By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During a White House meeting, Secretary of State Marco Rubio handed President Trump a note instructing him to approve a Truth Social post regarding a Middle East deal. The note, visible to the press, indicated that the announcement needed to be made soon. Shortly after, Trump announced the deal and its details on Truth Social. This event, which occurred amid ongoing negotiations, came weeks after Trump accidentally posted a private message on the platform.
Read the original article here
Marco Rubio Caught Telling Donald Trump, 79, What to Post on Truth Social, it seems, is quickly becoming a hot topic, and for good reason. The idea of a former President, a man who held the highest office in the land, being steered in his social media activities is, frankly, a little startling. It raises questions about who’s really pulling the strings and, more importantly, what it all means. This whole scenario feels less like a carefully constructed plan and more like a chaotic puppet show, with the puppeteer’s hands (or, in this case, Rubio’s) clearly visible.
The core of the matter revolves around the perception that Donald Trump, at 79 years old, is not independently composing his Truth Social posts. The suggestion is that someone, likely Marco Rubio, or perhaps another figure like Stephen Miller, is feeding him content. The implications are significant. It brings up the validity of Trump’s words and how they represent him. If he’s not writing the posts, are these really his thoughts, his beliefs, or simply someone else’s agenda being pushed through him? This can lead to concerns about manipulation and how people’s perceptions of him are being carefully cultivated.
The speculation that a “Deep State” is running the government is quite fascinating, especially when this idea is being applied to Trump himself. The comments suggest this could mean that his team or associates might be managing his digital voice. This idea could mean the people around him are managing his image, crafting his public persona, and controlling the information that shapes his supporters’ views. It’s almost like the old adage: “if you want to know what someone really thinks, don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do.”
The comments suggest it isn’t a matter of Trump simply having help; some posts are more coherent and thoughtful than others. That observation indicates this control isn’t just a case of a little assistance; it’s a more involved process where the content is generated for him. If he is not creating the content himself, then the quality of the postings becomes a red flag. It then raises the question: How can someone who can’t manage their social media account run a country?
One of the funnier points raised involves the irony of this situation. The idea of “Little Marco” influencing “Donny” is quite a contrast, especially for those familiar with their past interactions. This idea speaks to a narrative of power dynamics and who is controlling the former president’s image.
Furthermore, the age of Donald Trump is repeatedly brought up. It’s not just a matter of fact, but a factor in this situation. His age, combined with the suggestion of cognitive decline, amplifies the impact of this situation. If he’s being told what to post, and his cognitive abilities are diminished, it creates a concerning picture. The comments paint a picture of a vulnerable figure who’s being controlled, creating a sense of unease.
The tone is a mixture of skepticism, humor, and concern. There is no shortage of jokes about Trump’s behavior, the “auto-pen,” the implication of a failing memory, and the constant need for the age to be included. The comments are clear in the suggestion that Trump is not in full control of his communication. The use of terms like “puppet” and the comparison to characters from fiction underlines the idea that the public perception is being crafted and controlled.
It’s easy to see how this entire discussion can lead to deeper questions about power, control, and the nature of political communication in the digital age. If a former president, or any leader, is seen as a vessel for someone else’s message, what does this mean for the public’s ability to trust the information they receive? The debate about Marco Rubio’s influence on Donald Trump’s Truth Social posts is more than just a social media story; it is a symbol of a much larger discussion about power, perception, and the future of politics.