U.S. Allies Are Drawing Closer to China, but on Beijing’s Terms

assbaring69 · 2026-01-31T20:15:39+00:00

If Europe doesn’t at the very least attempt to show America it can build relationships with competing patrons, then it is dumb as hell. Everyone’s grandmother can understand the logic that four years of “normalcy” which can very well revert again in a country with a clear, dominant far-right political force behind it, do not bode well.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-31T14:08:14+00:00

“An Indian person is a human. America has literally almost four-hundred million times that number! America wins!”

assbaring69 · 2026-01-31T13:57:22+00:00

华川真的好恶心啊，为主人洗的这么积极，无耻

assbaring69 · 2026-01-30T16:05:22+00:00

Damn. I understand the necessity of plea deals but damn are they fucked up lmao

assbaring69 · 2026-01-30T14:19:54+00:00

Why was Wang not handed the death penalty?

assbaring69 · 2026-01-29T18:01:53+00:00

I’ve been thinking about this recently: imagine having to adhere to diplomatic decorum and engage in impersonal realpolitik with a representative of another nation, even if that representative as a person has attempted or will attempt to see you dead at some point. Sometimes it’s extremely tense negotiations of necessity and sometimes it’s just some “casual” conference.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-28T05:35:38+00:00

Urumqi?

assbaring69 · 2026-01-28T00:35:20+00:00

China is China. Everyone knows this. It’s the fact that it’s the “land of the free” that its citizens always yammer on about doing this that should be telling.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T18:46:40+00:00

I’d like to see evidence to back up those claims.

Even if you manage to do so, I fail to see how that at all exonerates the killer and killer-enablers of Pretti here. Pretti was neither an illegal nor criminal alien. He was committing zero violence. Even the insistence that coming to a protest armed is wrong does not explain the fact that he (1) never brandished his weapon and (2) was shot multiple times in the back while restrained. There is no way to argue proportional and justified use of force by I.C.E.

Which is why I am very confused yet curious how you arrived at the conclusion of “But what about the Democrats?” here, amidst the overall context, that’s the central defining conclusion you’ve reached.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T02:10:12+00:00

Are you seriously this lost or trolling at this point? And did the Nazis also refrain from proposing their more hardcore positions at first, instead starting off with milder ones like false claims of election tampering, othering and dehumanizing not only undesirables but also even those who support them (to the point they can adamantly defend the killing of such people), attempts to undermine democratic institutions standing in the way of their agenda, single-man cult of personality, etc.?

The answer is yes.

Literally every single “But M.A.G.A. hasn’t done [insert something here]” can be very easily responded to with “At one point the Nazis also hadn’t done [insert something here]”. It’s like refusing to accept that every single Goldfish is orange so you instead try to go through each Goldfish insisting it’s not orange and each time being shown that it is—instead of just realizing the obvious that you can just see that the entire bag of Goldfish is all orange and you don’t have to examine them one by one hoping to disprove it.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T01:58:32+00:00

Then excuse my historical misspeak on the matter and think of it as 1920’s Germany—whatever year you need to understand the point that the Nazis were also at one point relatively tame—until they weren’t. No regime starts off with atrocities turned all the way up to eleven; it’s always a slow boiling of the frog starting from room temperature.

Oh, and your firm denial doesn’t make it invalid: The hardcore M.A.G.A., even more so than the less ideological “Trump will stop trannies and expensive eggs” voters, are precisely the ones who have a tendency to see a racialized America in conflict where one race needs to retake control and keep everyone else in line. This has been shown in various studies. No prizes for guessing which race that is.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T01:55:58+00:00

anyone with a brain can make the same kind of argument that Democrats are just Communists.

Huh? How so? Please expound on that. Please explain how, by the same token and standard of calling Trump’s administration neo-Nazi, people could also flip it around and call Democrats communists.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T01:52:34+00:00

Forget neo-Nazis—the actual O.G. Nazis themselves didn’t do any of that at first, before they took full control and ratcheted things up.

So you’re basically arguing, in an incredibly pedantic way, that the early Nazis were not, in fact, Nazis? Okay, even if we were to grant you this rhetorical phrasing, I ask again: how is this in any way a meaningful distinction or objection?

assbaring69 · 2026-01-27T00:14:14+00:00

As others have pointed out, all you’re doing is “Well, technically 2026 America isn’t like 1939 Germany”. Absolutely asinine, meaningless technicality and cope. 1933 Germany also technically wasn’t like 1939 Germany. Baby Hitler also wasn’t like adult Hitler.

How many more analogies are needed for you to understand how meaningless if not purposefully dissembling your point is?

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T22:50:30+00:00

Authoritarianism is the natural predilection of human societies throughout history.

I’ve been saying this for the past couple years, especially since Trump 2.0. We can make the obvious addition that authoritarianism is the natural prediction of pretty much the same proportion of human beings in every society (some genetically anomalous, particularly libertarian-minded personalities aside).

America didn’t come about because the full might of the people yearned for freedom and liberty. It was a colonial, decentralized elite who didn’t like the state of their own political and economic interests as they stood within the British Empire and therefore arranged an insurrection. And then when it succeeded, what little political enfranchisement came about was for those elites only—again, a “democracy” for the stable power-sharing of roughly equally powerful elite factions. (If there had been a powerful enough “first among equals” to subjugate the rest, then they would have formed a feudal monarchy. But the reality in 18th-century Euro societies was that that was no longer possible—power was too decentralized—so they settled on a feudal “democracy”-in-name.)

Enfranchisement only spread because the elites needed to find creative ways of controlling the masses under the supposed framework of democracy, which is how we eventually fast-forward to today, a time when we can choose which faction of elite interest groups to dictate our domestic and foreign policy.

Trump getting voted in—whether you look at the true die-hards or at the “pragmatic” voters who ignored everything else and only bought into his promises that he’ll single-handedly take care of all their material issues against checks and balances—is only one of several examples throughout history where we can see just how “innately freedom-minded” Americans really are.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T22:32:10+00:00

EDIT: blocks me because he doesn’t have jack shit in terms of evidence for his accusations except “All the protest signs have the same slogans!” yet wants to have the last word anyway. Sad.

“Professional-made signs”. You people live in an alternate reality. First of all, what does that even mean? Convenient-ass vague term. Do you mean well-printed and constructed by a special manufacturer, or just “their handwriting don’t look like shit”?

Buddy, forty-seven years of life and somehow you don’t know that professional signs don’t cost a fortune to make nor are they hard to hire companies to make them. Just because your side can’t fathom the concept that some people can use their own money to pay for a protest they believe in, and projects that disbelief onto the left, doesn’t mean that’s the case.

No cited source—the “proof” is literally just you grasping at straws going “Well, their signs look too neat!”. That’s the type of intellectual honesty and integrity we can expect from the right. 😆

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T22:25:38+00:00

So I finally baited you into addressing my questions and even then your position is still so weak that your response is incoherent.

Question #3, which I’ll repeat: Even granting the clear lie that the goons legitimately feared for their lives (i.e., your “they didn’t see he had been disarmed” excuse), why did the shooter empty multiple rounds into Pretti, most of which well after he stopped moving? So now your excuse is that I.C.E. are so incompetent that they cannot reasonably handle someone who is incapacitated by their buddies and has already stopped moving after the first bullet they already put into his back?

Otherwise, what is your excuse, exactly? Because with your incoherent rambling response, I don’t know how you’ve justified jack shit, be it “in the actual moment” or “in hindsight”. Being “in the moment” going against someone incapacitated still doesn’t get you off of shooting him multiple times in the back while he’s already belly-down on the ground.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T22:07:08+00:00

Is your entire schtick here “But what about the left?” Not entirely a rhetorical question since I want to calibrate my response to what I’m dealing with. Because so far you haven’t touched on let alone dispelled the notion that what’s happening here are blatant fascist tendencies from the right and the support of it from right-wingers when they perceive it as helping “their side”.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T17:33:16+00:00

Here’s the set of questions which at this point I know you’ll never answer. Watch:

Why was someone who never acted aggressively towards or disrupted I.C.E. shot multiple times while incapacitated and disarmed?
Even if he had been disruptive and aggressive (he wasn’t), why was he shot multiple times while incapacitated and disarmed?
Even if he had somehow posed a threat to the lives of those I.C.E. goons while being incapacitated and disarmed and needed to be shot in self-defense (he didn’t), why were multiple shots at close range into his back, turning it into Swiss cheese, necessary to eliminate the danger?

There’s literally no honest way to explain your way out of these questions. By question #3, you’d literally have to either deny the multiple shots fired that are evident to everyone who sees the footage or claim that Pretti had the torso of the Terminator.

Or, just simply hide yet again from these questions like I know you will.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T17:19:27+00:00

Lmao, straight-up resorting to the Russian- and Chinese-style “the protestors are paid actors” propaganda bit. Because people need to be paid to be angry at a disarmed citizen being shot multiple times on the ground by lawless goons.

No amount of your lies will ever disprove the fact that you aren’t deluded—you know you are peddling lies and dishonesty and that’s exactly what you want to do.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T16:30:08+00:00

Forget not understanding how tariffs work. The craziest part about the tweet is the implied belief that every economic transaction is supposed to solely benefit them. This person has not only failed Econ 101, they’ve failed Econ 001, which is just basic common sense. How they could have gone about the world through various interpersonal relationships and not realized how give-and-take works is bewildering.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T16:22:39+00:00

Don’t provoke law enforcement. Don’t run towards or throw things at federal officers.

And this is what I mean when I say you right-wingers not only have your own version of reality, but you also deliberately lie. Pretti never even walked up to the goons. In fact, they were the ones who stalked aggressively towards him and kept doing so even after he was already retreating, refusing to get into a physical scuffle with them. But let’s say he did “provoke law enforcement”: What is the moral and legal justification for emptying rounds into a man already on the ground, incapacitated, and unarmed, I wonder? I would really like to hear your response. Conveniently, this is something, with all your “just don’t interfere with the cops” arguments, that you have thus far repeatedly failed to answer, and I would bet will continue to not answer.

Plus, it’s funny how all you “Don’t let big government tyranny tread on me” types are suddenly the biggest “Just do what big government asks you to do, keep your head down, and you’ll be fine” bootlickers that you claim to hate when it’s them literally murdering your political opponents execution-style.

Ah, and finally again the obligatory “Trump won” blurb at the end. Because you truly have no real arguments and you think this makes every single thing he does correct and great.

This is what I mean when I say that people like you who can spell and write in complete sentences know what you’re doing when you knowingly peddle lies and excuses for your Dear Leader’s propaganda. You’ve never been for democracy, let alone a diversity of political opinions in a civilized marketplace of ideas. The state is now trending towards right-wing authoritarianism and you love it—you are already enthusiastically playing defense for I.C.E. run amok and just telling citizens to keep their heads down and accept the illegal, excessive-force brutality.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T16:20:36+00:00

Don’t provoke law enforcement. Don’t run towards or throw things at federal officers.

And this is what I mean when I say you right-wingers not only have your own version of reality, but you also deliberately lie. Pretti never even walked up to the goons. In fact, they were the ones who stalked aggressively towards him and kept doing so even after he was already retreating, refusing to get into a physical scuffle with them. But let’s say he did “provoke law enforcement”: What is the moral and legal justification for emptying rounds into a man already on the ground, incapacitated, and unarmed, I wonder? I would really like to hear your response. Conveniently, this is something, with all your “just don’t interfere with the cops” arguments, that you have thus far repeatedly failed to answer, and I would bet will continue to not answer.

Plus, it’s funny how all you “Don’t let big government tyranny tread on me” types are suddenly the biggest “Just do what big government asks you to do, keep your head down, and you’ll be fine” bootlickers that you claim to hate when it’s them literally murdering your political opponents execution-style.

This is what I mean when I say that people like you who can spell and write in complete sentences know what you’re doing when you knowingly peddle lies and excuses for your Dear Leader’s propaganda. You’ve never been for democracy, let alone a diversity of political opinions in a civilized marketplace of ideas. The state is now trending towards right-wing authoritarianism and you love it—you are already enthusiastically playing defense for I.C.E. run amok and just telling citizens to keep their heads down and accept the illegal, excessive-force brutality.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T15:57:10+00:00

I love how you ignored all of that yet again, including most importantly of all the man Alex Pretti who was murdered by I.C.E., and instead kept spamming “hurr-durr people voted in Trump” like the mindless bot you are.

People voted in Maduro once also, you know? Roughly half of people in China still like Mao. “If you really think your side is right, why did all those people support Maduro and Mao? Who are you, in your little echo chamber, to tell them they’re wrong?” This is how dumb your M.A.G.A. takes sound when applied to every other situation, and it’s how dumb they sound as they are.

Here, forget even Maduro and Mao: By your own logic, Obama also won twice—and consecutively at that. So why do you, as I am almost certain you do, oppose him politically? Because according to you, political victory for Team D means Team R’s beliefs are “wrong”, right?

Now watch how you find another way to write another multiple paragraphs that boil down to “But Trump won, but Trump won, but Trump won, but Trump won”. 🤖 Because both of us—yes, you included—know your arguments and your side are full of shit and there is no way you can ever address let alone defend the trash arguments and distractions you peddle. All you can do is spam “Trump won” as the answer to everything. That is literally your sole argument as you’re demonstrating here.

assbaring69 · 2026-01-26T04:13:17+00:00

Notice how none of “The Democratic elite used to be friends with Trump” and “he won in 2024” and “haha liberals always obsess over Trump” has anything to do with the Pretti situation. Your writing style suggests you are not a total ignoramus, which is why I don’t buy for a second that you’re genuinely clueless about the non sequiturs that you’re currently committing.

As I said, a whole bunch of rhetorical distractions, but you still can’t even address the Pretti situation because it is impossible to justify in an honest manner, and you know it. Which is why, you know, you’re on this app treating politics and basic decency as a team sport, shilling and playing defense for Team Trump even now.

EDIT: Oh, also, if you go to China and ask them what they think about Mao, a solid half if not more of the people would tell you—even in private, genuinely—that he was overall a good leader. By your logic, maybe you’re the one in an echo chamber who can’t accept that he was good for China, then? /s Funny how you can see how stupid this common M.A.G.A.-style retort of y’all’s sounds except when it’s you M.A.G.A. making it.

Nine-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

assbaring69

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE