily being 'discarded' in humiliating fashion.
It's inhuman treatment. It has no. . . 'Closure.'
The fact is the federal government has-had quality control systems for people and the work they do. It was in the form of directives, policies, and guidelines. All of that was unceremoniously 'ripped out of the book' by Musk demonstratively using a chainsaw as a metaphor for his removal of 'oversized' beaucracy.
The federal government deals with more citizen issues than any private sector company can produce product services for (because we all need something from the federal government over the course of our lifetimes. . . very few of us have ever needed to contact a Musk company or a Trump holding for anything since being put here on the planet.)
Lives are involved in all of these cuts. And these citizens will remember and vote their 'truth' in elections until the day they can not any longer.
I don't see a point in debating USAID any longer it appears they have shown what a scam it was.
USAID employees told to burn or shred classified documents
"RECIPROCATION 2026! Life a phoenix rising. . . the restructuring (built back better) will begin. Maybe even sooner; judges are still not sure that Trump is Entitled to manage hiring and firing across the board without some justifications for such actions.
The flip side of that is Judges are in charge of hiring and firing.
That comment is just being flippant for its own sake. It would be a better use of this space to make a significant point about the critical decisions judges are being asked to consider.
Judges are taking critical decisions out of the Presidents hands unless you think Judges should control the Executive Branch, federal employees have a process to appeal their removal and it's not the court system.
Employee Rights & Appeals
When the OPM director is an indirect source of the adversarial firing process, following the Trump Administration's direction, the court system is an outside source for hearing the matters. Besides, the courts know what standing they have to hear matters and have in some cases sent matters back as not having standing by certain petitioners.
Also, the presidency is part of the "check and balance" system of the federal government. Thus, the office of the presidency is not above the rule of law.
the cuban anchor baby will always have a job waiting for him, as a cabana boy at mar-a-lardo, or a miami rent boy ...
Didn't we fight WW2 to get rid of fascism?
And now we have a fascist president?
What is wrong with this picture?
some republicans lean fascist ...
You can see the moral terrorism at play here. It doesn't matter how much the US gives, nor how many lives saves. To cut back even some turns into anti-american hatred and make us responsible for every death in the world. No other government can apparently even tie their shoes in 2025. If we don't fund piano lessons for lesbians in Chile, people will die.
Why single out Chilean lesbians in politics? What did any Chilean lesbian do to harm you?. . .Simply put this 'shot' is because of. . .lesbianism? Perhaps some CONTEXT for the 'slight' can suffice. Enlighten us, please.
While I am confident that there are plenty of wasteful programs, the idea that 83% of USAID is wasteful is almost certainly not true.
A pre-Trump Marco Rubio would be a very vocal critic of this move.
Tell me how you know this?
Actually, that could be the case. Setting aside your homophobia (I’ll let CB handle your prejudice), Communist dictatorships have long looked on American music as subversive and rebellious. Its infectious rhythms and antiestablishment lyrics can undermine the state’s authority and disrupt popular conformity. That kind of thing is in our national security interest. Chile, in particular, has a long history of Communist influence and dictatorial rule, but spreading American culture has been beneficial all over the world.
Lol. We fund gay groups through USAID . Pointing that out isn't homophobia, though resorting to immediately try and hide behind that card shows how desperate your argument is. It's desperation for moral superiority that makes truth undesirable.
It is the ceaseless damage to the Other which festers in the heart of some people that is uttering and notably disgusting. We can feel possibly even taste the negative energy of these people in the air of our country again! It's corrosive when 'touched,' and toxic for generations. 'Raw' and self-righteous hatred of Others whom only problem is they 'woke up' in this world with a majority of people who can't abide their presence and consideration.
The United States was becoming known for its goodness. . .but the usual mean-spirited, self-righteous, (always) dead to righteousness, and permanently focused on all the wrong interests of this world—folks. . . have risen again to power and influence. . . and are showing us in the 21st century their TRUE COLORS.
So what? BTW, "pointing it out" is not the problem. . . and that is what I meant about not providing CONTEXT. . . since the more immediate impression delivered is this: Rubio 'axed' the aid to (. . . lesbians). But, you have this opening to explain.
Also, tell us: What has any homosexual person done to conservatives? Don't just grandstand on a conservative worldview, defend it. . . already.
If you say so.
You’re not “pointing it out.” Geez, what a dishonest tactic. You’re complaining about it. You’re citing it as a wrong thing because it supports gay persons. I don’t see you worrying about supporting straight people - just gay people. That’s pretty much a textbook example of homophobia.
I’m guessing it’s Rainbow Cooties. But they’re afraid of vaccines, so they can’t get the cootie shot. /s
Well, centuries of religious SUPPRESSION and political REPRESSION is known to release dangerous emotional toxics into the environment. It is sorry and sad that some heterosexuals are so selfish and evil that they think that whatever "Power" they hold to, made a world full of other people, places, and things just so they can have something to subject to infinite rounds of abuse!
Why does that fact bother you so much? We are. That you can't simply admit that simple fact that speaks volumes.
You’re citing it as a wrong thing because it supports gay persons
Again, that's your obsession, not mine. Feel free to change my sentence to " we shouldn't be funding piano lessons for straight people in Chile" if allows you to think rationally.
Thank you proving my point about moral terrorism though. Suggest cutting aid and the immediate response knee jerk is screeching about homophobia and claims that any cut will kill people. It's just cut and paste, unserious hysteria designed to fear monger and shame to avoid actually thinking the issue through.
The question is why are lesbians (or any other group) in Chile entitled to American taxpayer dollars?
It doesn’t bother me. I don’t follow all the things we fund and you supplied no evidence, so I just have to take your word for it. That’s what “if you say so” means. It’s ultimately not even important if it’s true because the rest of the discussion, which proceeds from that, is the important thing.
There’s nothing for me to admit. Hopefully, you understand that now.
Nope. You’re the one who brought it up. It was your example, not mine.
Nope. Again, you brought up lesbians. No one else did that. You didn’t complain about aid. You complained about aid to lesbians specifically.
And now you’re twisting like a bass on a hook trying to deflect from it. I don’t even know why you’re bothered by it. After all, I’m just “pointing it out.” That makes it innocuous, or at least it does when you do it.
If you are homophobic, just own it. I was prepared to set aside your anti-gay prejudice, and I said so, but you keep wanting to talk about it. I wanted to focus on the music lessons.
Why is anybody in this world granted anything, Sean? Give me your answer and I will give you mine.
Who claimed it was an entitlement? It’s more properly thought of a grant, i.e.: a gift. Mostly, it comes from Congress. Congress produces mandates on how aid should be distributed, and allocates the funds. USAID does have some flexibility, and makes requests or recommendations for aid, but I believe the lion’s share of the authority comes from Congress.
Somebody - or many somebodies - in government thought it was a good idea. The program was created under the Kennedy administration, iirc, and it has been used to satisfy various strategic goals ever since.
By the way, foreign aid actually represents about 1% of our budget . And there is lots of oversight. So if you think we’re changing a lot about our budget by slashing programs, we’re not.
Well? Give me your answer and I will give you mine to the 2.3.10 question, please.
Let them play Elvis!
It was probably begun to root out and destroy Communism. JFK hated Communism
... and now we have a closeted commie in the white house.
... kind of like organized religion.
What a specious and disingenuous comment. FAIL.
Let me point out something about conservative morality. . . it is Conservatives who pushed to have "One nation under God" and "In God we Trust." And "God and Country" stamped on the consciences of each generation since the 1940s. Well, understand that it has been scripturally put: 'He that put his hands to the plow. . . should count the cost of what it takes to finish' (Luke 9:62. Jesus replied, “No one who puts a hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” )
Far right wing idiotic lies define the far right.
most trump supporters should have a brass ring thru their septum ...
... or maybe a collar and a leash. a difficult choice ...
Better yet, a poorly tied noose of old rope and a loooooong drop !
I thought piano wire for fascists was customary ... /s
Rubio also found time over the weekend to get in a pointless twitter fight with the foreign minister of Poland. We have been laid low.
Trump has a knack for finding. . . 'lieutenants' to place between him and his self-destruction. It feels uncanny.
There will always be people who will sell their honor for ambition. Trump knows this. So he will fire and hire until he gets the desired level of sycophant behavior. And he has proven that he does not give one shit about their competence ... just their undying fealty to him.
That said, I
havehad no problem with Rubio as SoS. With a responsible PotUS, Rubio might have made a fine SoS.I felt Rubio was not going to stand up to Trump the instance the story came across the wire. I even felt the same about him when some democrats supported him in the Senate. Why? Because Trump had already established his blueprint for a backward looking White-conservative male dominated society and culture. Trump envisions this country standing atop all countries and at the same time keeping specific groupings of people on the 'outside' within the country.
Rubio stamped his ticket when he 'came aboard' the MAGA train, and swore his oath to what conservatives call (their) 'god and country.'
At best Rubio could have thought that he could manage the ambition(s) of Trump, maybe did not understand that Trump's vision knows no limit. . . but in the 'blood-cult' that Trump is running there is no honor between thieves and there is no middle ground left to squeeze behind and just 'toil' quietly. He will do as he is told or be unceremoniously removed (before 'nightfall'). And Trump will smile on 'another' held "in-waiting."
The strangest irony is Rubio and others in the Trump cabinet may feel that they are captives in an multiple years 'episode' of The Apprentice. That is, they are always being 'interviewed' and subjected to fear of being 'Fired!'
I would say that is a very accurate analogy.
This is one of the darkest episodes in American history and will long be remembered as such. Disgraceful, shameful and disgusting. Brought to you by Donald Trump, Elon Musk and MAGA.
"Disgust" is the word that is trending with Trump, Musk, and MAGA over this treatment of the world. The riches they seek to pile up and selectively parse out to the few (we have seen this scenario before in history), will rust and corrode 'in' each of them because it is not good money well-received.
Some writer wrote: 'What does it profit . . . to gain the world and lose the soul?' It will accomplish less than it ought and could. Because at the end of one's days. . ."Riches" will sat at the foot of the sick and dying and proceed to 'play-out' a reminder of all the missed opportunities to give glory to whatever God these folks serve through those whom are helped in this life—but not by "YOU!"
Those people believe that empathy makes us weak. Without empathy humans have no moral code
Indeed, I believe that empathy (both the evolved brain mechanisms/capacity for it and human societal evolution of it) is the root or basis of morality. I think we discussed this in another thread recently.
My wise old Grandmother used to say, "Before you criticize somebody you must walk a mile in his/her shoes. That way you will have a one mile head-start and their shoes."
Your Grandmother was a very wise woman, indeed.
I have been amazed to see that more and more people on the far right are openly proclaiming that empathy is not just weakness, but actually evil, sinful, and against God.
The people who pray with Trump, maybe?
Who pray with Trump or who prey with Trump?
Good point.
What they have done is taken a long, longer, longest 'look' at their conservative ideology and since the early 1900s bound their ideology to the Judeo-Christian religions (for they are two religions and not one), tied in the constitution, and since the 1940 persisted in passing a national motto: 1. "In God We Trust." And an expression of loyalty 2. "One nation under God" (pledge of Allegiance). And the binding of Christianity to capitalism. And finally, a complete and utter denial of any type of social gospel consideration.
(These efforts taking place widely during the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower.)
Against God? Then who was this Jesus guy that they tell us we must have as our personal savior? Seems to me he was full of empathy
A lot of that had to do with the "Red Scare" in the 1950's
And here (stateside) the Christian conservatives were "scared" of Secularists taking over the ideology of the nation—especially in the federal government. (In my opinion, as it properly should.) So yes, this kind of religiosity "fight" has been going on for a VERY LONG time!
that's why his daddy had him turned into a lawn ornament ...
oops, no forgiveness for him ...
As all these experts point out, USAID was a geopolitical tool used to spread political influence. The goal stated by these experts on foreign affairs was not to feed starving children or to cure incurable disease. USAID was only intended to create the appearance that the United States gave a shit. USAID was nothing more than bare, naked politics deployed in a most heartless manner.
However, it is satisfying to observe so many savoring REGO 2.0. Enjoy the moment, folks, you've earned it.
I was thinking during the confirmation process for Trump's cabinet positions, which of them will be the first to "resign"? I was thinking at the time it would likely be "Little Marco" since his past positions have been quite different from Trump's. It will be interesting to see how long his loyalty will last. Did you see his face when they panned the crowd at certain points during Trump's speech at the joint session? I'm not convinced he is fully on board. We'll see.
I do not believe he is on board at all. I believe he is doing this strictly based on ambition. He is sucking it up to be SoS.
So I do think he is likely to be the first to crack. What concerns me is what Trump would have done to make him crack; how bad can this guy get? At this point, any individual with a sense of right vs. wrong must realize how Trump is screwing things up in several categories.
I have to wonder if Rubio had any influence on Trump's decision to again support Ukraine.
This would all be great entertainment if it were fiction and not affecting the lives and livelihood of real human beings.
I agree with you... but...
To eventually break with Trump, a person must have a minimum - a teeny-tiny minimum at least - of moral fiber.
I haven't seen that in Marco Rubio.
Would make a great TV series... kinda like House of Cards or Designated Survivor
Totally agree. Rubio reminds me of Lindsey Graham, always someone's side-kick, always flip-flopping and a waste of time and oxygen.
Yeah. Good pairing.