Robert Lozano

@namzyvibez <GASP> do you know how many times I have tried to hit that pose only to fall on my face?!! Now you tell it’s a gimmick?!! I tried it last week and I’m still recovering!! 😭😭😭

In the choreography of Smooth Criminal (1988), Michael Jackson introduced the famous "Anti-Gravity Lean" (the 45-degree lean). To achieve it live, he used special shoes with a slot that hooked onto bolts in the floor. So the shoes made it possible, but skill made it look effortless because it’s requires; strong core muscles, precise timing, balance and training

@loveschubbytw @gesgbb90917 @cooperhayess I believe.

@gesgbb90917 Who is the white boy?

Chudai 💦

My understanding of the US war on Iran: 1. Strait closed - global energy costs up 40 percent +|-. 2. US bases in GCC damaged or severely damaged. 3. US munitions depleted. 4. Profits from new defense contracts directed to Presidents family. 5. US relations with Europe lowest since before WWII. 6. Nuclear material intact in Iran. 7. Israel alienated globally. 8. Adherence to US Constitution increasingly degraded - no war authorization from Congress. Am I missing something? What is the benefit to USA of all this?

Elon Musk is the Ivar Kreuger of our time, and the OpenAI trial is PROVING it in real time. If you don't know who Kreuger was, you should: In the 1920s he was the most admired businessman in the world. The "Match King." He controlled 90% of global match production, lent money to sovereign governments, and his securities were the most widely held in America. But after his death in 1932, auditors spent 5 years untangling over 400 subsidiary companies and discovered the whole thing was held together with fictitious assets, forged bonds, and the unquestioning loyalty of people too dazzled to ask questions. Investors lost $750 million (~$17 billion in today's money). His deficits exceeded Sweden's national debt. Doesn't this sound familiar? The Musk playbook is the most DANGEROUS house of cards I've witnessed in my career. This week in federal court, Musk took the stand to argue that Sam Altman stole a charity. 3 days later he'd contradicted himself under oath so many times that the judge told his lawyers she suspected plenty of people don't want to put the future of humanity in Mr. Musk's hands. OpenAI's attorney asked if Tesla is pursuing AGI. Musk said no. The attorney then pulled up Musk's OWN post from March 4 where he wrote Tesla will be one of the companies to make AGI. His own words entered into evidence against him. BY HIM. Then the attorney asked if xAI used OpenAI's models to train Grok (which violates OpenAI's terms of service). Musk called it a general practice among AI companies. Pressed for a direct answer, he said "partly." Think about that: Musk is in court accusing OpenAI of betrayal while admitting under oath that xAI violated the very same company's terms of service to build Grok. Then came the credibility test: Musk was asked to name his companies that benefit society. He listed Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and X without hesitation. Every one of them is an uncapped for-profit enterprise. Then why did xAI start as a benefit corporation and quietly flip to a for-profit C-corp? No clean answer. This is someone who repeatedly launches entities with noble-sounding charters and converts them into for-profit corporations once the money gets serious. Then his money manager Jared Birchall took the stand: OpenAI's lawyer asked about the donor-advised funds at Vanguard and Fidelity that Musk used to send his $38 million. Did Musk have any legal right to direct where the money went once it entered the DAF? Birchall couldn't answer. Said the legal question was beyond his expertise. The entire lawsuit hinges on that donation creating enforceable obligations. But the man who managed Musk's money just told a federal jury he can't confirm Musk had any enforceable claim over those funds. Now step back... This is a man who promised full autonomy by 2018, a million robotaxis by 2020, and unsupervised FSD by June 2025. EVERY deadline was missed. He claimed he invested $100 million in OpenAI. The real number was $38 million. His defense? His "reputation" made up the difference. Kreuger had 400 subsidiaries and used one entity to prop up another through structures nobody could follow. Musk has Tesla, SpaceX, xAI, Neuralink, the Boring Company, and X. He shifts AI talent from Tesla to xAI, has xAI building the brains for Tesla's Optimus robot, and uses X as a megaphone while the algorithm amplifies his narrative to 200 million followers. Kreuger's investors trusted the man, NOT the math. They loved the confidence. They stopped asking questions because the aura of genius made questioning feel foolish. The same psychology applies to Musk's empire today. Kreuger's reckoning took 5 years of forensic auditing after his death. But Musk is providing his in REAL TIME: contradicting his own posts under oath, admitting to the practices he's suing others for, watching his logic collapse under cross-examination. Different decade. Different industry. Same ending. The truth always catches up.

@ColbyChambersXX Who’s the bottom?

Chudai

@melbournetwink Fck you’re hot. 🔥

No one knows how to quite keep my pink lil boi hole happy like this hunk 😍

@highbrow_nobrow I hope this pathetic mfer keeps this same tough guy persona when he’s sentenced for his crimes. Not one tear, b!tch!!

Hegseth: "Basic training is being restored to what it should be -- scary, tough, and disciplined. We're empowering drill sergeants to instill healthy fear in new recruits ... they can put hands on recruits." (2025)

@DanielGilr44222 The Law & Order party ladies and gentlemen. Give ‘em a hand or rather a finger!! 🤬🤬🤬

Ken Paxton gave a plea deal to lawyer Adam Hoffman, his friend, for raping a boy (his son’s friend) over three years starting in third grade. Instead of a felony and sex offender registration, Hoffman gets only 30 days in prison and no registration.🤬

🔴 La nuit avant de rendre une décision favorable à Trump sur le Voting Rights Act, les six juges conservateurs de la Cour Suprême dînaient à la Maison Blanche en l'honneur du Roi Charles III. Les trois juges nommés par des présidents démocrates n'étaient pas là. C'est une image qui mérite qu'on s'y arrête. ▶️ Le 29 avril 2026 avait lieu un dîner d'État en l'honneur du Roi Charles III à la Maison Blanche. Parmi les 130 invités, des cadres et journalistes de Fox News, des membres du Cabinet Trump, des dirigeants de la tech, des conseillers seniors de la Maison Blanche, et le président de la Cour Suprême John Roberts et les juges Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh et Amy Coney Barrett, accompagnés de leurs conjoints respectifs. 🏛️ Six juges sur neuf. La totalité de l'aile conservatrice, tous nommés par des présidents républicains, dont trois d'entre eux par Trump lui-même. Les juges Kagan, Sotomayor et Jackson nommés par des présidents démocrates n'étaient pas présents. Invités ou non. ▶️ Le lendemain matin, la Cour Suprême rendait sa décision 6-3 affaiblissant substantiellement le Voting Rights Act de 1965, les six mêmes juges qui venaient de dîner à la Maison Blanche formant la majorité, les trois absents du dîner formant la minorité dissidente. ▶️ Le jour suivant, la Cour entendait des arguments oraux sur la légalité d'une décision de l'administration Trump, encore une fois impliquant directement ces mêmes juges. 🗃️ La Cour Suprême des États-Unis n'est pas une institution élue. Sa principale ressource est la confiance du public dans son indépendance. Cette confiance repose sur une conviction : que les neuf juges décident en droit, pas en politique, que leur raisonnement n'est pas influencé par leurs relations personnelles avec les parties dont ils examinent les dossiers, et que lorsqu'ils siègent pour juger les actes d'un président, ils ne sont pas ses invités la veille du verdict. En 2023, sous pression après des scandales éthiques impliquant notamment Clarence Thomas dont les voyages en jet privé aux frais de milliardaires républicains avaient déclenché une enquête sénatoriale, la Cour avait adopté son propre code de conduite stipulant qu'un juge doit "agir en tout temps d'une manière qui favorise la confiance publique dans l'intégrité et l'impartialité du judiciaire." Que ces six juges, et seulement ces six, étaient là ne fait rien pour dissiper l'apparence que la Cour joue le jeu des faveurs politiques partisanes. En accordant la tenure à vie aux juges fédéraux, la Constitution vise à protéger leur indépendance et assurer leur capacité à servir de garant impartial du droit, quelles que soient les majorités au pouvoir. Ce dîner se tient dans le contexte d'une Cour qui vient d'invalider les tarifs douaniers de Trump, décision que Trump a attaquée violemment, qualifiant ses propres nominations de "faibles, stupides et mauvaises," publiquement et à de très nombreuses reprises. Leur présence à ce dîner dit quelque chose. Ces six juges ont choisi d'être vus là et cela devrait tous nous interroger sur la solidité de la digue qui protège les États-Unis d'un pouvoir qui se joue du droit en permanence.

Trump posted yesterday that he would be removing tariffs on whiskey from Scotland in honor of the King and Queen. This supports the argument I've made that explain, behaviorally, Trump's fixation on tariffs. The two cornerstone objectives for Trump, especially now in his latter chapter, are greed and grandiosity. These two things, which interrelate, permeate much of what he is and does. He wants awards, he wants things to be named after him, he wants a billion here and billions more there, and he wants it to be known and believed that he can do whatever he wants. The legacy media always tries to understand Trump's stubborn fixations by normalizing him and asking: "What's he thinking?" Allow me: Trump doesn't think, he feels. And he likes how tariffs make him feel, because he can be a bully, impose his will, operate unilaterally, operate on whim, make and remove threats, and cause countries to do his bidding and pay him tribute arbitrarily. THEY FUEL HIS GRANDIOSITY. Projecting grandiosity, greedily grifting, and avoiding humiliation. That's really all there is to Trump. He's a giant id.

@atrupar Aaron I love your posts and I get you posting this to allow people to see what type of drivel the MAGA dip💩s are saying but maybe preface it to highlight how you feel about it? Anyway, I understand what you’re doing.

Rep. Buddy Carter: "Remember, President Trump promised he'd make us safer and more prosperous. He's made us safer. He's made us more prosperous. Now yes, we've seen some gas prices fluctuation. Gas prices will go back down. Remember -- high gas prices are the work of the Democrats."

John Marck refused to answer Senator @ChrisCoons's question of whether President Trump is eligible to run for president in 2028. This isn’t a trick question – it's in the Constitution. If you can’t say a president can’t serve a third term, you shouldn’t be a federal judge. 🚩

@HQNewsNow These mfers want you to work until the day you die!!!

Republican New Hampshire Senate candidate John Sununu says he supports a work requirement for seniors on Medicare: "I certainly support a work requirement for able-bodied Medicare recipients."

REP. TOKUDA: Do you think we took every effort to make sure that innocent civilians did not die in this attack? HEGSETH: There is no country on Earth that takes more measures to minimize civilian harm than us. TOKUDA: You eliminated the DOD's civilian harm reduction staff.

*Me being forced to read another 92 pages of the Supreme Court taking away my rights all because Metheny and Metthew voted for a white nationalist because they believe that taxing the rich puts their $27,942.53 annual salary and double-wide trailer at risk*

@thomasairyder You about 6’7”?

I’m a very tall soldier, so it’s always hard for me to find a comfortable place on planes, in the метро, or in taxis ((