MAGA Perverts & Corruption Mega-Thread

[Leo Gura]

Fascists love bombing stuff. Surprise, surprise.

[aurum]

Trevor Milton pardoned:

 

[Alex_R]

new information:

 

 

Joe Rogan is about to interview Andrew tate

[Leo Gura]

Oh, I was expecting that. It was obvious that would happen since Tate moved here.

Edited Saturday at 07:17 AM by Leo Gura

[Twentyfirst]

https://x.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1905689237749727368

 

Manifest destiny but this time for good reasons don't worry

[Lyubov]

We need a deeper discussion on what happened to Joe Rogan, I still don’t entirely understand what happened to him. 

[PurpleTree]

19 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

We need a deeper discussion on what happened to Joe Rogan, I still don’t entirely understand what happened to him. 

I think Musk got in his ear.

Or maybe he brain chipped him.

[carterfelder]

Rogan loves to interview “controversial” folks. Thank God for that.

[PurpleTree]

comedy

 

[Leo Gura]

Dave Rubin is so gross.

Edited Sunday at 05:13 AM by Leo Gura

[zazen]

From Arnaud:

”This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President.

Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things." 

But he laments that it didn't quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn't want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure. 

Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn't to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production. 

This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America's shift of strategy in recent years - away from the previous "Washington Consensus" of "free" markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China's development - stems precisely from this mindset.

From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren't about 'national security' in any genuine sense - they're about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that's the "China threat": a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West.

It's deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to "spread market principles" worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well. When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn't to celebrate the validation of the game's effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game - but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President - was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it.

All in all, in case they hadn't yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance's words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.”

 

[Lyubov]

5 hours ago, zazen said:

From Arnaud:

”This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President.

Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things." 

But he laments that it didn't quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn't want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure. 

Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn't to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production. 

This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America's shift of strategy in recent years - away from the previous "Washington Consensus" of "free" markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China's development - stems precisely from this mindset.

From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren't about 'national security' in any genuine sense - they're about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that's the "China threat": a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West.

It's deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to "spread market principles" worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well. When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn't to celebrate the validation of the game's effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game - but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President - was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it.

All in all, in case they hadn't yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance's words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.”

 

This clown fails to mention right wing efforts to ship labor overseas, right wing efforts to union bust, right wing attacks on labor rights, deregulation. It’s like how these jokers tout how the invasion of Iraq was a mistake yet it was fueled by right wing ideology…. Their ideology and policies caused the issues but as time passes and people forget, they can create some faceless boogeyman of elites who did it, most Americans are even so dumb they don’t even look at what caused the current situation they are in. They just scream how it’s a problem and how the left caused it. 

Edited Sunday at 05:52 PM by Lyubov

[Yimpa]

 

Handled this fool with class.

[PurpleTree]

6 hours ago, zazen said:

From Arnaud:

”This is actually an extraordinary admission to make for a US Vice President.

Vance explains that "the idea of globalization was that rich countries would move further up the value chain while the poor countries made the simpler things." 

But he laments that it didn't quite work out this way: as he explains it turns out that poor countries (mostly China) didn't want to just remain cheap labor forever and started moving up the value chain themselves. Which is why, according to him, globalization was a failure. 

Meaning that the objective of globalization wasn't to reduce global inequalities but very much to maintain them, to institute a system of permanent economic hierarchy where rich countries would maintain their hold over the most profitable sectors while relegating poor countries to perpetual subordination in lower-value production. 

This is basically all you need to know to explain 90% of U.S. foreign policy these past few years: colonial thinking is alive and well, and America's shift of strategy in recent years - away from the previous "Washington Consensus" of "free" markets towards a much more overt attempt to contain and restrict China's development - stems precisely from this mindset.

From semiconductor export controls to investment restrictions, these policies aren't about 'national security' in any genuine sense - they're about trying to preserve a global economic order where, simply put, poorer nations know their assigned place and stay there. At the very core, that's the "China threat": a China that stepped out of the economic lane assigned to it by the West.

It's deeply ironic when you think of it: a global game allegedly designed to "spread market principles" worldwide is being abandoned precisely because it worked too well. When China succeeded better than expected, the response wasn't to celebrate the validation of the game's effectiveness but to change its rules. Precisely because the real unspoken game - but now clearly stated by the U.S. Vice President - was to maintain global inequality, not eliminate it.

All in all, in case they hadn't yet gotten the memo, this sends a very clear message to the developing world: economic development will require challenging a U.S.-dominated economic order that views their advancement as a threat rather than a success. Which incidentally is why Vance's words might actually help accelerate the very redistribution of global economic power he laments, pushing more nations to recognize that genuine development requires strategic independence from a system intended to keep them in their place.”

 

It’s also because they thought China would become more democratic. Which it didn’t. It quite very authoritarian.

[Joshe]

Trump comments on a 3rd term once again this morning. Says he's "not joking" about a 3rd term and "there are methods which you could do it". I think at least half of Trump supporters, if not more, will come to support a third term. They're simply too easy to manipulate. 

 

Edited Sunday at 06:39 PM by Joshe

[Elliott]

I, a Democrat, support him running next election.

lol, get the yard signs going please.

 

https://www.newsweek.com › james-malone-projected-win-pennsylvania...

Democrats declare victory in district Donald Trump won by 15 points

4 days ago · Democrat James Malone is projected to win a special election for a state Senate seat in Pennsylvania in a district that President Donald Trump won by 15 points in November.

 

 

 

https://www.politicususa.com › republicans-are-worried-about-a-us

6 days ago · Republicans are getting worried about one of the US House special elections in Florida, even though Donald Trump won the district by 30 points in November

Edited Sunday at 06:51 PM by Elliott

[Schizophonia]

On 07/01/2025 at 11:42 PM, Leo Gura said:

Rename Greenland to Orangeland.

Anyone who cries free speech really just means: freedom for me to say retarded, delusional, criminal, and selfish things without consequence.

"Leo tells his followers they are God; Because of him, people have committed suicide, influenced by his videos about infinity; He also encourages his viewers to consume illegal psychedelic drugs that can trigger the development of schizophrenia.
What Leo says is retarded, delusional, criminal, and selfish, and we must ban Leo's videos for this."

[Yimpa]

2 hours ago, Joshe said:

a 3rd term and "there are methods which you could do it". I think at least half of Trump supporters, if not more, will come to support a third term. They're simply too easy to manipulate. 

 

The 9th term:

 

[kguirnela]

 

[Lyubov]

Of course he will try for a third term and even have people rioting for it, maybe even try to shut down the election. People already forgot January 6th…